posted
Yes, but religion is also a source of great good. Why not surgically strike against intellectual dishonesty and intolerance rather than getting rid of religion altogether?
Politics leads to evil too, should we get rid of that?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Armoth, if you are not familiar with KoM, you might want to read some of his previous posts on this before engaging him in yet another version of pretty much the same conversation he always has in just about every religious thread.
At least if you want to discuss anything interesting.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: *shrug* We do have societies that are pretty close to being rid of religion, so we know it is well within the realm of possibility.
You can't really say that about politics.
Yes, but none of those societies have even come close to eliminating the evils athiests commonly attribute to religions. In fact I can't imagine anyone seriously arguing that Stalin's nearly religion free Russia or Mao's nearly religion Chinas were morally superior to the religious US.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suggest that Mucus was rather referring to present-day European countries, particularly in Scandinavia.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit: "Have" not "had". I'd appreciate it if you didn't twist my words.
For example, today:
quote: ... let's change the lens to account for a basic insight multicountry surveys offer: a population's religiosity level is strongly related to its average standard of living. Gallup's World Poll, for example, indicates that 8 of the 11 countries in which almost all residents (at least 98%) say religion is important in their daily lives are poorer nations in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, the 10 least religious countries studied include several with the world's highest living standards, including Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Hong Kong, and Japan.
quote:Gallup Polls conducted in 139 countries between 2006 and 2008 reveal that in countries where a higher percentage of citizens say religion is important in their daily lives people are also more likely to say that their communities are not good places for ethnic or racial minorities to live. However, this trend is not linear. Countries with average levels of religiosity -- comparatively speaking -- report about as much intolerance as the world's most religious countries. ... While this measure of religiosity is significantly related to the average GDP in a country -- meaning the richer a country is, the less likely its residents are to say religion is important in their lives -- the link between religiosity and ethnic and racial intolerance exists beyond the differences that can be explained by national income.
We've also already had this discussion about the strawman of Mao's China being religion-free which is fairly silly. On Hatrack too, so I don't have to reiterate that.
Edit to add: KoM, I was more thinking Hong Kong, Japan but Scandinavia is good too
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I suggest that Mucus was rather referring to present-day European countries, particularly in Scandinavia.
If so, he's not being very intellectually honest. Religion has been fairly effectively "neutered" in Scandinavia but hardly eliminated. In Norway, for example, roughly 80% of the population say they believe in God or some supernatural spirit or life force. Less than 17% identify as atheist.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Religion has been fairly effectively "neutered" in Scandinavia but hardly eliminated. In Norway, for example, roughly 80% of the population say they believe in God or some supernatural spirit or life force. Less than 17% identify as atheist.
"Belief in supernatural" <> "religion".
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Edit to add: KoM, I was more thinking Hong Kong, Japan but Scandinavia is good too.
It isn't very intellectually honest to pick and choose only those examples that fit your hypothesis. But accepting that, do a comparison. Explain to me how Hong Kong (where only 20% of the inhabitants practice a religions) is significantly ethically advanced over a place like Germany, where ~70% of the population identify as Christian.
Japan, for example, is really rather appallingly racist and sexist and has done a far worse job than Germany of admitting to and expressing remorse for the serious crimes of WW II. Japan still officially refuses to acknowledge the war crimes they committed in China and Korea. I'm less familiar with Hong Kong. Perhaps you can explain why it is an example of how eliminating religion has elevated the people.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Edit to add: KoM, I was more thinking Hong Kong, Japan but Scandinavia is good too.
It isn't very intellectually honest to pick and choose only those examples that fit your hypothesis. But accepting that, do a comparison. Explain to me how Hong Kong (where only 20% of the inhabitants practice a religions) is significantly ethically advanced over a place like Germany, where ~70% of the population identify as Christian.
Japan, for example, is really rather appallingly racist and sexist and has done a far worse job than Germany of admitting to and expressing remorse for the serious crimes of WW II. Japan still officially refuses to acknowledge the war crimes they committed in China and Korea. I'm less familiar with Hong Kong. Perhaps you can explain why it is an example of how eliminating religion has elevated the people.
A) No one brought up ethics until you did. A better society does not necessarily mean a more ethical one. B) Picking and choosing societal characteristics to determine whether a culture/nation is ethical or not isn't very intellectually honest. For example, intellectual honesty could be considered a more important ethical trait than treating men & women exactly identical. C) It isn't very intellectually honest to substitute in "identify as X religion" for "religious". What people identify as and what people ARE are often two very different things. For example, significantlyly more people are atheists or agnostics than the number of self-identifying atheists and agnostics would lead you to believe.Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Religion has been fairly effectively "neutered" in Scandinavia but hardly eliminated. In Norway, for example, roughly 80% of the population say they believe in God or some supernatural spirit or life force. Less than 17% identify as atheist.
"Belief in supernatural" <> "religion".
I would say that for this purpose, the two actually are equal. The issue is belief without evidence, not organisation.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would say that for this purpose, the two actually are equal. The issue is belief without evidence, not organisation.
I disagree. People that merely believe in God are substantially less likely to be motivated by that belief to act in tangible ways than those that are members of organized religions.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... Perhaps you can explain why it is an example of how eliminating religion has elevated the people.
I appreciate you crafting my "hypothesis" for me and then attacking it. But I note that my initial post on this particular subject is merely that unlike eliminating politics, eliminating religion is "within the realm of possibility."
Even those Gallup polls I linked to were mainly for my illustration of how I identified countries on the leading edge of eliminating religion (I've previously posted them in the context of what I consider positive signs in the level of religiosity in Hong Kong). The fact that they themselves note pretty heartening trends was just a bonus.
Edit to add:
MattP: I'd agree. There are a decent number of superstitious people in Hong Kong for example. So we're talking about properties of food, where to place objects and buildings, and what numbers are unlucky. But unlike an organized religion, without an organizing hierarchy to issue commands, they're mostly harmless.
Even in West, I'd gladly trade Christians for people that believe in knocking on wood, kissing under mistletoe, and omitting floor 13 from buildings.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're not a Christian but one of the superstitious/life-force/Uberbeing believers, so for you the trade has already been made.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must say that even as arguments from authority go, using a baptismal certificate as evidence for being a Christian is more than usually weak.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Almost forgot about this. Yes, I think that a document recording the intent of the person being baptised and the institution charged with deciding whether or not that person should be baptised are more of an authority regarding that person's religion than you are.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As you must well know, I do not consider it sufficient to declare "I am a Christian", although many people who are merely superstitious do.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: So what constitutes evidence that someone is a Christian, in your opinion?
A stated belief in the divinity of Jesus, in his resurrection as fact and as evidence for the said divinity, in a personal afterlife, and in revelation as a means for acquiring truth. Efficacy of prayer, historicity of miracles (other than the resurrection), and baptismal certificates optional.
quote:What is your evidence that I am not a Christian?
Lack of most of the above, plus your statements to the effect that you "choose to believe". Having 'faith' based on what sounds good to you, rather than your best evaluation of the evidence, make you a fad-follower, not a believer.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I can't think of a line any any of the creeds that says the resurrection is evidence of Jesus' divinity. How'd you come to pick that one?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would probably say four out of five but that KoM and I don't mean the same thing by any of them.
I believe in the divinity of Jesus. I believe in the Resurrection but my faith does not depend on that belief and "Resurrection" is complicated. It is not evidence of divinity. I believe in a personal aftelife but I don't know what that will look like. You would have to define revelation for me to be able to answer - nor does that speak to the reliability of discerning the truth in any particular "revelation".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: You know, I can't think of a line any any of the creeds that says the resurrection is evidence of Jesus' divinity. How'd you come to pick that one?
Without the miracles performed by Jesus, and in particular the resurrection, the whole thing dissolves into another set of moderately ethical guidelines with no supernatural content, such as anyone with a modicum of charisma and a desire for attention might preach. To "have faith" in such a mish-mash is quite un-necessary; you could just say that you try to follow the guidelines and be done.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: You know, I can't think of a line any any of the creeds that says the resurrection is evidence of Jesus' divinity. How'd you come to pick that one?
Without the miracles performed by Jesus, and in particular the resurrection, the whole thing dissolves into another set of moderately ethical guidelines with no supernatural content, such as anyone with a modicum of charisma and a desire for attention might preach. To "have faith" in such a mish-mash is quite un-necessary; you could just say that you try to follow the guidelines and be done.
I think you are trying to take an argument that Christians use against those who argue that Jesus was nothing just a moral teacher and use it in reverse. Unfortunately, it doesn't work in reverse. While it is possible to argue that performing miracles and rising for the dead are sufficient to prove divinity, it hardly follows that they are necessary for divinity. I do not know of any Christians who see it that way.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: You know, I can't think of a line any any of the creeds that says the resurrection is evidence of Jesus' divinity. How'd you come to pick that one?
Without the miracles performed by Jesus, and in particular the resurrection, the whole thing dissolves into another set of moderately ethical guidelines with no supernatural content, such as anyone with a modicum of charisma and a desire for attention might preach. To "have faith" in such a mish-mash is quite un-necessary; you could just say that you try to follow the guidelines and be done.
So that's an argument for including the resurrection. How is it an argument for requiring the idea that the resurrection is evidence of divinity?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh, as I've seen throughout my life, Christians are such a varied lot, with so many vastly different sets of beliefs, sometimes contradicting other groups on virtually every point at least to some extent, that honestly, it just seems easiest to take it as a given that if they say they're Christian, they're Christian.
Now, if they go on to say, for example, that they're a good Adventist or a good Mormon... that can be judged slightly more easily. Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I generally try to stay away from any argument about who is and who is not a Christian. Such arguments always arise out of an agenda that has little to do actually understanding Christianity or clarifying how an individuals beliefs fit within the broad scope of what might be called Christian beliefs.
I have a simple principal. Allow people to define their own beliefs.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I have a simple principal.
Well just because he's slow in the head doesn't mean he can't do a just dandy job of running that school of his.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jesus would still be God without the miracles.
Well, there you go: This is exactly what I mean by superstition. If Jesus, why not Mohammed? You have no basis for choosing between them; it follows that you are a 'Christian' only because it was the fashion in your home town. I don't consider that a real belief, any more than wearing ripped jeans and dyed hair is a genuine rebellion against social norms. It's just a fashion statement, "I identify with this group against that group".
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: You know, I can't think of a line any any of the creeds that says the resurrection is evidence of Jesus' divinity. How'd you come to pick that one?
Without the miracles performed by Jesus, and in particular the resurrection, the whole thing dissolves into another set of moderately ethical guidelines with no supernatural content, such as anyone with a modicum of charisma and a desire for attention might preach. To "have faith" in such a mish-mash is quite un-necessary; you could just say that you try to follow the guidelines and be done.
So that's an argument for including the resurrection. How is it an argument for requiring the idea that the resurrection is evidence of divinity?
I reason thusly: If you do not give some sort of evidence for divinity - if you just say "Jesus was divine" without further argument, as indeed kmb just did - then you're just following fashion. I don't call that conviction, I call it rubbing blue mud in your bellybutton. The resurrection is the most spectacular miracle, it is the one that demonstrates mastery over death ("I bring good news!") and I think you might also find that most believers who are not sophisticated theologians would quote it if asked to give evidence that Jesus was a god. (At least, I hope they would. I admit that I'm very prone to overestimating the intelligence of average people.) It is, further, central to the entire sacrifice-for-your-sins theme; Jesus would hardly be Jesus without the crucifixion, and the resurrection is the miracle that overcomes the punishment and original sin.
I can in principle see that someone might advance a different argument for Jesus's divinity, but it's rather harder to see why they would bother. The promise of Christianity as practiced by the mass of its believers is forgiveness of sins and eternal life; without the resurrection, you have instead got pie in the sky promised by an above-average conman.
I realise this is not the religion you practice, nor your conception of Christianity. That is not a problem for my argument, which is precisely that you are not a Christian as the term is properly understood.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: ... it just seems easiest to take it as a given that if they say they're Christian, they're Christian.
This is what I do. On one hand, it means that Mormons are Christians. On the other hand, it means that (a group of people that believed) the younger brother of Jesus led armies on the battlefield and killed millions (are Christians).
So a bit of a mixed bag, really.
Edit to add: Added the brackets, I was trying to word that properly and edited out a clause by accident. Sorry kmbboots
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Did Mohammed say he was God?
Pick someone who did, then. Both Jesus and Mohammed made claims of contact with the supernatural; if you're going to take Jesus's word that he was a god, why not take Mohammed's word that he was the Prophet? You have no stronger evidence, so it all comes down to word against word, and of course local fashion.
quote:Why do you think my basis for "choosing between them" has to do with miracles?
I don't. I said you had no such basis, other than fashion, since you explicitly deny that miracles are the basis.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, the problem is that you are not properly understanding the term "Christian."
Excuse me? We clearly have a disagreement over what "Christian" means; it does not follow that my understanding is wrong and yours is right. Indeed, there is no canonical "Christian" that you can look up somewhere to check that you've got the right definition. If you wish to use the word in a different sense from the way I use it, no worries. It's a free country, for the time being. But if you want to convince me that I should consider you a "Christian" by the definition I find useful, you will not advance that cause by telling me I've got it wrong. And if you want to convince me to use your definition instead of mine, you must advance some argument for why it is better. Just saying "Wrong! Wrong! Lalala!" is not likely to work.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am becoming convinced that KoM defines Christian as "someone having beliefs regarding Jesus that he can disprove".
In a sense this is true, yes. I consider people Christians (or Muslims, Jews, whatever) if they rest their belief on some evaluation of the available evidence. BlackBlade and Lisa are examples. People who "just believe" I consider mere conformists. Incidentally the converse is also true: There are no doubt plenty of people who are "atheists" because their parents were, or because their parents very much weren't, or because all their friends are, or other reasons that have nothing to do with evidence. Again, although these people have got their facts straight, they are not atheists in the proper sense of the term; they're just fellow-travelers.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Did Mohammed say he was God?
Pick someone who did, then. Both Jesus and Mohammed made claims of contact with the supernatural; if you're going to take Jesus's word that he was a god, why not take Mohammed's word that he was the Prophet? You have no stronger evidence, so it all comes down to word against word, and of course local fashion.
It isn't about evidence. What reasons do you have for your speculation about my motivation? Who do you think I am conforming to?
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [QUOTE] I consider people Christians (or Muslims, Jews, whatever) if they rest their belief on some evaluation of the available evidence.
Being Jewish is not a matter of belief. Judaism has specific laws that determine who is a Jew.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
