The Problem with Atheism & Why Atheists are So Pompous
Charles Lumia writes:
The problem with modern atheism is that its followers do not seem to have a firm grasp on the fact that religion is a part of our modern culture.
This is true. I had no idea that religion was a significant part of our culture until Charles Lumia brought it up on his site. In my defense, though, it's an easy mistake to make. Even if you are paying attention to religion, like we followers of atheism surely do, it's difficult to notice religion making much of an impact on modern society and culture.
Politicians rarely mention religion, despite being given ample opportunity to do so. Churches have all but disappeared from the urban landscape and no one has been disturbed by their bell ringing in years. Religious believers never try to get their doctrines taught in public schools or promoted in civil law. There was a time when believers tried to get implicit endorsement of their beliefs through public monuments and other government actions, but that is long past and doesn't trouble us anymore.
It's so generous of Charles Lumia to bring to everyone's attention the fact that religion continues to play a much stronger role in modern culture than has been obvious. We'll have to do something about those sneaky churches, huh?
Many atheists are so against having a belief in God that they would infringe on the rights of others who do choose to believe in God. Many atheists will persecute any and all people who freely choose to follow a religion and have a belief in God.
This is true, too. There are all kinds of ways in which atheists infringe on theists' beliefs — and Christians' beliefs in particular. Atheist politicians have yelled at Christians testifying at legislative meetings, telling them that they don’t belong and shouldn't be allowed to participate because of their religion. An atheist president has declared that theists shouldn't be considered citizens. The atheistic Boy Scouts don't permit theists to join, even while receiving lots of different public and government benefits or privileges. Christians who object to saying "under No God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are abused and treated as less than patriotic.
I just feel that a great many atheists are very invasive with their beliefs, and that stems from the more popular atheists in the world.
Wow, Charles Lumia gets it right three times in a row. We atheists are very invasive with our beliefs. We go door-to-door in neighborhoods across America in an effort to convince people to agree with us. We leave poorly-drawn freethought and atheist tracts in busses, post offices, and other public places all the time. We hold protests outside the few remaining churches and other religious building on a regular basis. We try to push legislatures to pass laws requiring all Sunday School classes to teach about Darwin. Those are just a few of the ways in which atheists are invasive and annoying, so of course Christians are upset about this. Who wouldn't be?
Comments
I feel so ashamed.
I had no idea that Christians were so offended by our attempts to inject a little sanity, reason, and science into their lives.
I’m going to go burn down an abortion clinic to atone for my crimes against society.
I don’t even know how to respond. I think your article about covered it. I’ve never heard of “atheist persecution” in the modern U.S. landscape, but I have heard of Xians sending threats of harm and burning books to protest things they don’t like. I’ve seen them picket theaters, try to curb gov’t funding of things they don’t support, etc.
Oh, my. I had no idea that my quiet campaign of not picketing churches and not demanding that TV be censored for overt religious content was causing so much disruption.
My bad. So, how DOES one begin the tithing process, exactly?
Now that I think about it, wasn’t this what you started the “Blogsnark” tag for? I haven’t seen it since 2006!
HAHAHA…. Austin, you nailed it.
Hilarious.
Good stuff.
Unfortunately, wasted on theists. Once you’ve had the god-wool pulled over your eyes, you’re generally irony-blind.
Don’t be surprised if you get quote-mined.
I’ve never seen your sarcastic side, Austin. It may have appeared in other posts, but it was nice to see.
Brilliant.
Although I feel the 1st and last paragraphs are the strongest. The second is missing something. I am not sure what it is though. I’ve been critiquing all day and I am burned out at this particular moment. well done.
There is no greater and cheaper source of pomposity than a sense of moral superiority.
Hello everyone,
That’s my post that he’s replying to(http://www.various-thoughts.com).
Austin, you probably should have left a comment on the blog instead of bringing it over here, but that’s another issue.
Anyway, I just wanted to thank Austin and all of you commentators for proving my point.
And for the record. I’m Agnostic, or more like 99% Atheist. I am not and never have been religious; I simply have a respect for other human beings and their beliefs.
Dear Charles,
Feel free to elaborate on how Austin’s article and the responses to it prove your point.
Are they examples of people not realising that “religion is a part of our modern culture”? Do they deny “the fact that many religious values and concepts are ingrained in our culture as a people”? Are they “outrageous claims”? Do they “infringe on the rights of others who do choose to believe in God”? Are they examples of “persecution”? Do they prevent people from stating their “feelings”, “thoughts”, and “opinions”? Are they being “invasive”? …
I can’t see a single example of any of this in the article or in the comments. In fact I haven’t seen an example of this anywhere. Your article included precisely zero so you’re going to have to help us out.
Also, what is the problem with people “making attempts at refuting religious beliefs”? Should all beliefs be afforded this “respect” or just religious ones?
I don’t see how it’s an “issue” at all. You posted your ideas publicly and here they are being commented on publicly. Why do you imagine that comments on your ideas should be restricted to your own site where you are in control of everything?
Like Simon, I look forward to you elaborating on what points were proved and how. Is there something about disagreement with you that you think entails infringing on the rights of theists, for example?
1. Neither agnostic nor atheist are proper nouns, and thus they should not be capitalized.
2. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.
3. You can’t be anything less than completely atheist. Either you do or you do not believe in any gods. If you do believe in the existence of at least one god of some sort, then you’re a theist. If you lack any such beliefs, you’re an atheist. You may be unsure if you should believe or not, or you may be reconsidering whether you should believe or not, but none of that is relevant to the categories.
How is that relevant?
You write as though being an atheist were mutually exclusive with both, which would be bigoted.
I accord all human beings at least a basic minimum of respect. Beliefs, however, have to earn respect. Not every idea or opinion deserves respect, and not all that do deserve respect deserve the same respect. The opinion that certain people are inferior because of their race does not deserve respect in my opinion. Do you respect racist beliefs?
Another sort of belief that I don’t think deserves respect is a false belief, especially a false belief which is obviously contrary to reality. The belief that Christians are being persecuted even as mainstream Christians control all the levers of power while non-Christians and non-mainstream Christians are regularly discriminated against isn’t merely false; it is, in fact, a tool used by those in power to keep their power and ensure that others are denied access to equal power. The belief that Christians are being persecuted is on par with the belief that whites are the victims of widespread racism or that men are being persecuted by a matriarchy in America. Such opinions don’t deserve respect; they deserve derision, scorn, and mocking.
“I’m sure they would be the first to complain about fabrications made about their religion, but they don’t seem to experience any call to actually learn much of anything about others before launching into tirades about them. Why is that?”
At risk of answering a rhetorical question, I think that theists believe they know all they need to know about atheism when they understand that, if it’s a correct view of reality, it obliterates the foundation upon which they seek to establish all their hopes for meaning in this life and, vastly more importantly, for a future of unending joy.
That’s a pretty big enchilada to chomp down, especially after a lifetime of belief/belief-seeking and, possibly, in their view renders any and all other distinctions, subtleties and gradations of atheism irrelevant.
Not that this would excuse ignorance or baseless accusation, mind you.
A quick reply. You’ll have to forgive the lack of quotes and any mistakes, I don’t have to read things over right now:
Simon, hello.
Did you actually read Austin’s article? From the very beginning he was making assumptions as to what my beliefs were, as well as basically attacking me and what was said in my article. I suggest you give reading his article another try. That or realize that you have most certainly failed in making an attempt at humor or sarcasm in saying that you did not see a single example in the article or the replies, especially when your reply is one of them.
Austin, hello.
It’s an issue because I wouldn’t have even known that you had a problem with my article if I wasn’t an active reader of articles on About. That seems a bit more unfair than replying to the actual article itself, don’t you think?
You proved my point in automatically making assumptions as to what I personally believed, which I clarified here. You also proved my point through the attitude that you showcased in your article and your reply here.
Sometimes I capitalize Agnostic and Atheism because they represent a set of beliefs, or non-beliefs if you will, that encompass the thinking of a large number of people. As such I feel that they can be capitalized sometimes, though I agree, they certainly don’t have to be. Thanks for the grammar lesson though.
You can most certainly be less than 100% atheist. Unless you can absolutely without any doubt prove that there is no way for a “God” entity of any type to exist; which, if you can do, I would more than happy to read your ideas on the subject. But sadly, you and I both know that such a task is impossible and futile to even attempt. As such, I must consider myself Agnostic, but mostly Atheist. Hope that clears things up for you.
Me not being religious, and in fact me actually being Agnostic or an Atheist is relevant because in your article you went ahead and made the assumption that I was somehow religious. It never crossed your mind that I believe in freedom for all people, freedom to believe in absolutely anything that they choose to believe in. I’m a New Yorker, I just ignore crazy people; I don’t have any reason to attack them unless they are doing something wrong to me.
You make a good point in saying that not all beliefs have to be respected, I agree of course. I simply respect religion because I realize that at its core, at the very heart of religion, it was a breakthrough in human thought. It is also millennia old and jam packed with culture, another thing that I respect.
That isn’t to say that I respect religious beliefs outright. I have no respect for Scientology, for example, and other more recent “religious” beliefs. I respect old religions because they all have their bases firmly set in ancient ways. It’s tradition, history, culture, all things that I have great respect for.
As for false beliefs, I agree with you again. Certainly religion is used as a crutch by many people, as it has been for hundreds of years now; but I don’t feel that reflects poorly on religion itself. The same base in brilliant thought is still there in old religions, no matter who believes in them, whether they take that thought literally and abuse it or not.
I use the word persecution because that is what many Atheists do to religious people, even if they don’t hold any hard-line religious feelings. And even to other Atheists such as myself. This may surprise you, but your article isn’t the first time that my feelings have been addressed by other Atheists. That’s how the idea for that article came to me in the first place.
I understand your opinion that crazy beliefs deserve to be derided, scorned and mocked; my argument is that people are free to believe whatever they personally choose to believe. Simply because I don’t agree with someone doesn’t mean that I have a right to attack their beliefs; that isn’t right. I respect people and their freedom to believe whatever they wish. It would be different if they were negatively affecting me, which is I’m sure a point that you will make; but the fact is, they really aren’t hurting me at all. I could care less what they think honestly.
Anti-Semitism is also “millennia old and jam packed with culture” of various peoples in various parts of the world.
Misogyny is also “millennia old and jam packed with culture.”
Racism is also “millennia old and jam packed with culture.”
Pick better arguments. That one’s a nonstarter.
From the very beginning he was making assumptions as to what my beliefs were, as well as basically attacking me and what was said in my article. Comment by Charles Lumia — May 10, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
Austin did not attack you. He did show that your statements were silly and wrong. Get over yourself.
I use the word persecution because that is what many Atheists do to religious people, even if they don’t hold any hard-line religious feelings. Comment by Charles Lumia — May 10, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
Name three.
No. I didn’t write this for your benefit. It’s curious, though, that an “active reader of articles on About” would so mis-define atheism and be completely unfamiliar with all the articles I have here explaining what atheism and agnosticism are and are not… yet still stumble across this one article in particular. Very curious.
Claiming that I have made assumptions as to what you believe is not the same as “clarifying” that. Asserting that something is true is not the same as clarifying. Feel free to point out any specific beliefs I attributed to you. Then, do point out how that “proves” any of your points.
Feel free to demonstrate how, rather than merely assert it. You claim that I “attacked” you. Can you identify any place where I said anything about you personally, or do you wish to argue that showing scorn towards silly ideas is the same as a personal attack against a person?
Except that they don’t.
That is false. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods, not the 100% certainty that no gods exist.
Feel free to demonstrate how.
Feel free to demonstrate how. First, though, you might want to explain what is the “core” of every religion that exists or has ever existed. Scholars have been trying for decades without success, so if you manage that you’ll be famous.
So, what you asserted about yourself in your first comment was false. You accuse me of making assumptions about what you believe without support, but then turn around and have to keep revising your own statements about what you believe. Maybe you are the one making the unwarranted assumptions about your beliefs?
What, they don’t share in this “core” that represents a “breakthrough in human thought”?
So, ancient ways are inherently good? All of them?
You respect all tradition, history, and culture? Racism and xenophobia are ancient attitudes which have produced ancient traditions. Do you respect them?
Obviously you hold this opinion. However, it is just as obvious that you cannot cite any examples of it occurring. You are long on assertions, but short on evidence and argument.
And don’t you respect that opinion?
Why not? What is it about beliefs which makes them immune from attack?
This is a non sequitur, unless you wish to argue that “freedom to believe whatever they wish” entails “freedom from hearing, seeing, or knowing about those beliefs being criticized, scorned, or attacked.”
Well, unless the criticism of religious beliefs is affecting you negatively, then you shouldn’t care and thus shouldn’t be objecting. Right?
It’s actually a very common argument, though you have to look behind the argument to understand better what is going on. Notice how similar this is to people claiming that certain ideas are necessarily valid or good because they are in the Bible? Notice also how the same counter-arguments can be mounted, pointing out all the nasty things in the Bible and asking if those, too, are valid and good?
What’s going on, I believe, is that people see certain ideas, opinions, traditions, etc. are good based upon their values, standards, etc. Unfortunately, saying “I approve of this because it fits in with my values in standards” doesn’t sound very good to them and they are unable to come up with a systematic defense of those values.
So, they look for some other justification which sounds good and will hopefully shut down possible challenges. Is it old? Can it be found in the Bible? Do lots of people believe it? They are all logical fallacies at best and, if adopted consistently, would lead to all manner of atrocities. However, saying that some idea is good and should be respected because it’s ancient or biblical sounds good to people — or at least it sounds good to people who don’t think too hard about it.
Charles,
I read Austin’s article and from my quotes you should be able to see that I also read your original article. I’m not joking; I cannot see a single example of all the things you complain about. You have been asked several times to provide examples to no avail. I asked you some direct questions, but no-one would know that from reading your response to what I said.
Given that you complain that Austin was “basically attacking (you) and what was said in (your) article” I can only see two options: either you believe people have no right to disagree with you, which would require amazing arrogance; or you are simply incapable of defending your ideas and are unwilling to admit it.
As a theist I want you to know I thought the article was a great piece of satire.
You know, the article was a fine read however I work at a place mostly full of atheists (a small handful of us are Catholics, Jews, & such) and they sit around and belittle our religions RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR FACES, treating us as if we are stupid lower life forms and total idiots for what we believe. None of us speak up… we are in the minority there and in this economic climate none of us can afford to loose our jobs so we sit by and take the stabs. It hurts. I don’t mind everyone believing what ever may suit them, God or no God, but behaving with common human decency and treating people with the respect you would like to be treated with should be universal. Thank you.
Where, exactly, is there a company that is “mostly full of atheists?”
I work at a company mostly full of logical thinkers. I tell them I have a giant diamond buried in my back yard, and I have valid reasons. It gives my life meaning. It’s clearly written in this old document i have, and I have no reason to doubt the diamond itself wrote the text. I also have deeply personal spiritual relations with the giant diamond every night. Yet somehow my co workers still belittle my belief right in front of me! It hurts. I don’t mind everyone believing what ever may suit them, giant diamond or no giant diamond, but behaving with common human decency and treating people with the respect you would like to be treated with should be universal. Thank you.
although i find exceedingly funny the way in which you put your ideas across i fail to see the brilliance, of you to be able to mock three, admitably foolish, comments of a christian when a christian could find an athiest who makes the same standard of comment and the only thing that would set them apart would be the tone that is used. I also believe that you are profoundly guilty of grouping all christians together! Not all christians go door to door, admitedly more than athiests, but they are still the vast minority. Most christians, myself included, just want to carry on with our beliefs and not get cornered and shouted down my beliefs by 10 athiests. Any one of which, if on their own, I could have a decent conversation and fairly represent my beliefs!
So yes some christians go door to door. But more athiests, i would bet, aggressively gang up on and shout down the beliefs of the usually christian minority and then leave feeling job done!
(and yes the pamflets are poorly drawn)
Feel free to show how.
But far more Christians than any other religious group.
And where do you go that this happens?
Churchers College in Petersfield, and the grouping i was referring to was saying that the comment “We go door-to-door in neighborhoods across America in an effort to convince people to agree with us” is a sweeping statement trying to group all christians under the banner of a minority. It is not unlike saying that all muslims can be grouped as terrorists which is clearly not true.
But my over bearing point is that still you have found 3 badly phrased comments made by a christian, possibly taken out of context (im not sure), which you then mocked and quite rightly so. But to say that because these three comments are laughable that a whole religion os also laughable is just, in my belief, foolish as you do not look at the questions posed to athiesm by christian scholars such as John Lennox
The quoted statement says absolutely nothing about “all Christians.”
If you sincerely wonder if they were taken out of context, why don’t you click on the link to the original and see for yourself? It’s not very hard.
Except that I don’t say anything about “a whole religion” here. The idea that I have exists solely as a figment of your imagination.
I am unaware of any questions posed by a John Lennox which require or deserve answering. Is there some reason I should be? If not, bringing him up is little more than a Red Herring.
Quote:
The quoted statement says absolutely nothing about all Christians.
Neither did it admit that it was a minority, did you leave that out by mistake or would it have undermined your position by more than a bit?
The atheist way of disccussing is direct and personal, we do not question intelligence when arguing. I know of no evangelists that would refuse to leave a person alone after being told to leave, but that could just be my lack of experience with telling them to leave. But atheists do the whole spread what I believe deal too. I mean you did write a blog all about your differing beliefs to that of a Christian didn’t you?
Also the way we discuss is completely different and, I believe, far less aggressive. We do not make people feel like unbelievable idiots for not believing what we do which is more than I can say for some of the atheists who I have argued with and I truly hoped that I was wrong in stating that this is the norm for a discussion between a Christian and an atheist. But the difference in the styles of the Christian article and your sarcastic blog show clearly that I am right. Charles Lumia is not in any way demeening any one else’s beliefs but instead is asking atheists to try and be more understanding and less confrontational in their dicussions.
So I think to bring up the evangelism topic is not your best move seeing as atheists are also clearly guilty of the thing that you are clearly finding so annoying.
Quote:
I am unaware of any questions posed by a John Lennox which require or deserve answering.
I would be more than happy to refer you to some of his questions to atheists but it would be easier for me to find ones relevant to you if I knew your beliefs more accurately. For instance do you just refuse kicking and screaming to believe that there is a God or do you have a set of beliefs, for want of a better word, that make you believe that a God is so unlikely as to practically laugh at and certainly openly mock those who disagree with you?
Quote:
Churches have all but disappeared from the urban landscape
few remaining churches
Really? Are you implying that Christian numbers are dwindling or just that we are all cramming into the “sneaky churches”? After only 2 minutes of research I found figures from an independent sources such as readers digest and many others that over large recent periods the number of Christians is ever increasing (example figures and link below). I mean really It’s not very hard to find:
U.S. Center for World Mission
From 1970 to 1996
From 33.7% to 33.9%
http://www.religioustolerance.org/growth_isl_chr.htm
Quote:
We try to push legislatures to pass laws requiring all Sunday School classes to teach about Darwin
Perhaps not, but you would be furious if Darwinism, what you believe, was portrayed as clearly wrong, in public schools or Sunday schools like biblical beliefs often are in schools wouldn’t you?
Uh, the statement wasn’t about Christians at all.
And how many evangelists only appear when specifically asked?
Less aggressive than telling people that unless they agree with you, they can’t possibly be moral, live decent lives, etc.? Because that’s what atheists hear from Christians all the time.
Right, because stating all sorts of obvious falsehoods about people is so “understanding” and “less confrontational.” I wish I could be “understanding” enough to consistently lies about others like that.
I simply see no reason to believe in any gods. Or elves, fairies, ghosts, etc.
I think you are having trouble with the concept of “sarcasm.” Indeed, maybe your entire problem here is based on a failure to recognize that what I write above is sarcasm designed to reveal just how absurd and false Lumia’s statements are.
Neither did it admit that it was a minority, did you leave that out by mistake or would it have undermined your position by more than a bit?
Uh, the statement wasn’t about Christians at all.
Are you saying that you weren’t referring to Christians as going “door-to-door in neighborhoods across America in an effort to convince people to agree with us” or was that about a different religion?
And how many evangelists only appear when specifically asked?
And how many Atheists give their opinions only when asked? For instance did Charles Lumia beg you to write this blog or did you just bring it upon yourself to voice your opinion?
Less aggressive than telling people that unless they agree with you, they can’t possibly be moral, live decent lives, etc.? Because that’s what atheists hear from Christians all the time.
Granted, some Christians may say that but I disagree. My question is; is it correct to do the right things for the wrong reasons?
Right, because stating all sorts of obvious falsehoods about people is so “understanding” and “less confrontational.” I wish I could be “understanding” enough to consistently lies about others like that.
Can we please keep this discussion based on facts that are possible to prove and not just sweeping statements. Oh, and don’t kid yourself if you think that you can answer this question when even the brightest scholars have still got grounds to argue on both sides.
I simply see no reason to believe in any gods. Or elves, fairies, ghosts, etc.
And I see no reason to believe that science, which is ever improving, has successfully disproved God without any of the top scholars noticing and you have to point out the “obvious” conclusion, are you really that vain?
I wasn’t referring to any religion. I was mocking the idea that atheists are “invasive with their beliefs” by sarcastically describing something which no atheists do.
I forgot to ask: just how common is it in Chrucher’s College, Petersfield, that you are “shouted down…by 10 atheists”?
There’s quite a difference about me writing my opinion on my site and me going to a Christian site to evangelize.
Or don’t you agree?
And by the way, “atheists” should not be capitalized because it’s not a proper noun. This is a common mistake made by people who falsely imagine that atheism is some sort of belief system, ideology, religion, etc.
It’s good that you disagree, but you seem to be forgetting that you said that “the way we discuss is completely different and, I believe, far less aggressive. We do not make people feel like unbelievable idiots for not believing what we do…” Who is this “we” if not “Christians” — and I notice you don’t qualify this, which according to your standards “is a sweeping statement trying to group all Christians” together.
I’m afraid that I don’t understand the relevance or purpose of the question.
Pointing out the presence of numerous falsehood is keeping to the facts — especially when those falsehoods are a reason for my writing the above.
Uh, what is the “this question” you’re talking about?
Since I haven’t made any claims above about what science has or has not proven or disproven, I fail to see the relevance of this “response.” You basically asked why I don’t believe and I politely gave you the most basic reason why I don’t believe. Because you chose to trot out something unrelated and irrelevant, I’m led to the conclusion that your question wasn’t sincere or serious. This, in turn, raises doubts about the sincerity and seriousness of your entire purpose for being here.
I notice that you don’t address the fact that you have been mistaking sarcasm for serious statements. It also raises questions about your sincerity and seriousness when you can’t even admit to such an obvious error with something like “whoops, my mistake — sorry about that.”
whoops my mistake – sorry about that. Yes I did make that mistake and i apologise for not adimtting it. Also i withdraw my “is it right to do the right things for the wrong reasons” question, you were right to say it was offtopic. I was just interested in what an atheist had to say. I also apologise for giving atheist a capital “A”. Was there anything else? Oh, yes the sweeping statement that you think I made, i apologise profusely for being guilty of something that I chastised you for.
in answer to your frequency question I would say on average once a week, perhaps once every two weeks. But that could be just that there are only 2 or 3 christians in my year and i am the only one who is widely known by the entire year to be one. I am distinguishing here between being shouted down and asked, politely, about my faith and beliefs. I have no problem having a serious conversation about christianity but it is often that I find people who do into want to discuss, where the aim is to find out more about the other side, but instead I find people who want to list all the problems with religion, I list of my issues with atheism and because there are more of them i get shouted down. Which I think is just a shame, why cant we respect eachother enough to be polite about it? (this is one of the reasons that i first commented, i found what you wrote compelling and humerous but a touch patronising which is uncalled for)
There’s quite a difference about me writing my opinion on my site and me going to a Christian site to evangelize.
Or don’t you agree?
I agree, are you telling me you have never commented on a christians blog. Or never in your time at school or work started a “lively debate” between yourself and anyperson with a different belief system and challenged it?
Oh, and don’t kid yourself if you think that you can answer this question when even the brightest scholars have still got grounds to argue on both sides.
Uh, what is the “this question” you’re talking about?
The question I was relating to was the question that is at the centre of this whole discussion! IS THERE A GOD? I think, you believe that you have the answer and I believe that to be very vain since far more renowned scholars are still quarrelling over the topic. I mean, and I apologise for making this personal i’m sure you would never do that, how are you qualified to ouverrule the greatest minds on the planet and say “hey guys no ned to argue any more good old Austin Cline has solved the God problem”!
Oh and me saying I disagree with some christians on the point of telling people that they cannot be moral without being christians does not mean that I am not a christian. In the paragraph you took “we” is christians (the christians with the same ethos as mine) and the “you” is my percieved norm of atheist argument method.
Finally, just as you were right to comment on the fact that I ignored it when I should have admitted defeat on a point and that I was wrong. I think you must have accidentally forgotten to mention my question in my second comment:
Quote:
We try to push legislatures to pass laws requiring all Sunday School classes to teach about Darwin
Perhaps not, but you would be furious if Darwinism, what you believe, was portrayed as clearly wrong, in public schools or Sunday schools like biblical beliefs often are in schools wouldn’t you?
Thanks for the apologies.
Well, you shouldn’t be “shouted down” absent your advocating something really bad. Certainly not for believing something that another regards as irrational. Immoral, perhaps, but not irrational.
I would further distinguish between being shouted down and vigorous, pointed disagreement and/or criticism.
Very, very rarely and even then only when it directly relates to something basic about atheism, like the definition of atheism. In such cases I simply point out the error, give a very, very short explanation of why it’s an error, and link to further information. I don’t harangue or even stick around for a debate which might go in directions not relevant to the original post.
No.
Ah, well, whether the question can be answered or not depends heavily on how exactly it is framed and how the key terms are defined.
I didn’t suggest that it did mean this. I interpreted your “we” as referring to all Christians, which was the problem.
First, “Darwinism” is not a term I recognize as referring to anything I believe. To keep things going, though, I’ll substitute “evolutionary theory.”
Second, I would object if science were misrepresented in science classes regardless of whether it’s evolutionary theory, atomic theory, plate tectonics, or any other basic aspect of science.
Third, I do find it lamentable that evolutionary theory is misrepresented in Sunday School classes. I wouldn’t call that “fury” though.
Finally, I am unaware of “biblical beliefs” being misrepresented in any public schools. Public schools shouldn’t be teaching “biblical beliefs,” so they shouldn’t be accurately or inaccurately teaching them.
your welcome for the apologies, i needed to say them.
Quote:
Certainly not for believing something that another regards as irrational. Immoral, perhaps, but not irrational.
Quick clarification; are you saying that it is ok for me to be shouted down if i am arguing the immoral, or are you just saying that Christianity is immoral?
I think you may misunderstand. In my own definition in this case being shouted down is being blanketed by continual attacks at my religion or the unecessary vigour with which the discussion takes place. For instance for a heated debate to take place, I am not being shouted down, but if the debate is so heated from one side so as the other person/s cannot reply then i feel i am being shouted down.
Quote:
I don’t harangue or even stick around for a debate which might go in directions not relevant to the original post.
Fair enough. I understand that this may not be the place for an extended debate and i will be guided by you, as it is afterall your blog, as to whether we should stop this.
My goal in this debate, and all other religion debates online or offline, is to make sure of the only thing that i think is fair: that neither side of the argument is provable beyond the reasonable doubt of the other side, otherwise there would be no argument, and that the decision of which side you fall on comes down to your own view of the world and what goes on in it.
For instance i believe that when i am at a christian gathering and the speaker says that he feels god is telling him that just today a person with an eating disorder has told her parents, and it happens to be one of my close friends, i start to think something odd is going on.
Can we agree on that premise?
Quote:
whether the question can be answered or not depends heavily on how exactly it is framed and how the key terms are defined.
please elaborate.
I do agree with you on the point that evolution should not be depicted as ludicrous in sunday school, nor any belief for that matter, except possibly the giant flying spaghetti monster. For i do believe that evolution does take place and has, if i believe that it is driven by a divine purpose that is my own decision based on my view and perception of the world (not a need to incorporate a God into every aspect of life that some christians do). But i do believe that no, creation should not be taught as an alternative to science for it is not a scientific theory, but i do believe that it should be covered more extensively in Religious Studies to give students the opportunity to choose. You say that your ‘beliefs’ should be fairly represented in church. I agree, but i also say that mine should be fairly represented in yours. In the right context at the right time and with an unbiased an equal wieghting. I believe we should allow kids to choose with full knowledge of the choice. Do you?
Quote:
Finally, I am unaware of “biblical beliefs” being misrepresented in any public schools. Public schools shouldn’t be teaching “biblical beliefs,” so they shouldn’t be accurately or inaccurately teaching them
My idea of biblical beliefs being misrepresentated is for instance when a teacher tells me that we are going to watch a balanced documentary which goes through the christian and evolutionary models of creation i do not expect to watch a documentary by that renownedly balanced, polite, slow to anger and patient scolar Richard Dawkins shout at children who believe in Christianity for 50 minutes! well balanced, i think not.
(i apologise for all the ridiculously long sentences as well, dsylexia…why is it so hard to spell?)
p.s. in the example i gave of christian gathering i forgot to say that he was offering to pray with her. not just stating it as a ‘magic trick’. I just didn’t want any confusion
The former; but of course the latter is the same as the former if someone thinks that Christianity — or the form you espouse — is immoral on some basic level. I was, however, thinking more about cases of a person espousing some specific idea or proposal that is immoral rather than of entire belief systems.
Maybe what you consider unnecessary they consider appropriate. I’m not there, so I can’t say, but I do have lots and lots of experience of Christians considering it offensive to see the sorts of criticisms made about Christianity that are routine in other contexts. No, I’m not saying that’s you; instead, I’m saying that the two situations are potentially analogous.
I wouldn’t call that “shouting down.” It’s not polite to make it difficult for you to get a word in, even if that’s not their intention, but shouting someone down is in another class of behavior.
A lot depends on how far off topic it could go. There is always the forum, but there you are likely to encounter far more people responding to you. It’s easy to get a word in edgewise, but the number of people talking could make it hard for you to adequately respond.
I disagree. People argue all the time over things which are provable beyond a reasonable doubt because they lack the information to realize this or, very often, the intellectual skills to comprehend it.
I disagree with this even more strongly. Given some situation where there are only two options and it is not possible to demonstrate conclusively beyond a reasonable doubt that one is true and the other false: it is not necessarily the case that the only other option is “pick one based on your worldview.” That’s a False Dilemma fallacy. Another very common option is that one option is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and/or is more consistent with what we can already proven true, and/or is a simpler explanation, etc.
Under some definitions of “god,” the definition may contain internal contradictions and thus we can say that it no more exists than a square circle. Or, under other definitions, that definition may contradict known and proven facts of the universe, thus allowing us to conclude that it does not exist.
Um, I do? OK, it’s better than being deliberately misrepresented, but did I say anything about that here?
I don’t have a church. However, if I am talking about the beliefs of Believer, then of course I would want to be accurate.
Quote:
Maybe what you consider unnecessary they consider appropriate
I’m glad that this was brought up because it gives me a fleeting chance to bring this point back to the main topic of your blog. If I am not mistaken Charles Lumia was expressing that he believed atheists to be far more aggressive than christians and i think you may have misunderstood the context he was using. I think he was talking about the actual speech, tone and body language used during a discussion. Not, as you tlkaed about, the atual aggressiveness of starting the discussion, which i would not describe as aggressive but more likely persistent.
Quote:
absurd and false Lumia’s statements are
This is what i’m talking about. Obviously you think this is not pushing the boundries but I certainly would not insult someone who I had never even met. Maybe this perception is the problem with not only this case but also your point of immorality. I would not say that it is ok to shout anyone down if they actually believe in something immoral as long as that beleif does not infringe on anyone else’s human rights.
Quote:
lack the information to realize this or, very often, the intellectual skills to comprehend it.
I agree, but as time passed people enmasse would start to believe it. For instance when everyone was told that the earth was in fact round instead of flat very few people believed it. But as time went on more and more people came to believe that they were right. And that is a piece of science that didn’t really make any difference to them. Imagine if there was conclusive proof that God exists, people would be affected by this and so the truth would spread far more quickly. So yes, people may lack the information but because it is such an important topic to everyone this wouldn’t last long.
And your comment about the intelligence of people who argue lost causes saying that they are not intelligent enough comprehend the evidence opposing is just a bit odd. I don’t understand how scientists have measured the weight of the earth. But i believe that they have done it and i don’t think you find find anyone who will argue with you over a point that 95% of the world agrees on.
Quote:
offensive to see the sorts of criticisms made about Christianity that are routine in other contexts.
Um, i think there is a big difference between for instance calling apartheid stupid and calling a religion stupid. So yes in the right context it is ok to be offensive…I fail to see your point.
Quote:
number of people talking could make it hard for you to adequately respond.
You’re right, i could get shouted down!
Quote:
one option is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and/or is more consistent with what we can already proven true, and/or is a simpler explanation.
I think we could have hit a brick wall with this point. Because I can imagine that you will be amazed that i am willing to argue that the evidence support me just as well as it does you, so unless you want to go farther off topic i suggest we drop this particular point.
Quote:
definition may contain internal contradictions and thus we can say that it no more exists than a square circle
please give some real life examples.
Quote:
You say that your ‘beliefs’ should be fairly represented in church.
Um, I do?
Um, yes you do. Or did I misinterpret it when you said “Third, I do find it lamentable that evolutionary theory is misrepresented in Sunday School classes”.
My final point I think was sidestepped, but that could just be my misunderstanding of your response. Do you think it fair that the truth about science and evolutionary theory is accurately representated in churches, and that christian theories are fairly represented in schools so that both sides of the undecideable argument are represented so as to give the child the best information to make a choice?
None of the claims he makes about atheists are true. He doesn’t make the claim you attribute to him, but if he did it would be highly questionable given his lack of accuracy and truthfulness overall.
When a person makes unambiguously absurd and false statements, it’s not an insult to plainly say so.
Beliefs have an impact on the real world and when a person openly advocates, say, injustice, then that does impact the rights of all.
And there are still people who believe that it is flat. So you have presented just what I was talking about: a case where something can be proven far, far beyond a reasonable doubt… but people still argue over it.
I didn’t say anything about intelligence. I was very specific: intellectual skills. I suggest you read this.
My point is that many religious believers privilege religion in their own minds and so interpret certain behavior in a religious context that they would interpret differently in a different context. Criticism of religion is treated as “offensive” when the same sort of criticism of another ideology isn’t. What you call “unnecessary vigor” in the context of religion you might not notice in another context.
Sigh, having too many people to respond to is not getting “shouted down.”
No, I would not be amazed to hear you think this. That isn’t the point. The point is: you presented a False Dilemma fallacy and I demonstrated that there are other options.
I just did: a square circle. Another is a married bachelor. These are examples of concepts which must be defined with internal contradictions and, therefore, can be conclusively said to not exist.
Evolutionary theory isn’t a “belief” of mine, any more than atomic theory and plate tectonics are. They are scientific conclusions which I accept given the weight of evidence behind them.
I don’t think churches should lie to members when trying to promote their religious ideology. I don’t think they should lie about science, about atheists, about politics, or about anything else. It has nothing to do with being “fair” and everything to do with simply acknowledging reality — even when it doesn’t fit right with preconceived notions.
I don’t believe that there are many, if any, places to “represent” the beliefs of Christianity except in a comparative religions class. In that case, the views of every religion should be presented accurately and objectively.
Finally, I don’t acknowledge that there are any “undecidable arguments” here. If any school were to discuss the existence of gods and evaluate the teachings of religions which teach about gods, then it would have to do so in the light of scientific evidence. Scientifically speaking, the existence of gods can indeed be dismissed if not outright denied. But that would be going too far off topic here.
Quote:
He doesn’t make the claim you attribute to him.
Um, I don’t know about you but I think that “invasive” and aggressive are quite similar. If not then you are right, christians are invasive and atheists aren’t. If Charles was not making that claim then I am.
Quote:
but if he did it would be highly questionable given his lack of accuracy and truthfulness overall.
That is an opinion do nto try and pass it as fact as i believe you were trying to.
Quote:
When a person makes unambiguously absurd and false statements, it’s not an insult to plainly say so.
Once again opinion. And this one i would say that perhaps I was being overly sensitive by saying you were being insulting, but I certainly believe you could have been more polite. For instance my biggest insult in this has been to say that the comments by Lumia were “admitably foolish” and i had to think whether i was pushing a boundry in that. In christianity we are told to be polite by a God we believe exists, so we are. in atheism you are not so, in my opinion, my take a slightly more bulldozer approach.
Quote:
then that does impact the rights of all
Please name which human right this infirnges.
Quote:
And there are still people who believe that it is flat
Whoops – my mistake. Is that ok?
Quote:
please give some real life examples.
I just did
By real life examples i meant ones which relate to the God argument not just any old inconsistency, sorry bad communication on my part.
Quote:
Evolutionary theory isn’t a “belief”
Do you believe/think that evolutionary theory is correct?
Quote:
the views of every religion should be presented accurately and objectively
Thankyou.
Lets talk about that last link you gave me.
You say that
“there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful”
The only way you can say that is if all the questions are answered! Would it not be “useful” to the theory of the Big Bang to have some kind of explanation of where that nucleus of energy came from?
You also say that:
Stenger offers this scientific argument against the existence of God:
1. Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
2. Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.
3. Look for such evidence with an open mind.
4. If such evidence is found, conclude that God may exist.
5. If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does not exist.
I agree, that is a very good way of saying what you decribed as a “False Dilemma fallacy” I think. But that could be my misunderstanding of the phrase. Is it not the same to say “based on your world view” and “Look for such evidence with an open mind”?
P.S. if you want to move this to that blogs comment thread then I am more than happy to.
Quote:
Sigh, having too many people to respond to is not getting “shouted down.”
It was a joke.
I like this article, pure, simple and to the point.
Notice, Believer, that you are the only one arguing here. The points made in the article you yourself agree with so why are you going off the wall?
Your friend… to an extent….
Just because I am the only one arguing does not mean that I am the only one who feels this way! Very few christians have probably seen this page so it is impossible to gauge how many people actually believe this.
Oh and Austin may I introduce you to one of the atheists at my college.
Similar, but not the same. Moreover, the claim you are trying to attribute to him is that atheists are worse.
Then you obligate yourself to support it.
It is not an opinion that he has grossly misrepresented atheism.
Not in the least. Saying that an absurd or false statement is absurd or false is being accurate and truthful, not insulting.
1. You might want to try to focus on what people actually write rather than words you want to attribute to them. I said “impact,” not “infringe.”
2. If people start calling for blacks to be shoved back into a second class status, then this will create an atmosphere where differential treatment is regarded as acceptable and, therefore, becomes more normal. Thus even if the people calling for this don’t actually do it, the become complicit in what happens.
This isn’t the place for actually debating the existence of gods, as I made clear below. I’m simply pointing out the conditions under which it is possible to conclusively dismiss the existence of a god – or any other alleged thing or being. I’m describing general principles.
I accept it as accurate.
No. All that’s necessary is to look at the scientific models of the universe and see if there are any places where all alleged god is required, productive, or useful.
That’s not the correct question. The correct question is whether or not it would be useful to the Big Bang theory for it to be explained by reference to some god A, defined by characteristics B, C, D, …Z.
You do? Then do explain how, exactly, Stenger’s argument commits the fallacy. Identify where it occurs, what the false dilemma is, and what the possible alternatives are.
No.
Well if you have failed to sustain a genuine arguement against a college student what makes you think you can hope to argue your point and win here?
you came across this article searching for “the problem with Atheism” (direct quote of your google search)
youve clearly run out of ideas, either that or you were determined to argue, clearly an example of a christian being ‘invasive’ as you call it =)
In only partial defense of Charles, I think I understand his “respect”. I consider myself an atheist, probably because I do not believe in God or a god. I’m sure I have other reasons, but for now, that’ll do. Accept it. And I’ll admit to being a boyhood fan of Zeus (and all his Greco-Roman family), Thor, and Apollo (I just loved his cameo in that original Star Trek episode).
Anyway, I digress.
I come from Mennonite stock. My great grandfather suffered Prussian intolerance in the 1850’s Alscace-Lorraine, escaped to Switzterland, and emmigrated to the US, settling in Illinois, and help found and built a Mennonite Church in East Bend. His two daughters eventually joined the church, but his only son (my grandpappy) did not. Ironically, my grandfather died during the Great Flu Epidemic of 1919, a month before my father was born. Anyway, my father wasn’t Mennonite, and neither was I. Actually, I was raised Presbyterian, Methodist, and Reformed (UCC). Today it’s called diversity. Anyway, I still grew up around Mennonites and Amish, and although I do not believe what they believe, I have much respect for them. And it’s probably rooted in their piety or piousness. It’s a quality that is lacking in most other denominations, chiefly the evangelicals and religious right. I consider them the most unchristian of the lot. They are so far from the teachings of Jesus and too fucked up to get it. I do believe a Jesus existed, I just don’t subscribe to his or any divinity. To loosely quote Bill Maher (Religulous), “How can an otherwise rational person believe in such an irrational idea?”
Mennonites are pious, peaceful, non-judgemental. It is not their place to judge, convert, or attack. They are private yet friendly, peaceful, and altruistic. They are not hypocrits, nor hypocritical. I believe they live represent the true teachings of Jesus, so they earn my respect.
And that doesn’t mean that atheists can’t have those values. I’m just saying I respect them for being true to their religion. Something that the religious right will never acquire.
My support for saying that atheists are more aggressive is my own personal experiences with dicussing religion with them. I find them to be over aggressive.
Quote:
Not in the least. Saying that an absurd or false statement is absurd or false is being accurate and truthful, not insulting.
If it is not an opinion then your point of view is proveable beyond reasonable doubt. Please do so if it can be done concisely.
Quote:
You might want to try to focus on what people actually write rather than words you want to attribute to them.
Please don’t try and undermine my position by making me out to be someone who tries to twist people’s words to my own benefit. I never mean to do that. The reason i kept the word “infringe” is because it was the word that i used previously. since infringe and impact have clearly different meanings then i must at thiis point assume that there is no way in which this infringes on someones human rights. Furthermore by advocating “shouting [someone] down” you are advocating the infringement of the right to free speech. People can say what they want, and by urging people to shout down people who voice beliefs you think immoral you are not exactly respecting their right to free speech as much as having a calm discussion with them are you? And it would probably be better recieved than the “why can’t you see your are wrong?” approach i see far too often.
Quote:
The correct question is whether or not it would be useful to the Big Bang theory for it to be explained by reference to some god A, defined by characteristics B, C, D, …Z.
please explain.
Quote:
No.
What a helpful answer, filled with wisdom and prolonged and careful thought, i shall try and do the same…
Why?
Oh and Non-believer I have previously mentioned that “I know of no evangelist who would refuse when asked to leave” and that I asked Austin if he wanted me to leave or carry this on elsewhere and he said it was fine as long as the discussion did not go too far offtopic. I will leave either when a stalemate i reached, which is unlikely, i achieve my ojective, also unlikely, or if Austin has finally had enough of me. Until then i am happy to learn as much about atheism and their counter arguments from him as he is willing to divulge. Oh, and perhaps you should read the rest of the discussion before ignorantly wading in again?
So based on your limited, personal experiences with a small number of members of a class which has nothing in common but the absence of belief in gods, you feel informed enough to render a judgement about that class as a whole? Replace “blacks” with “atheists” in the above and explain to me how it wouldn’t be racist.
If I were to base my opinion about Christians on my personal experiences discussing religion with them, I would have to conclude that Christians are irrational, ignorant, illogical, abusive, arrogant, sometimes downright stupid, bigoted, and self-righteous. Fortunately, I don’t judge all Christians in such a way – but if I did, tell me you wouldn’t regard me as prejudiced and bigoted.
If you are sincerely unaware of the falsehoods expressed by Lumia, then you are as distressingly ignorant as he is. Just click on the “Basics” tab above to educate yourself on what atheism is and is not.
Still, I find it curious how you insist on continuing with this False Dilemma fallacy that everything is divided into either statements that can be “proven beyond a reasonable doubt” or are just “opinions” based on one’s world view. You’ve become fixed on that phrase, “proven beyond a reasonable doubt,” to an extent that it has warped your understanding of basic epistemology. There are more options than just those two and I’ve described a few already. It’s time that you either figured out a way to justify this position so that you can deny it’s a fallacy, or give it up in favor of something more nuanced – and in sync with reality.
You undermine your own position when you are so cavalier with what others write, substituting your own words for theirs.
You are relying on a False Dilemma fallacy to argue that unless speech infringes on others’ rights, then it’s wrong for others to shout them down.
Your right to free speech is a right against government interference. I, as a private person, cannot infringe on any of your rights. Only the government can.
Curious that such a simple point needs to be explained.
1. The original argument was about the usefulness of introducing the concept “god” to a scientific model of the universe. You substituted “explanation of where the nucleus of energy [for the Big Bang] came from” for “god.” The two are not synonymous. At best, you hoped to introduce “god” as the origin of that energy, but the usefulness of “god” in that model is not established merely by the origin of the energy being useful. A “yes” answer to you question says nothing about the usefulness of alleged gods. Therefor, if “god” is still the subject of discussion, then a “yes” answer to your question still requires asking the one I used.
2. Of course, “god” is completely useless unless defined. The only useful additions to scientific models are clearly defined elements because without definitions, they cannot be tested for, integrated into current knowledge, and so forth.
3. Therefore, if the issue is whether “god” is a useful addition to any scientific model of the universe, the correct question to ask if whether some specifically defined “god” can add anything to some part of that model — be it the Big Bang, quantum mechanics, or something else.
Since you felt no need to identify where Stenger committed the False Dilemma fallacy you accused him of, I feel no need elaborate on my answer.
Maybe you don’t spend enough time around evangelists. I’ve had to ban a number of them from comments and from the forum. One of the benefits of privilege is not having to see the ways in which members of one’s own class abuse outsiders. Tell me, have you ever actually taken any time to look at how evangelists treat nonbelievers? If this is something that you actually care about, why not pose as an atheist in a Christian forum and see how you are treated?
Real interest in learning can only be demonstrated by actually doing some work to learn. Thus far, it doesn’t appear as though you’ve spent any time reading material on this site to educate yourself about atheism.
Quote:
Maybe you don’t spend enough time around evangelists. I’ve had to ban a number of them from comments and from the forum. One of the benefits of privilege is not having to see the ways in which members of one’s own class abuse outsiders. Tell me, have you ever actually taken any time to look at how evangelists treat nonbelievers? If this is something that you actually care about, why not pose as an atheist in a Christian forum and see how you are treated?
Can the same not be said about atheists abusing outsiders?
Um, did you not tell me earlier that if you believe someone is being immoral then they have every right to shout them down? Now couple that with the fact that you just told me that it is wrong to judge people on “your own limited experiences” and I think you will find a contradiction.
Also tell me how you forming a general opinion about all evangelists is any different to me forming an opinion about atheists from my own limited experiences?
Quote:
If you are sincerely unaware of the falsehoods expressed by Lumia, then you are as distressingly ignorant as he is
The ‘falsehood’ I take issue with is the assumption that atheists are not as aggressive as humans. I mean you did just tell me that “One of the benefits of privilege is not having to see the ways in which members of one’s own class abuse outsiders”. Maybe you are blind to what could well be the arguing tactics of many atheists, or is that just impossible?
Quote:
You undermine your own position when you are so cavalier with what others write, substituting your own words for theirs.
I substitute only with a word with a similar meaning, for instance I would not have seen any issue with substituting the word impact and infringe as they have almost identical definitions.
Quote:
Your right to free speech is a right against government interference. I, as a private person, cannot infringe on any of your rights. Only the government can.
Whoops-my mistake. Perhaps substitute human rights with breaking the law.
Quote:
Since you felt no need to identify where Stenger committed the False Dilemma fallacy you accused him of, I feel no need elaborate on my answer.
I was under the impression that it meant the same thing to say “based on your world view” and “Look for such evidence with an open mind”, the question you decided not to answer. If I was right and that was the case then accusing my statement of being a false dilemma fallacy would be identical to calling “look for such evidence with an open mind” a false dilemma fallacy. If I was wrong then please elaborate so that I may learn how so as not to make the mistake again.
Quote:
Real interest in learning can only be demonstrated by actually doing some work to learn. Thus far, it doesn’t appear as though you’ve spent any time reading material on this site to educate yourself about atheism.
There is a lot on this site that I am simply not interested in. So it is a better use of my time, I feel, to ask you the questions directly and find out about the parts of your belief that I am interested in by talking to you personally, rather than sifting through a site brimming with atheistic ideas, only a few of which I am interested in. Also it allows me to try and find questions about my own religion and think about my own world view which I could not do by just reading your blogs. I do not expect to win this discussion or even reach a stalemate, far from it you have been doing this for much to long and me clearly not so for me to offer you any real challenges. I just like to find the problems with my theologies and go away and improve them. This is my research so to speak would you not agree that I have found out far more about my own faith than I would have by simply sifting lazily through your site? It has also disillusioned me to many misconceptions I had about atheism so thanks very much for the lesson. I think I needed it
I don’t understand what the connection is here between this and what you’re responding to.
No, I don’t see one. Not only do I not believe that there is a contradiction between saying a person might reasonably shout down someone espousing immoral/unjust behavior and saying that it’s wrong to judge an entire class of people based on limited experience with just a few member, but in fact I don’t see any relationship between the two whatsoever. They are entirely disconnected.
If you think differently, then please enlighten me.
I haven’t formed an opinion about all evangelists.
I notice that you didn’t answer my question. It’s a pretty important one, given that I raised a direct and immediate comparison between your attitude and racism.
I never made any such claim. Or assumption.
You really need to learn to stop attributing ideas, claims, assumptions, and attitudes to other people which they have not expressed. I’ve seen you do it frequently here and as a consequence, I now completely doubt your complaints about other atheists around you. I just can’t regard you as an accurate reporter about others.
The two words have radically different meanings.
Their definitions are not “almost identical.” They aren’t even similar. To “impact” is to effect, influence, or exert force upon. To “infringe” upon is to break, transgress, undermine, or violate. An infringement is a type of impact, but otherwise there is no connection or similarity whatsoever.
You don’t have a “human right” against others being rude. If I shout you down, I’m being rude. If you aren’t advocating views which are bigoted towards others, aren’t advocating injustice towards others, and aren’t advocating anything else that would cause demonstrable harm, then I’m probably being unjustifiably rude. Regardless, you have no “human right” against the rudeness of others.
The position in question, which you originally articulated, commits the False Dilemma fallacy. I explained why. If you see Stenger’s argument as being basically the same as the position you articulated, then I expect you to be able to demonstrate how it commits the same fallacy. Or, alternatively, to demonstrate how you didn’t commit a False Dilemma fallacy. Otherwise, they aren’t the same — are they?
If you can’t answer that, then you frankly have no reason to respond at all. No, I’m not going to repeat again how and why your original position is fallacious. No, I’m not going to explain how Stenger’s argument doesn’t commit that fallacy. It’s time for you to step up and do some thinking for yourself.
Sounds like you still don’t even understand what the fallacy is, otherwise you wouldn’t say that.
From my perspective, you’re saying you want things spoon-fed to you instead of investing your own time and effort to do something like a simple search, or browse through an index or two. Do you suppose that placing such a higher value on your own time than the time of others’ would incline them to be very helpful? What does it tell others about you when you say that your time is too important to sift through material to find what you’re interested in, but others’ time isn’t so important so it’s OK to expect them to use their time to hand you what you want when you want it? I’m sure you didn’t realize it, but that’s the upshot of what you wrote.
I don’t know, but if you don’t care enough about learning to invest some time and effort, then I’m quite confident that you won’t learn — even if you have information spoon-fed to you.
I wonder how these atheists who are shouting this guy down, know that he should be shouted down in the first place, unless he is preaching on campus or in some other way sticking his nose where it doesn’t belong.
Quote:
Can the same not be said about atheists abusing outsiders?
I don’t understand what the connection is here between this and what you’re responding to
Does it not make sense that if you are saying that “One of the benefits of privilege is not having to see the ways in which members of one’s own class abuse outsiders” that could be stated about atheists too? Perhaps you do not see the abuse that atheists give out because you yourself are one?
Quote:
I haven’t formed an opinion about all evangelists.
But you clearly imply that you have. You say: “Tell me, have you ever actually taken any time to look at how evangelists treat nonbelievers? If this is something that you actually care about, why not pose as an atheist in a Christian forum and see how you are treated?” From this quote we can tell that this is not a specific group of evangelists but in fact evangelists in general. We can also guess at what opinions you have formed, I could list some guesses but I wouldn’t want to make any assumptions would I?
Quote:
I raised a direct and immediate comparison between your attitude and racism
Fair point, I should not generalise statements just because of my limited experiences. But I think you have done the same with evangelists, I hope that in reality I am wrong.
Quote:
The ‘falsehood’ I take issue with is the assumption that atheists are not as aggressive as humans.
I never made any such claim. Or assumption.
Sorry, phrased my statement wrong, I meant to say “Christians” not “humans”.
You also say that “infringement is a type of impact” and but also that they “aren’t even similar”? They sound pretty similar to me, perhaps that one is a watered down version of the other to include more ideas, but apart from that they are identical.
Quote:
You don’t have a “human right” against others being rude.
I have accepted that my initial definition of human rights was wrong and there is no need to restate the mistake unless you require an apology for the mistake.
Quote:
I expect you to be able to demonstrate how it commits the same fallacy
Let me re-phrase my question. Please explain the difference between saying “based on your world view” and “Look for such evidence with an open mind”. I think they are the same, you clearly do not please explain why they are not which you have not done yet. Thankyou.
Quote:
I’m not going to repeat again how and why your original position is fallacious
I did not ask you too.
As for your final point, no spoon feeding is not what I desire. As I previously stated my reasoning for wanting to talk to you was that I did not know the questions that you would ask. Because of this I could not find what I have learnt previously in the website because honestly I did not know what I was looking for but I did want to find out more about atheism and the limitations of my on religion. I am truly sorry for what you may think of as me wasting your time, but I would not have found the same questions of my faith and some of my questions of atheism so completely answered. If I had looked through the site and found all I could from that from it the discussion would still have taken place but perhaps some of the issues would not have been raised.
Finally my first comment did not really require answering, this whole debate was not really my idea. You posted your opinion, I posted mine and I expected it to be left at that, but as I usually do I looked at the thread the next day to see if there was a reply. I was surprised that the author had replied and I seized the opportunity to find out from a specialist their beliefs. I did not come to this site looking for information, I came to this site from a google search. Perhaps if I had come here specifically for information I would like to think I would have read, if briefly, through the site. But as the discussion got more and more involved I saw that there was no need to sift as I could just ask you the question straight out since we were in a discussion anyway.
response to blackmetalworkshop:
No, it stemmed from initial interest from some or the wondering about why i did not join in with gratuitous swearing. But sadly there were some who just wanted to pick on the minority. The percentage of genuine interest to just bored aggressive questioning is probably about 50 50, well, i thought, cant really condemn atheists on those odds, but the more i asked most of the people who were jsut politely interested, if not all of them, were agnostic. But the other 50% just thought that it was outright ludicrous for someone today to believe in God, as was and still is frequently voiced
I don’t see the abuse you are complaining about because I am not where you are. And, I doubt your reporting.
And, you still aren’t answering my questions.
Only in your mind, where you transform others words into something almost unrecognizable. Stop substituting your own assumptions and thoughts for what others say and instead address only what they say based on the words they use.
Yes, I am asking if you have taken any time to look at how evangelists — in general — treat nonbelievers. For example, have you posed as a nonbeliever to see how they treat you?
You’re already doing that, because you are assuming that I have formed conclusions about evangelists generally when in fact I have simply asked you if you have spent any time at all trying to find out how evangelists generally behave.
It’s very significant that instead of actually answering the question, you try to attribute to me views I have not expressed.
So, do you retract your claim?
Yes, you do, but you have demonstrated very poor skills at accurately interpreting and representing others’ words.
Once again, I have not made any such claim. Curious that after you are forced to change your statement, you don’t do what should be obvious and point to exactly where I have expressed the position you seem to be trying to attribute to me.
Even after I gave the basic definitions? Curious how you don’t try to support your position even though I clearly provided independent, empirical support for what I’m saying.
An “effect” is not a “watered down version” of “violate.” An “influence” is not a “watered down version” of “undermine.”
Honestly, is English not your first language?
Sorry, I misread you – I thought you were trying to put “human rights” in place of “rights” when in fact you were trying to put “breaking the law” in there. But that’s far worse because being rude is even less of an example of “breaking the law” than it is of violating human rights.
Go ahead, but unless and until you retract your assertion that Stenger’s argument looks like yours, I expect you answer my question if you’re going to keep posting.
I don’t see the slightest similarity.
Then show how. After you answer my earlier questions. Or stop posting.
Yet you still don’t seem to recognize that it is.
Believer, you must live in an unusual part of the U.S.A. if you find that theists (or Christians) are in the minority (assuming that you ARE in the U.S.A.). I have never been anywhere (in or out of the country)where that was the case. Christians are a majority in the U.S.A. by an overwhelming margin. Atheists are the persecuted minority.
Quote:
And, you still aren’t answering my questions
Which questions?
Quote:
For example, have you posed as a nonbeliever to see how they treat you?
No, but I assure you I will
Quote:
assuming that I have formed conclusions about evangelists generally
It is not hard to see by your statement that you aren’t exactly defending them so to ask pointedly; do you have any general opinions about evangelists?
Quote:
So, do you retract your claim?
I do yes.
Quote:
Curious that after you are forced to change your statement
No, I wrote the wrong word and I was just apologising for that, is that an issue? I have already informed you about my dyslexia and yet you are exceedingly pedantic when I admit that I made a mistake, and even more so when I do not admit I make a mistake.
Quote:
Even after I gave the basic definitions? Curious how you don’t try to support your position even though I clearly provided independent, empirical support for what I’m saying
Ok, once again I apologise for substituting the words which I thought had the same meaning, I thought I did that already, if not then accept this apology.
Quote:
“human rights” in place of “rights” when in fact you were trying to put “breaking the law” in there. But that’s far worse because being rude is even less of an example of “breaking the law” than it is of violating human rights.
Sorry, I phrased that badly. What the point I meant to make was that I believe that people have the right to voice controversial beliefs that others, and society find distasteful. They may get a name for themselves but you cant just attack them because of it because they aren’t really breaking any rules, for example sexism, but they do not have the right to discriminate against women. That is breaking the law and therefore unacceptable.
Quote:
Then show how [they are similar]
They is ““based on your world view” and “Look for such evidence with an open mind”.”
My argument is that when forming your world view you will look at the evidence with an open mind. So by basing your assumptions on your world view, I am assuming that you have already based your world view on looking at the evidence with an open mind.
Quote:
Yet you still don’t seem to recognize that it is
If you have been paying attention I have not in my last few comments, or anywhere since you spelled the meaning out for me, that I have said that my early comment was not a false dilemma fallacy. Are you perhaps trying to attribute words to me that I have not used? Because certainly like to hope that would never do that again.
Believer, you must live in an unusual part of the U.S.A. if you find that theists (or Christians) are in the minority (assuming that you ARE in the U.S.A.). I have never been anywhere (in or out of the country)where that was the case. Christians are a majority in the U.S.A. by an overwhelming margin. Atheists are the persecuted minority.
Response to Eric (4tunate1)
I do not live in the USA, although I do have family there and go there often, so I can limitedly comment on the fact that I agree that there is a vast minority of atheists. I live in England, where there is a vast majority, especially in private secondary schools, of atheists. Perhaps we would be happier if we swapped countries?
well, Believer, Austin has pretty much answered your comment made earlier for me.
Quote:
My argument is that when forming your world view you will look at the evidence with an open mind. So by basing your assumptions on your world view, I am assuming that you have already based your world view on looking at the evidence with an open mind.
As far as i can tell the only one who isnt entirely open minded is you here. You have been brought up in a Christian family and have been ‘indoctrinated’ into christian belief. It can then be hard to think of the possibility that atheism has a valid arguement.
you said that i should take more interest in my own effort in learning, i have done and i have found another article of yours that i disagree with:
http://atheism.about.com/od/whatisgod/p/AbuserAbusive.htm
Quote:
Abusers instill fear in their spouses; believers are instructed to fear God. Abusers are unpredictable and given to dramatic mood swings; God is depicted as alternating between love and violence. Abused spouses avoid topics which set off the abuser; believers avoid thinking about certain things to avoid angering God. Abusers make one feel like there is no way to escape a relationship; believers are told that there is no way to escape God’s wrath and eventual punishment.
God does not threaten or attack the spouse he threatens or attacks the person/people threatening the spouse. You, show here that you have no grasp on Old Testament theology and I now doubt you as a reporter.
Quote:
God is portrayed as using violence to force people to comply with certain rules and Hell is the ultimate threat of violence.
You fail to mention the fact that very few abusers offer reward incentive as well as punishment incentive. Far more like the parent child relationship than the spousal relationship don’t you think? If the does something wrong then they get punished and if the child does something good then they get rewarded. Admittedly very few parents would punish so severely but apart from that you don’t have a leg to stand on. This point, I feel, undermines your whole article.
You would think so. But if that was the case why have i been through periods of agnosticism in my life if i am truly so indoctrinated?
Oh, and don’t say because reason briefly shines through because other wise there would be no born agnostics who turn to theism over atheism and i can tell you in England it is definately not peer pressure which forces people to religion.
I’m done going back to find, copy, and past questions you ignore. You’re capable of figuring out what you’ve ignored and what you’ve answered.
Not until they start speaking.
It’s not pedantic to expect clarity. It’s certainly not pedantic to object when you fail to acknowledge a mistake.
What? What you wrote was a defense of your original assertion that the two words meant the same. That does not, by any stretch of the imagination, qualify as an apology for making a mistake.
Let’s look again at your exact words: “They sound pretty similar to me, perhaps that one is a watered down version of the other to include more ideas, but apart from that they are identical.”
Is that what you are sincerely saying what you thought was an apology “for substituting the words which I thought had the same meaning”??? This isn’t dyslexia, it’s dishonesty.
No.
You were quite clear about the “they” originally, but now you are drastically altering them.
You quoted my summary of Stenger’s argument — you quoted it in full, not in part, and said “that is a very good way of saying what you decribed as a “False Dilemma fallacy” I think.” [emphasis added]. What did I describe as a False Dilemma fallacy? Your original position: that the only two options are for one side to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that you have to pick a position based on your own view of the world.
So the “they” were always clear: Stenger’s full argument and your full original position. If that had been a case where you didn’t write what you meant, you would have corrected me when I asked you to explain exactly how Stenger’s argument commits the fallacy I said you committed. That request only makes sense under the condition that the two full positions were being treated as roughly equivalent. It makes no sense if you were only trying to compare two small portions.
Lots of people don’t. Indeed, it may be that most people don’t. So if your “argument” is that this is the norm, it’s patently false.
More important, you have not acknowledged that it was a fallacy and retracted it. In the absence of this, I have to assume that you stand by it.
Or do you imagine that I can read your mind and know immediately when you have changed it?
Anyone who has read the Old Testament will recognize that God threatens Israel — the “spouse” — if they don’t obey. Since there are several cases where they disobey, there are also cases where God punishes them, promising to stop the punishment as soon as the “spouse” apologize and submits to the authority of God again. Much like an abusive spouse.
Actually, they do offer what they consider rewards: they will love and treat the spouse well.
Maybe if you knew more about abusive spouses, as well as the Old Testament, you’d be a more credible critic.
FYI, merely finding something that you “disagree with” is not learning. To learn something means to acquire new information, ideas, perspectives, etc. Since you did not stop to look at how God is portrayed in the Old Testament in a new way, you did not in fact learn anything new. Since you did not set aside your prior assumptions derived from your faith-based beliefs in order to serious consider a different perspective, I would say that you also didn’t put more effort into learning.
My argument is that when forming your world view you will look at the evidence with an open mind.
To have an open mind is to be able to accept that you might be wrong be available to new ideas that fly in the face of one’s beliefs, to be able to look at evidence that may directly refute one’s “world view” and not reject that evidence out of hand. To have an open mind one must be able to dispassionately set aside ones strongest beliefs when examining evidence.
Some people are good at this, others less so. YEC’s clearly dont have an open mind when they say the earth is 6000 or so years old despite the vast evidence to the contrary, they dont care about evidence they only care that when you add up all the begats in genesis you get 6000 years.
Cdesign Proponentsists dont have an open mind towards the theory of evolution despite the vast evidence that the theory works, predicts accurately and otherwise does all the things a good scientific theory should do, their “world view” requires a supernatural designer.
To be fair its not just Theists who fail in this at times, I think its natural for people to tend towards clinging to their beliefs.
If the sign of an open mind though is a person who could set aside long held beliefs, you’ll hopefully forgive us if we say is not something we tend to see much if ever from theists.
Having skimmed the above posts, I notice the claims by a poster that atheists are “all” intolerant, loud, etc. This is a stupid comment, because most atheists never talk about their atheism, let alone religion. They have opted out. They want religious people to leave them alone, and they do not care about religion. Anybody who actually pays attention to declining church attendance, declining levels or religiosity, and declining involvement in religion must be able to figure this out.
Oh, and I posted on Charles Lumia’s site. How much do you want to bet he deletes my critical post? These lemmings who claim to be atheist, yet do all the priests’ work for them are a bunch of intellectual frauds.
Quote:
My argument is that when forming your world view you will look at the evidence with an open mind.
Lots of people don’t
And I think that we can both agree that that is a true shame. We should all, at some point in our lives, be able to throw off the preconceptions hammered into us from childhood. If it is not too bold, were your parents theist or otherwise?
Quote:
Anyone who has read the Old Testament will recognize that God threatens Israel — the “spouse” — if they don’t obey.
Would you not stop being so nice to your wife and perhaps rebuke and reprimand your spouse if for instance she was having an affair?
Quote:
Maybe if you knew more about abusive spouses
Happily I do not.
Quote:
FYI, merely finding something that you “disagree with” is not learning. To learn something means to acquire new information, ideas, perspectives, etc. Since you did not stop to look at how God is portrayed in the Old Testament in a new way, you did not in fact learn anything new.
*sigh*. One of my few atheist friends pointed out after my last post how unbelievably stupid it was to challenge a man who has studied for one year each at the University of Zurich and the Ludwig-Maximillian University in Munich, Germany. In America, Germany, and Switzerland, Austin has studied both religion and philosophy and I apologise for it unreservedly, if nothing else let me keep my preconceptions a little longer (that was a joke don’t attack it). (got it off of your Facebook group)Also seeing as I brought it up assuming the group is correct and you indeed said “Both atheism and agnosticism are neglected in popular culture” that is quite possibly the case in America, but certainly not in Britain and even, I bet, non-believer would vouch for that.
Quote:
To have an open mind is to be able to accept that you might be wrong be available to new ideas that fly in the face of one’s beliefs, to be able to look at evidence that may directly refute one’s “world view” and not reject that evidence out of hand.
Hence I have frequently swung from Christian to agnostic and even briefly a lax atheist. As I think I previously said; I am here to be challenged and beaten in an argument about my faith, only in arguing with someone or looking at other people views can you learn more about why you think your position is credible. Oh, and Austin another reason why I prefer the debate is that if I had only read your blog then I would have believed my first comment. I no longer do, showing that even by reading an opposing point of view is not enough for me, I cannot vouch for others, to learn.
Quote:
Having skimmed the above posts, I notice the claims by a poster that atheists are “all” intolerant, loud, etc. This is a stupid comment, because most atheists never talk about their atheism, let alone religion. They have opted out. They want religious people to leave them alone, and they do not care about religion. Anybody who actually pays attention to declining church attendance, declining levels or religiosity, and declining involvement in religion must be able to figure this out.
Oh, and I posted on Charles Lumia’s site. How much do you want to bet he deletes my critical post? These lemmings who claim to be atheist, yet do all the priests’ work for them are a bunch of intellectual frauds.
It is certainly not right to group people together, although Austin has kindly pointed out several points where I have done that and I will try to work on that, it is one the things I protested about in my first post. Is another thing that we can all agree on is to not judge a book by its cover?
p.s. Drew, quite funny, at least I didn’t contradict myself in my first statement, (and Austin if im putting words in people’s mouth then please feel free to ignore it) were you not implying that the poster was bad because it labelled all atheists as being loud intolerant etc. then you labelled all people like Lumia as “These lemmings who claim to be atheist, yet do all the priests’ work for them are a bunch of intellectual frauds” or were you only referring to the “lemmings” you had encountered?
Quote:
I’m done going back to find, copy, and past questions you ignore. You’re capable of figuring out what you’ve ignored and what you’ve answered.
To me this seems like you are getting a bit exasperated with me (cant say I blame you) and that was definitely not my initial aim so I this we should start to bring this to a close. I propose that you make your final statements ask your final questions I will answer and not ask any more questions and we’ll leave it at that. Also, for me, this is fairly time consuming and at a time of exams I need to focus on what you Americans would call my studies, also I have had enough of learning/having my butt handed to me.
I would not abuse my wife — I would not inflict any sort of physical punishment, trauma, pain, or harm upon her. That’s what an abusive spouse does with the slightest excuse. That’s what the God of the Old Testament did to people who failed to submit to its authority in whatever way it deemed necessary.
Thank you for helping demonstrate the difference between a real relationship and an abusive relationship.
There’s nothing dumb about challenging someone if you are confident that you’re right. The more of an expert they are in their field, the more sure you better be. Don’t challenge a professional biologist on evolution without really, really knowing your stuff — but you can challenge them on their views about taxation more readily. The less sure you are, the more cautious you should be in your challenge. The smartest way to go about it is to ask a lot of questions. That way if you find out you were wrong, you haven’t made an obvious “challenge” and can back out gracefully. And you’ll have learned something.
You might notice that I’m in the habit of focusing on asking questions, no matter who I’m talking to. You included. If I’m wrong, I learn something and don’t look too foolish. If I’m right, maybe the other person will come to realize through their problems in answering the questions — and a person who figures out something on their own tends to remember it better than if simply told it outright.
I won’t claim that my approach is perfect or that there aren’t situations were it’s inferior to something else, but it seems to stand a good chance of more positive results, on average, than other approaches.
Agnosticism is not necessarily incompatible with Christianity. It’s definitely incompatible with traditional, orthodox Christianity because this requires treating the existence of God as something that can be and is known. If you adopt a far more liberal perspective, though, you can take the position that you don’t know for sure if this god exists, but believing that some form of Christianity is the best way to try to come to a better understanding of it.
Believer, in response to your comment to me:
well i have had brief moments of theism myself. but those beliefs were based on what i had been brought up around with my grandma taking me to church often when i was young, and that plus a combination of life events that lead me to ‘hope’ that there was a big man with a white beard in the clouds helping me through these times.
I have been brought up in a fairly christian environment but i have been thankfully allowed to make my own choice and have done so with an open mind. I have evaluated the arguments on both sides and come to a conclusion. This has led me to realize that its up to you to help yourself through life. nobody else has that responsibility.
Your brief moments of agnosticism are simply you questioning your faith as is right to do so. You cannot follow blindly 100% of the time after all. (Yes, often it IS reason shining through for a little while)
It is, after all, a hard story to believe if you have the arguments in front of you, and especially as you grow older.
The “dont question, just have faith” card is a very easy one to play in return to any evidence given to you. You may feel any evidence contradictory to the bibles teachings is just a challenge to your religious belief.
Believer said: Please explain the difference between saying “based on your world view” and “Look for such evidence with an open mind”. I think they are the same
I have given two examples of the difference between examining an issue “based on one’s world view” and “with an open mind” They are clearly not the same.
Believer said:Lots of people don’t And I think that we can both agree that that is a true shame. We should all, at some point in our lives, be able to throw off the preconceptions hammered into us from childhood. If it is not too bold, were your parents theist or otherwise?
We should indeed, My parents are Theist but largely non-observant, I was made to attend church until about the age of nine or so, after which they asked if I wished to continue. Its never been an issue.
Did we have two “Believers”posting. The earlier seemed to have no knowledge for the need to capitalise the first person perpendicular pronoun whilst the later one did. However that was a digression.
Earlier it was stated the impossibility of proving the non existence of a God scientifically. Simple , as in all scientific
work evidence to the contrary that would prove the theory wrong. As no replicable, verifiable evidence for the existence of any God has ever been found, the answer must be. No Gods.
Quote:
I would not abuse my wife — I would not inflict any sort of physical punishment, trauma, pain, or harm upon her. That’s what an abusive spouse does with the slightest excuse. That’s what the God of the Old Testament did to people who failed to submit to its authority in whatever way it deemed necessary.
Thank you for helping demonstrate the difference between a real relationship and an abusive relationship.
What if she did it right in front of you after you had just bought her a car? (never mind, unless this has happened I don’t think we know how we would react. I personally think I would apoplectic with rage and not know what I was doing)
Quote:
The more of an expert they are in their field, the more sure you better be
Can any normal college student hope to be able to even give you a biblical workout? (in this case I am saying normal as having any kind of social life) So I apologise again for challenging you on this topic.
Quote:
You might notice that I’m in the habit of focusing on asking questions, no matter who I’m talking to. You included. If I’m wrong, I learn something and don’t look too foolish. If I’m right, maybe the other person will come to realize through their problems in answering the questions — and a person who figures out something on their own tends to remember it better than if simply told it outright.
Good to know how to argue your point more persuasively, thanks for the tip.
Quote:
If you adopt a far more liberal perspective, though, you can take the position that you don’t know for sure if this god exists, but believing that some form of Christianity is the best way to try to come to a better understanding of it.
That sounds more like me. I believe (at least at the moment) God is out there, I believe he is the Christian God, but I am still struggling profoundly with all of the problems with any blanket theory.
Quote:
It is, after all, a hard story to believe if you have the arguments in front of you, and especially as you grow older.
Depends, in my opinion, what you class as all the evidence. All the evidence supporting what you want to find; that there is no God and you can really do whatever you want with no question of morality. Or do you mean all of the evidence period? Because I think they bring wildly different results.
Quote:
The “dont question, just have faith” card is a very easy one to play in return to any evidence given to you. You may feel any evidence contradictory to the bibles teachings is just a challenge to your religious belief.
That I agree with. Blind faith is foolish (and Austin I think there is an old testament quote that directly contradicts that, please just let it lie), we must question what we were brought up to believe, consider the alternatives and make our best educated guess. Furthermore what I feel some people miss is the fact that once the decision is made it still has to be revisited! Otherwise we would all make our judgements at age five and if not revisited would die believing in santa!
Quote:
We should indeed, My parents are Theist but largely non-observant, I was made to attend church until about the age of nine or so, after which they asked if I wished to continue. Its never been an issue.
Definitely good parenting, make them go for long enough to understand the argument not represented in schools or elsewhere in life then let them decide for themselves whether they want to continue. A round of applause for the parents world wide who inform but do not pressure their children. There are truly far too few of them!
Quote:
Did we have two “Believers”posting. The earlier seemed to have no knowledge for the need to capitalise the first person perpendicular pronoun whilst the later one did. However that was a digression.
Nope, only me. But I must admit that I am now using Microsoft word instead of the word pad program provided by the site, then copy and paste it in to avoid most spelling mistakes.
Quote:
Earlier it was stated the impossibility of proving the non existence of a God scientifically. Simple , as in all scientific
work evidence to the contrary that would prove the theory wrong. As no replicable, verifiable evidence for the existence of any God has ever been found, the answer must be. No Gods.
Reasonable conclusion, as long as we ignore all evidence for God it is clearly true that there is no evidence for God. But the problem comes when you start to realise that there is evidence for God all around, *argument of beauty of world pasted here*. But also the bible, many people are ready to dismiss it as a load of rubbish. Then why is it used as a reliable historical source by historians? If you question the bible, in particular the new testament, may I suggest the book “the case for christ” by Lee Strobel. He approaches the authenticity of the bible in what, for me, was a very convincing way while I was in one of my agnostic periods. So much that I haven’t even needed to finish the book, not through boredom, just that I was already convinced by the first half that I didn’t have to read the second.
Finally Austin, I can see that this wont end here so how about we turn this from a discussion into an informal chat? By this I mean shorter posts and only addressing one or two key points compactly in each. Oh, and my frequency of replies will probably decrease even further as my exams start to heat up even more.
I’m not sure, but it looks like you have forgotten that you’re trying to describe a legitimate analogy between human behavior and the behavior of the god of the Old Testament. Do you really want to try to describe and defend that god’s behavior with the above?
The answer to your question is: no, I wouldn’t. And lots of other people wouldn’t.
Perhaps, if they had spent their entire lives studying it.
That’s fine.
jolly good, much less aggressive.
quote:
Do you really want to try to describe and defend that god’s behavior with the above?
No, but what i was driving at was the fact that i think we agree that you would be right to punish your wife, just as god was right to punish the isrealites and now we are debating weather he was too severe. Is that fair?
Oh, and i’m not even going to pretend anymore that i understood the phrase “false dillemma fallacy” which i have now spelt wrong or the phrase “first person perpendicular pronoun”, sounds as though the person is perpendicular to the word :/ i’m sure that is not what it means. Oh, and i’m just going to throw the phrase “straw man fallacy” out there for fun to make myself look smarter.
And yes, maybe someone could give you a biblical work out if they had been studying the old testament in the womb but then they would have absolutely no life.
You never did tell me of your parents religious orientation.
Quote:
Depends, in my opinion, what you class as all the evidence. All the evidence supporting what you want to find; that there is no God and you can really do whatever you want with no question of morality. Or do you mean all of the evidence period? Because I think they bring wildly different results.
By this i mean enough evidence representing both sides of the argument by which you can then come to a conclusion.
ooo, rookie mistake. You never turn down more evidence do you Austin? You always always make your decision on all the evidence you can find.
No, we don’t agree that physical abuse or assault would be “right” in such circumstances.
I didn’t notice you asking, and it’s none of your business.
Sorry, I don’t understand your reference.
Quote:
No, we don’t agree that physical abuse or assault would be “right” in such circumstances.
Im not condoning the beating im condoning the punishing in general.
Also if i remember correctly in the Old Testament (from now on referred to as OT) God rarely actually attacked the isrealites, more often he would just stop blocking other countries from attacking them, am i right?
Quote:
it’s none of your business.
No offense meant, i was just interested.
Quote:
Sorry, I don’t understand your reference.
Never mind, I was just saying that you should always look for all the evidence, not just what evidence you deem to be sufficient, that way you can be even more sure of your conclusions.
Really? I thought you were condoning punishment in general, just not some specific forms of punishment.
So long as the harm only occurred because of the decisions and acts of this god, this god is responsible. You raised the parent/child analogy: what would think of a parent who punishes a child by allowing the local thugs to beat and gang rape them?
More evidence is better, but sufficient evidence is sufficient.
Quote:
Im not condoning the beating im condoning the punishing in general.
Really? I thought you were condoning punishment in general, just not some specific forms of punishment.
I think that is what I just said, is there something wrong with that too?
Quote:
So long as the harm only occurred because of the decisions and acts of this god, this god is responsible.
Do the decisions of the people who actually invaded have no bearing? If you protect someone then they make it abundantly clear that you don’t need or want their help is it not loving to let them learn the lesson. You actually dont need to answer seeing as you already answered the question earlier saying that “a person who figures out something on their own tends to remember it better than if simply told it outright”. So in the long run God was saving pain don’t you see?
Quote:
You raised the parent/child analogy: what would think of a parent who punishes a child by allowing the local thugs to beat and gang rape them?
It would be appaulling, but a parent who lets their child graze their knee while doing something dangerous has just educated them in the harshness of hte world outside of their loving grip showing them how truly loving and patient they were and also displaying excellent parenting skills. If you agree with this then we accept that the method is valid and are once again arguing over the question of did God take it too far, can we agree on that?
There clearly needs to be a lot more thought put into this by me, but as a gut instinct i would say that there are aspects of both the parent child and spousal relationships in the relationship between man and his God.
Right, sorry, I misunderstood.
I should have said: you can’t make your argument work without defending the specific punishments in question. As soon as you condemn the specific punishments, you’re agreeing with my article on at least some levels.
Yes, but responsibility can be shared widely.
No “buts” about it. You can’t switch to a simple grazed knee and expect that to justify gang rape.
What you need to do is put more research into it. According to traditional Jewish theology, Israel and God are betrothed or married. Israel is frequently referred to as a woman and God is Israel’s new husband. In fact, this relationship tend to be emphasized just when God is complaining about Israel being unfaithful and needing to be punished.
Quote:
As soon as you condemn the specific punishments, you’re agreeing with my article on at least some levels.
And as soon as you agree that God was right to punish in some form, you agree with my point on at least some levels.
Quote:
You can’t switch to a simple grazed knee and expect that to justify gang rape.
Now, the problem we have is that if I had made my knee grazing point before your gang rape one I could have said exactly the same thing to you, so does you saying it first make your position more valid?
Quote:
According to traditional Jewish theology, Israel and God are betrothed or married
I did not know that, that may be because i’m not jewish but that’s by the by.
Maybe, do you want to dicuss the topic in terms of baptist teachings, I could probably back them up better.
1. I don’t agree.
2. Since your “point” is supposed to be that my article was wrong, I’d like to see you explain how it is that even the justness of some sort of punishment validates that position.
You couldn’t have made that “knee grazing point” first because that would have been an illegitimate comparison with the sorts of harm suffered by the Israelites. Indeed, you can’t make it now for the same reason. The two simply aren’t comparable.
Unless Baptists wrote the OT, their teachings aren’t relevant to my article because my article is a comparison between the portrayal of the god in the OT with the sorts of behavior common to abusers.
Quote:
And as soon as you agree that God was right to punish in some form, you agree with my point on at least some levels.
1. I don’t agree.
Seeing as you have not raised any issues with my analogy I can now only assume that you believe that you should not treat your spouse any differently if they do anything or everything to abuse your trust, and I don’t think any human could realistically pull that off.
Quote:
You couldn’t have made that “knee grazing point” first because that would have been an illegitimate comparison with the sorts of harm suffered by the Israelites. Indeed, you can’t make it now for the same reason. The two simply aren’t comparable.
Let’s take a cold hearted standpoint on this just for a moment and think of Israel as a being of some kind. Just like grazing a knee would seem excruciatingly painful to a child at the time, ten minutes later it will barely be able to force a shudder at remembering it. Now lets apply the theory to Isreal taking it to be a being of some kind; as Israel has been around for much longer it will ofcourse remember the pain for much longer but in the long run did it actually hurt the ‘being’ as a whole? No, but it did teach them about the harsh world outside of God’s loving grip.
Quote:
Unless Baptists wrote the OT, their teachings aren’t relevant to my article because my article
Not sure i agree with that. Even though it is obvious that Baptists did not write the OT, the fact that they having differing teachings on the material perhaps to the ones that you are disagreeing with makes me even more unqualified to comment, you may have noticed that still isnt stopping me
.
You need to work on your powers of imagination. The simple fact of the matter is, my spouse is an independent, autonomous human being whom I shouldn’t “punish” regardless of her behavior.
That would be an inappropriate analogy as well, because Israel is in fact a collection of beings — some of whom may be acting inappropriately and some of whom are surely not. Or are you trying to cover up the fact that you are advocating the infliction of harm on innocent people who have done nothing wrong?
So the people experiencing rape and, well, being killed shouldn’t regard that as anything more than a brief inconvenience that will be over quickly then forgotten?
Feel free to explain what’s wrong with it.
Quote:
The simple fact of the matter is, my spouse is an independent, autonomous human being whom I shouldn’t “punish” regardless of her behavior.
Not to seem rude, but could you pull off that contrite under such antagonising circumstances? I mean we, infrequently, have started to push the boundries of politeness in this debate and if someone disagreeing with your religious views, or lack thereof, can get you this riled up can you honestly say that under extreme circumstances you might treat someone who has inentionally hurt and offended you greatly less nicely? Because, usually, and please correct me if im wrong, as i said before God more frequently removed barriers to invasion than actually attacked israel personally.
Quote:
So the people experiencing rape and, well, being killed shouldn’t regard that as anything more than a brief inconvenience that will be over quickly then forgotten?
I did not say that, and seeing as you did not rip into my analogy I can only assume that it is at the very least adequate. I am saying think of Israel as a whole not a collection of people. God did not condone the murder of the entire race, just the parent does not condone the murder of the child but does condone the murder of some of the skin on the childs knee. And yes this is a heartless, but functional, way of looking at it.
Quote:
Unless Baptists wrote the OT, their teachings aren’t relevant to my article because my article
Not sure i agree with that.
Feel free to explain what’s wrong with it.
Do you have exactly the same theory of evolution as Darwin? (no, since you said you believe in evolutionary theory instead) Yet you can still comment on evolution? In this analogy I am trying to show that even if you didn’t start/write the idea you own views are valid and since they still have the same fundamental beliefs but with some minor details changed it means that you can discuss evolution in terms of evolutionary theory or Darwinism, just as you can discuss in terms of OT authors and Baptist interpretations of the teachings.
I have no trouble not punishing her under any circumstances. I’m simply not that sort of person.
I’m not riled up. I’m not even vaguely emotional over anything you’ve said. Your powers of mind reading are poor at best.
And to continue the analogy, I would not “punish” my wife by removing barriers to others beating, raping, or murdering her. Such an act would be grossly immoral no matter what the circumstances. They would certainly qualify as extremely abusive and, as such, would only be characteristic of an abusive spouse — thus all your analogy does is reinforce my original argument.
Quite the contrary: I’m ripping into the foundation of your analogy.
That’s my point: if your analogy depends on ignoring or dismissing the humanity of all the humans beings involved, if it requires turning a blind eye to all their suffering, then your analogy fails a crucial test of reality because it ignores one of the most important aspects of what is purported to have occurred. What’s more, the gross immorality of that only serves to underscore the basic points in my original article. Again.
No, because I don’t have a “theory of evolution.” Science does.
This isn’t even close to a legitimate analogy.
I”m not saying that you or Baptists can’t comment on the Old Testament. People do it all the time. No one is stopping them.
A more legitimate analogy would be the idea that if someone is going to critique Darwin’s ideas, they can do so just as well by relying on my (or your) understanding and interpretation of Darwin’s writings as they could by looking at how Darwin explained his ideas himself. Do you actually believe that this would be a fair position for someone to take? I hope not because it’s utterly asinine.
The best that can be said here, I think, is that you have made a serious error in trying to substitute “comment on” for “use sectarian theology and teachings as a foundation for one’s understanding of” as if the two were equivalent. This suggests that you still have a problem with substituting one concept for something radically different.
My article, which you tried to criticize (though you have thus far hardly even tried to substantiate your criticisms), is all about comparing the depiction of God in the Old Testament with the standard characteristics used to identify spousal abusers. The depiction of God in the Old Testament is best approached through the teachings of those who created the character, Jews, and not through Baptist re-interpretations created thousands of years later.
What I’m saying is that Baptist teachings — Baptist theology, tradition, etc. — isn’t relevant whereas Jewish teaching is. The texts were created by Jews, for Jews, and in a Jewish context. It is therefore their teachings which are most relevant when trying to understand how certain phrases, ideas, and stories are intended. Baptist interpretations created thousands of years later just don’t matter to anyone except Baptists.
When I discuss the role of abusive language and actions in the Bible in informing abusive relationships among Christians today, then I’ll bring Protestant teachings into it.
Quote:
I’m not even vaguely emotional over anything you’ve said.
Quote:
I hope not because it’s utterly asinine
Unless that was said in a completely matter of fact tone, which is hard to convey over the internet, is that not a contradiction? I would certainly say, if not earlier accused of jumping to conclusions, that that was a display of an emotion.
Quote:
I have no trouble not punishing her under any circumstances. I’m simply not that sort of person.
As I said earlier I believe that we cannot know how we would react under such circumstances. So unless you wish to back up your point with evidence I suggest we drop this point.
Quote:
No, because I don’t have a “theory of evolution.” Science does.
Is that not like me saying; “I don’t have a God, Christianity does”?
Quote:
What I’m saying is that Baptist teachings — Baptist theology, tradition, etc. — isn’t relevant whereas Jewish teaching is.
My point I feel has been warped from my original, entirely my fault as in my confusion I supported an opinion I do not have. My original point was that I would be more able to discuss any topic if it was brought within the sphere of Baptist teaching as, clearly, I am not too well versed in the teachings of Judaism.
Also, I am probably wrong because I doubt you would have made such a mistake, are you not actually guilty of the straw man fallacy; attacking God to undermine the bible specifically the Old Testament?
Quote:
Your powers of mind reading are poor at best.
And after all that practice! I’m devastated!!
There is simply no basis for having any emotional involvement in anything you write. Your views are not personally important to me — and that would be true even if you agreed with me 100%.
There is no inherent emotion in noting that some position is asinine. There are lots of positions, ideas, opinions out there that are appropriately described as ridiculous, absurd, silly, asinine, etc.
It shouldn’t be that hard to understand: deciding to punish a person requires a particular attitude towards your relationship with that person and where they stand with you socially. I don’t have such an attitude towards my wife because I don’t regard her as inferior.
That is, however, the sort of attitude which abusers have towards spouses. It’s the sort of attitude which misogynists have towards women generally. Insofar as I have not demonstrated abusive and/or misogynistic attitudes towards my wife in particular and women in general, that qualifies as evidence that I’m not the sort to presume to punish her for anything she might do.
Absolutely not because you’re looking at radically different sorts of relationships. I simply accept the theory of evolution thus far worked out by science. I don’t have any personal, psychological, or emotional involvement with that theory. If it changed tomorrow based on some new evidence, so be it — that would have no impact on how I live my life.
This isn’t even vaguely similar to how a Christian sees their relationship with their god.
In the context of the article you linked to, there wouldn’t be much point.
First, I’m not “attacking God” but rather pointing out moral and character flaws in the figure of God as described in the Old Testament.
Second, nothing in the article’s argument does anything to “undermine” the Bible, unless you are referring to the Bible’s moral authority.
Insofar as the Old Testament is supposed to be a history of a god’s policies, directives, decisions, and intentions, criticism of this god’s morality and character as a means to call into question the Bible’s moral, ethical, or political authority would not be a “straw man” fallacy. It would only be such a fallacy if I misrepresented the character of this deity.
@Believer
I just wanted to point out a serious flaw in yourreasoning for your conclusion toward the existence of god.
Quote :
Earlier it was stated the impossibility of proving the non existence of a God scientifically. Simple , as in all scientific
work evidence to the contrary that would prove the theory wrong. As no replicable, verifiable evidence for the existence of any God has ever been found, the answer must be. No Gods.
Reasonable conclusion, as long as we ignore all evidence for God it is clearly true that there is no evidence for God. But the problem comes when you start to realise that there is evidence for God all around, *argument of beauty of world pasted here*.
Argument for the beauty of the world is a fallacy. Beauty is defined by a set of personal tatse, what you find beautiful can be abhorent to others, as such it is no proof at all of the existence of god.
As an exemple, you may enjoy a day spent in the sun, I personaly find this an excruciating experience. You might enjoy the smell of roses, I don’t.
Evidence in science must be non subjective to be used. This is why the argument for the beauty of the world cannot be used. Likewise, having had a personal experience where god talked to you is not proof, if this was said out of a religious context the person making the claim would be diagnosed with mental instability of some sort.
I’m not saying you had such an experience, I’m just trying to give an exemple of another regularly used “argument” used by theists wich cannot be applied.
Learning to recognise what is and is not a valid observation is a vital part of the scientific process.
Use accurate data, not personal feelings and tastes
Also, I apologise in advance for spelling mistakes or possible non sensical phrasing. English isn’t my primary language.
Quote:
There is simply no basis for having any emotional involvement in anything you write
My basis is that I would not even be here if I was not passionate for my point of view, and I don’t think you would be either.
Quote:
It shouldn’t be that hard to understand: deciding to punish a person requires a particular attitude towards your relationship with that person and where they stand with you socially. I don’t have such an attitude towards my wife because I don’t regard her as inferior.
Correct, women should not be treated as inferior, no one should, but peoples’ attitudes change in lieu of extraneous circumstances do they not? I will try to make a comparison; God loves us but under the extraneous circumstances we put him in and his need to be just it may not seem like it.
Quote:
Misogynists
No idea what this is, is it inherently important?
Quote:
If it changed tomorrow based on some new evidence, so be it — that would have no impact on how I live my life.
If science came out tomorrow saying that they had conclusive proof of God, admittedly unlikely, I think that may well affect your life in a small way, don’t you?
Now on to Berior:
Quote:
Argument for the beauty of the world is a fallacy. Beauty is defined by a set of personal tatse, what you find beautiful can be abhorent to others, as such it is no proof at all of the existence of god.
By beauty of the world I meant it in the terms of such obvious design and forethought. To use you examples:
“As an exemple, you may enjoy a day spent in the sun, I personaly find this an excruciating experience. You might enjoy the smell of roses, I don’t.”
Its not the fact that the sun is nice, or that roses smell good. Its that they are there and with such design in the first place! Your answer may well just be “EVOLUTION!” and I am fine with that, I believe in evolutionary theory to the extent of my knowledge of it.
Quote:
Likewise, having had a personal experience where god talked to you is not proof, if this was said out of a religious context the person making the claim would be diagnosed with mental instability of some sort
Another mistake, I have never heard a Christian say “I had a vision, this proves God to the world” but instead it proves God to themselves, they try and convince people that the vision is genuine but never have I heard it used as conclusive proof in an intelligible debate about God.
Being passionate for a point of view isn’t the same as having an emotional involvement in what someone else writes. Are you not able to distinguish between the two?
Then you agree that adopting the attitude that one is in a position to “punish” one’s wife is wrong.
Sorry, but I can’t make sense out of this.
I don’t know. You quoted a single word out of context. If you have a question about what I have written, perhaps you should quote the full passage.
I just said it wouldn’t. Why would you respond by essentially saying, on no basis of evidence or argument, that you think it would?
Obvious? Sorry, not to me.
Feel free to provide proof of this “design.” Note: being beneficial to us today, well after the fact (origin of the sun) isn’t evidence of “design.” That would essentially be the same as saying that the banana was “designed” for us because it fits so well in our hand.
Quote:
Being passionate for a point of view isn’t the same as having an emotional involvement in what someone else writes. Are you not able to distinguish between the two?
No, unless you are saying “emotional involvement” is being in love with what I’m writing, which is understandable, then I can clearly see the difference, but this is not the definition I use.
Quote:
Then you agree that adopting the attitude that one is in a position to “punish” one’s wife is wrong.
Only if you take the position that to punish a murderer is wrong. I do not believe that they are inferior people, and I hope you do not either, yet I would feel no qualms about punishing them.
Quote:
God loves us but under the extraneous circumstances we put him in and his need to be just it may not seem like it.
Sorry, but I can’t make sense out of this.
Sorry, this means that God loves us but he is also just (as in fair/justice etc.) when we do something wrong there is therefore an inner conflict, so, I believe, that he punishes us, which we deserve, in the fairest way and with the highest probability of learning from our mistakes.
Quote:
No idea what this is, is it inherently important?
I don’t know. You quoted a single word out of context. If you have a question about what I have written, perhaps you should quote the full passage.
I was just asking if the exact reference was important or just the general theme and basis of your argument that was important or were the specific facts of the misogynists important.
Quote:
By beauty of the world I meant it in the terms of such obvious design and forethought.
Obvious? Sorry, not to me.
Hard luck then.
Quote:
Its not the fact that the sun is nice, or that roses smell good. Its that they are there and with such design in the first place!
Feel free to provide proof of this “design.”
The cell by cell, atom by atom construction of the universe for one, the probability of this, ie the universe, happening by chance is far more unlikely than the idea that a god made it, at least in my opinion. The basis of science was once quoted as being along the lines of “to find the order to the universe” (sorry could not find the direct quote) and if there is no God, how can it be assumed that there is an order to the universe?
oh, if you want to get this back discussion back on topic a member of my church (older) has some problems with your article. Now I will not be able to argue these points as I did not make them, but I thought it only fair to at least offer you right of response.
No, I’m using “emotional involvement” to cover, among other things, the idea that your comments would get me “riled up.” There is nothing about any opinion you have written or even could write that would get me “riled up.” Or happy. I have no “emotional involvement” in anything you write. This doesn’t mean that I have no passions about anything I do — it just means that those passions don’t extend to anything you do.
So what you’re telling me is that you are unable to distinguish between a person being passionate for a point of view and that person getting “riled up” by statements made by others — you regard the two as completely equivalent such that one could be substitute for the other without any change in meaning or sense.
Really?
The state punishes a murder based on the authority invested in the state by the people. So for this analogy to work, you must see a man’s relationship with his wife as analogous to a state’s relationship with the people; you must see a man has having authority over his wife being analogous to the state’s authority over citizens.
If you say “no” to either or both, then your analogy necessarily fails: unless the two relationships and two authorities are analogous, then it’s not possible to construct the analogy “if it’s wrong to say that you’re in a position to punish one’s wife, then it’s wrong to say the state is in a position to punish a murderer.”
It’s partially because I deny that my relationship to my wife is anything like the state’s relationship to citizens that I deny that I am in any position to “punish” her. Our relationship bears no resemblance to any sort of relationship where one party is in a position of authority to punish the other.
You, however, seem to have trouble conceiving of marriage in such terms.
1. You are not punishing murderers, the state is. That’s why the key to your analogy is the relationship between the state and the murderer, not the relationship between you and the murderer.
2. The definition of “inferior” is: “lower in station, rank, degree, or grade; lower in place or position.” When it comes to the enforcement of laws, a citizens is under the authority of the state; a citizen is subjected to the decisions of the state; a citizen’s future (if convicted) will be controlled by the state. With murderers specifically, even if eventually released they can no longer vote, thus denying them even that bit sovereign authority.
Thus in what I think is every relevant sense: a convicted murder does indeed become “inferior” to the state. This of course brings us back to what I said above: your analogy only works if you regard women as inferior to men, wives as inferior to husbands, and wives as subject to the authority and control of their husbands. These attitudes are necessary in order to insist that a man would ever be right to “punish” his wife for anything she has done.
Did you stop to look up the meaning of “punish”? “To impose a penalty for some transgression.”
Did you stop to look up “reprimand”? “To rebuke, esp. a formal one by a person in authority.”
To say that it is OK for a husband to “reprimand his wife” is to assert that he has a position of authority over her. To say that it is OK for a husband to “punish his wife” is also to assert that he has a position of authority over her because only a person with authority could determine that some “transgression” has been made or impose a “penalty” on another person. So every time you defend the idea of a man punishing or reprimanding his wife, you defend the idea that men have specific, gender-based authority over women.
And I’ll remind you that you have already stated that you are “condoning the punishing in general,” i.e. the right or authority of husbands to punish wives. This is an outrageous and absurd position that is unworthy of any serious consideration. It’s no better than saying that you condone the principle that white people have the authority to punish blacks or that Christians have the authority to punish Jews.
Now, let’s go back to the point where all the discussion about punishing wives started:
Your response to this seemed to be an effort to argue that such behavior by God should be regarded as “OK” because isn’t that how men treat women? Well, it isn’t how men should treat women; when they do, that’s part of being abusive — though it’s psychologically abusive, not necessarily physically abusive. Thus I continue to stand by what I originally wrote and must point out that you haven’t really even disputed it, never mind argued against it.
First, this assumes that God has some sort of authority to punish.
Second, this assumes that the punishments recorded in religious texts are indeed fair and just. Even just limiting ourselves to the relevant context — my article comparing the relationship between God and the ancient Jews with the relationship between an abusive husband and a battered spouse — this requires you to defend punishments of mass killing, suffering, and abuse. If we go beyond that it just gets worse.
Sorry, I still don’t know what you want. You’ll need to be specific and clear.
Not really: design and forethought are things that must be demonstrable. Simply saying that they are “obvious” without being able to demonstrate them is thus a tacit admission that they aren’t there.
Feel free to demonstrate how this is “design.”
Statistics isn’t a matter of opinion, but rather of math. If you are going to offer probability as an argument, you must also be able to provide numbers to back that up and know enough about those numbers to defend them.
So? If anyone has specific, substantive counter-arguments to offer then I’d be happy to consider them. Merely having “problems” though isn’t meaningful.
Right… like I would have a “response” to a an assertion that unknown person of unknown nature in an unknown location have unknown “problems” with some unknown portion of something I once wrote.
Remember what I wrote about needing to be “specific” and “clear”? Well, those principles apply generally, not just at that one point and they are something you seem to have trouble with. Consistently.
Quote:
So what you’re telling me is that you are unable to distinguish between a person being passionate for a point of view and that person getting “riled up” by statements made by others — you regard the two as completely equivalent such that one could be substitute for the other without any change in meaning or sense.
No, I just assume, for I only have personal experience, that if someone challenges your belief you will speak about it passionately and forcefully with the conversation, which is what this started as, turns quickly into an evermore heated debate. Even when I tried to slow down the tempo the length of messages quickly rebuilt and the tempo was resumed.
Quote:
The state punishes a murder based on the authority invested in the state by the people. So for this analogy to work, you must see a man’s relationship with his wife as analogous to a state’s relationship with the people; you must see a man has having authority over his wife being analogous to the state’s authority over citizens.
Ok, better analogy; how about if the country was in anarchy and there was no central government. A man comes into your house and kills a member of your family, there is no government so would you take the law into your own hands???
Quote:
Our relationship bears no resemblance to any sort of relationship where one party is in a position of authority to punish the other.
These are the best type of relationships human, where both partners are equally invested; it gets rid of resentment. So my idea is to take this into a less personal area of using an analogy of some stranger as I do not want to cause any offense in defending my point.
Quote:
Did you stop to look up the meaning of “punish”? “To impose a penalty for some transgression.”
Did you stop to look up “reprimand”? “To rebuke, esp. a formal one by a person in authority.”
So do you have a problem with the new anarchy analogy, or is that not enough to satisfy equal status between accused and accuser?
Quote:
And I’ll remind you that you have already stated that you are “condoning the punishing in general,” i.e. the right or authority of husbands to punish wives. This is an outrageous and absurd position that is unworthy of any serious consideration. It’s no better than saying that you condone the principle that white people have the authority to punish blacks or that Christians have the authority to punish Jews.
Untrue! The examples you have given are hate crimes, the prosecuted have done nothing wrong, in my example, if I remember correctly, I was condoning punishment of wrongdoers and over that definition I can accept some quarrel. But you saying you don’t condone punishment you are taking up the position very rarely seen, and for good reason, in modern society. The no punishment system simply doesn’t work and forces anti-social extremes.
Quote:
Your response to this seemed to be an effort to argue that such behavior by God should be regarded as “OK” because isn’t that how men treat women? Well, it isn’t how men should treat women; when they do, that’s part of being abusive — though it’s psychologically abusive, not necessarily physically abusive. Thus I continue to stand by what I originally wrote and must point out that you haven’t really even disputed it, never mind argued against it.
Perhaps if you saw God as not just an equal partner but far better the authority of the universe you would be happier with this not being abusive and being punishment. For as you said in your attack of my first, withdrawn, analogy and I quote “The state punishes a murder based on the authority invested in the state by the people”. I put to you that there is no greater authority than the creator and if he exists, as I believe, then disobeying him is equal to, or worse than, breaking the law.
Quote:
First, this assumes that God has some sort of authority to punish.
Does he not? If you have children and they do something wrong as you ‘created’ them, in a manner of speaking, and are wiser than them and have more experience than them you punish them when they do things wrong to help them. Now imagine how much authority you would have if you had also created the surroundings and therefore knew in far more detail the rights and wrongs of society. You would argue that you had unmatchable authority compared to the child.
Quote:
Second, this assumes that the punishments recorded in religious texts are indeed fair and just. Even just limiting ourselves to the relevant context — my article comparing the relationship between God and the ancient Jews with the relationship between an abusive husband and a battered spouse — this requires you to defend punishments of mass killing, suffering, and abuse. If we go beyond that it just gets worse.
Now I get to bring out one of the most annoying arguments Christians ever came up with; we must trust that in the long run God knows what is best. Although this is clearly an appalling argument it does run true in the fact that we don’t know whether God was right, but we trust that he was.
Quote:
Sorry, I still don’t know what you want. You’ll need to be specific and clear.
Never mind, the point seems to be unimportant.
Quote:
Not really: design and forethought are things that must be demonstrable. Simply saying that they are “obvious” without being able to demonstrate them is thus a tacit admission that they aren’t there.
How many examples would you like? For one the fact that the universe works perfectly, the fact that without even one microscopic piece of DNA we would not be able to live, the fact that science, even after hundreds of years trying to disprove God, even the most atheistic scientists cannot conclusively say that it is even 80% certain that God doesn’t exist. The fact that even with the minds of great scientists like Steven Hawking and Einstein there is still a ridiculous amount that we don’t know about the earth beneath our feet and even less about the universe around us, the fact that the complexity of the human mind grew over millions of years from just 1 celled organisms, the fact of life! Even if life originated on another planet this is at best still a stall! It all comes down to the question “what is more unfeasible; the inconsistencies in science or the perceived inconsistencies in Christianity”?
Quote:
Remember what I wrote about needing to be “specific” and “clear”? Well, those principles apply generally, not just at that one point and they are something you seem to have trouble with. Consistently.
If anyone has specific, substantive counter-arguments to offer then I’d be happy to consider them
Well then congrats on sticking with me for so long. And I think it was clear that he had counter arguments rather than just saying “he doesn’t like you article”, what would be the point in saying that?
Here are his points:
There are lots of weak points in his argument but I’ve picked a couple:
1. Where in the Bible does he get the idea that God is like a Husband and ‘all humanity’ is like a wife?
2. He states: “The basic necessities of living are conditional on obeying God”
He himself is evidence that this isn’t true. He clearly is not concerned with obeying God (he says he doesn’t believe in God) yet I presume he has some of life necessities. Jesus states that ‘He (God) causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matt:5: 43-46)
3. He also states that ‘Abusers install feelings of inadequacy’ – and that is how God makes believers feel.
God tells us the truth – he doesn’t install false ‘feelings’. He also offers people the opportunity to become adopted into his family, to be become a child of God, Jesus calls believers his friends, he was willing to lay down his life for them, God Spirit lives within believers, etc, etc – the words that that best describe how I feel as a believer are ‘privileged, loved, blessed…
4. Finally he states, “Such religions are abusive insofar as they teach people to accept the existence of a god which, if human, would have long ago been shut away in prison for all his immoral and violent behaviour.”
One of the foundational things that Christians believe is that God did indeed become human! Jesus is the ‘image of the invisible God’ (Colossians 1:15) Jesus wasn’t put in prison for being violent or immoral. He was crucified for claiming to be the Son of God! (John 19:7). Jesus wasn’t violent or abusive. When God walked this earth – he showed us God’s character – supremely as he died on the cross in order to save his loved people.
So when you said you were not able to distinguish between “being passionate for a point of view” and “involvement in what someone else writes,” you didn’t really mean it?
Why is it a better analogy? You have a poor track record with constructing valid analogies, so we’d better deal with that first.
This is why I want you to explain why you think your analogy is valid. In a state of literal anarchy, “equality” is probably best defined by power and the ability to do violence — so if they are more powerful than I am, we are not equal.
Who said that they have done nothing wrong? Make up a situation where the black person has done something wrong just like the wife in any of your earlier examples.
A white person presuming to have the authority to punish a black person is only a “hate crime” because it represents or is based on an attitude of oppressing blacks. The same is true when a male assumes the authority to punish a woman.
I never said that I don’t condone any punishment in any circumstances.
Feel free to prove that this is true, if you can.
If you think you can establish this, go right ahead.
You mean, like having them raped and killed? Yeah, that’ll teach em!
You can’t admit that it’s an appalling argument then turn around and use it without also thereby saying that you have absolutely no rational or moral standards for your arguments: you’ll use even the most appalling arguments if they even look like they might help you.
You really don’t get it, do you? Even one example is enough — but what’s not enough is to just point to something and to say “look, and example!” You must demonstrate that it is an example of what you claim it is.
Does it? OK that’s a new claim: please define “perfectly” and demonstrate that the universe does, in fact, work perfectly.
Actually, we can. I provided a link back in #38
Feel free to list the inconsistencies in science along with explanations for why they are inconsistencies and what you think this means.
You’ve made lots of statements you can’t explain. If he had specific counter-arguments, you should have provided them. You didn’t.
That’s how the relationship is specifically described between God and those people with whom God has a personal relationship. At the time it was just the Jews; today it’s supposed to be everyone.
Since I consistently say “God is depicted,” it should be clear to just about anyone that I’m talking about how God is depicted in the Old Testament. I’m not talking about myself.
This implies that I don’t really disbelief in his god, an arrogant and presumptuous position which disinclines me from taking anything else this person says very seriously.
If I’m not mistaken, orthodox Christian theology still holds that I only have life’s necessities through the good will and grace of God.
If the abusive husband said “I’m just telling you the truth that you are inferior, I’m not “instilling feelings” of inadequacy,” would anyone accept that as an excuse? I would hope not. This alleged “problem” is simply an admission that what I said is a genuine parallel.
I’m curious why your church friend didn’t actually offer a counter-argument here. He simply used it as an excuse to preach the Christian message. If the best that can be done is to list things and then not even make a counter-argument, but rather just repeat evangelist talking points, then I’d say that my article comes out all the stronger.
However, you claimed that you had riled me up — quote different from merely “getting” riled up.
For an analogy to work, the two sides must compare on all relevant points.
Retaliation isn’t the same as punishment.
That’s absolutely false. Every abuser believes that they have good reasons.
No, such a conclusion cannot in any conceivable way be derived from my statement.
And the circumstances. And the reasons. And the means.
If the future is seen, then nothing this creator does will change what happens and the punishment is unnecessary.
It’s a morally appalling argument because it means that no matter what happens, it’s excused as being “for the best.” There is literally no event or action that is “too much,” which means that you are advising humans to just suspend all moral or ethical judgment and go along meekly with whatever they are told to do. You are recommending that humans be amoral automatons rather than reasoning, moral adults.
What, that the Bible treats God as a husband and the Jews as a bride/wife? Jeremiah writes “Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord.” Also: “Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion.” Isaiah writes “As the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.”
As for the Christian context, the “Church” has been referred to as the “Bride of Christ” since the earliest days and Jesus described his contemporary Jews as an “adulterous generation” — a clear reference to a marriage-like relationship between Jews and God.
Search for the Bible for terms relating to marriage, bride, and virgin to find other references.
No. I am “basically saying” exactly what I wrote originally: “God is also depicted as exercising control over people by controlling their resources — if people are insufficiently obedient, for example, God may cause crops to fail or water to turn bad. The basic necessities of living are conditioned on obeying God.”
I don’t see anything there about nonbelievers, do you?
I, as an atheist, frequently see Christians using that phrasing to introduce the idea that we really do believe in God but are in denial. This is a popular myth among conservative Christians because the Bible instructs them that all of humanity is “without excuse” so everyone really does secretly believe.
I didn’t say Orthodox Christian, I said orthodox Christian theology. When capitalized, “Orthodox” refers to a denomination; when in lowercase it simply means what it means: conforming to approved, conventional doctrine. So “orthodox Christian theology” is traditional, approved, standard Christian theology — as opposed to Process Theology, Liberation Theology, etc.
So I do have a real response to the argument and I provided it above; this was just a notation that even if we ignore the relevant context of my original statements and just focus on me for a second, it’s still arguable that my argument applies.
A single occasion would not be abusive; consistent denigration of a person’s looks, intelligence, character, and other qualities — even if ground in some measure of truth — qualifies as psychological abuse. Moreover, “look fat” is a subjective impression and thus is only “true” in the sense that it does create that sort of subjective impression in the man. It’s not “objectively true” in a manner that allows the man to disclaim any and all responsibility for it (like saying, “yes that’s a red dress”). If the person you love keeps telling you things that are negative, it’s even more abusive if it’s true that all these subjective, negative feelings exist in that person.
Since the whole point was to list problems in my article, then failing to provide an argument for why this or that is a problem is basically a way of avoiding the whole point.
Problem is, his “point” doesn’t actually contradict anything I wrote; on the contrary, it avoids it. I described how the actions attributed to God would cause a human actor to be jailed. Repeating the Christian formulation of faith doesn’t deny this or argue that it isn’t really a problem.
I see nothing for me to retract, since no serious arguments have been advanced for anything in the article being problematic. Out of four attempts, one displays ignorance of basic biblical symbology, one ignores critical context, one ignores the basic point, and the last doesn’t make any sort of argument at all. If this is the best that can be offered, I’m even more satisfied with my article than before.
Um, has one of my posts disappeared? I cannot see my latest post, is that just my computer? Moving on…
Quote:
However, you claimed that you had riled me up — quote different from merely “getting” riled up.
One; I doubt anyone is able to rile themselves up when there is no one that they are arguing with. Two; as I have already said I used my own personal experience and assumed that was the norm. Upon reflection my own personal experience, or anyone else’s, is too limited to assume that all others act in the same way.
Quote:
The main point is two equals, no authority one does wrong to another so the other retaliates.
Retaliation isn’t the same as punishment.
How so? They are both a reaction of one to an action of another. That is the main point; the fact that one is an authority figure that we have not elected and not invested in should make no difference it all still comes down to action and reaction.
Quote:
Every abuser believes that they have good reasons.
But in those cases a completely insignificant of the people who are aware of it agree, so this is not a good analogy as it is not synonymous with Christianity.
Quote:
So, if I can understand correctly and not jump to conclusions, do you agree that you have the right to punish them and it all comes down to the degree of the punishment?
And the circumstances. And the reasons. And the means.
But we agree that just as a parent has a right to punish their children, God has an intrinsic right to punish his?
Quote:
If the future is seen, then nothing this creator does will change what happens and the punishment is unnecessary.
Only if the future is fixed, if it is full of possible outcomes then no, your point is invalid.
Quote:
you are advising humans to just suspend all moral or ethical judgment and go along meekly with whatever they are told to do. You are recommending that humans be amoral automatons rather than reasoning, moral adults.
No, I am saying that we know so little about God that it is impossible to understand what he does. A scientific analogy is quantum mechanics. The idea that an object can be in 1 place and moving in two opposite direction at the same time is so impossible to understand that some have even been quoted saying “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics” (Richard Feynman). We never experience this so it is virtually impossible to undestand even small amounts of it. The same is true of God, he is outside of this universe, and we have never experienced anything like him in our life time. So how can we presume to know all about it and therefore second guess that which you seem to be ignorantly claiming to understand.
Quote:
God is also depicted as exercising control over people by controlling their resources — if people are insufficiently obedient
Ok, you say you don’t say “anything there about nonbelievers”. Most of the people, if not all, of the group you mentioned, the “insufficiently obedient” are unbelievers. Even though the Jewish people are God’s chosen people they did not always believe that God was there looking after them. This, in effect, is them becoming non-believers of God’s love and power. So we have established that you are a member of the group that God is apparently “controlling” the “resources” of. Really? Is you dinner mysteriously disappearing, is petrol disappearing from your tank? No, so yes. You are proof of the lunacy of your statement.
Quote:
as an atheist, frequently see Christians using that phrasing to introduce the idea that we really do believe in God but are in denial
So you feel it ok to jump to conclusions without verifying your assumption and base your entire response upon it?
Quote:
This is a popular myth among conservative Christians because the Bible instructs them that all of humanity is “without excuse”
Now that is interesting. I have always been taught that that particular statement is referring to no man can stand before God and honestly say “there was no evidence of your existence” so humanity has no excuse, to me this does not by any means mean that everyone secretly believes but rather there is enough evidence for them to draw the ‘correct’ conclusion.
Quote:
I didn’t say Orthodox Christian, I said orthodox Christian theology.
Ok, my mistake. But please tell me how the fact that your article says “Such religions are abusive insofar as they teach people to accept the existence of a god which, if human, would have long ago been shut away in prison for all his immoral and violent behaviour.” And yet he did and he wasn’t is avoiding what your article says?
Quote:
consistent denigration of a person’s looks, intelligence, character, and other qualities — even if ground in some measure of truth — qualifies as psychological abuse
If the person you love keeps telling you things that are negative, it’s even more abusive
doesn’t actually contradict anything I wrote
Ok then everyone, the wisdom of Austin Cline says that we should all lie to make each other feel better about themselves as this is how all healthy relationships work…oh wait… Now if I was being rude and provocative I would ask if that was how your marriage works.
Not to my knowledge.
Look up the words in a dictionary. Yes, both are reactions but not every reaction is equivalent. Saying “hello” can be a reaction to seeing someone, but is that the same as “punishment”? Of course not.
Whether there is widespread agreement or not does not appear to be relevant to your original claim: “Abusing implies no reason for the attack.” That was your claim and, as I pointed out, every abuser believes that they have good reasons. If you wish to amend your claim to say that “abusing implies no widely-agreed upon reason for the attack” then do so, but don’t falsely claim that my comparison to your actual and original claim doesn’t work.
No, not unless you can establish that there is a relevant similarity between children and adults that would justify the sorts of punishments which you religious texts describe your god as inflicting your humans.
If you wish to claim that the future is not fixed, you must amend your original claim to say that your god can see possible futures which may or may not occur. If you stick with your claim that your god sees the future — the future as it definitely will occur — then you’ll have to do more to justify saying that my point is invalid.
Feel free to explain how that does not entail spending “all moral or ethical judgment and go along meekly with whatever they are told to do.” Remember, the argument in question is: “we must trust that in the long run, God knows best” when it comes to the horrible suffering and violence used by God to punish people.
Anyone who believes in any sort of god are believers. The only people who are atheists are those don’t believe in any gods at all. Failing to fulfill each and every instruction attributed to a god in exactly the ways that self-proclaimed representatives of said god does not qualify as being an atheist.
Once again: “If I’m not mistaken, orthodox Christian theology still holds that I only have life’s necessities through the good will and grace of God.” Is it or is it not a part of your theology that all the food, water, and other necessities that are available to all humanity are only here because your god wills it and, if your god didn’t will it, then it would all go away?
No, but I think that it’s more than enough of a basis for pointing out a premise that lies behind a common phrasing used by Christians on a regular basis. When conservative, evangelical Christians use a particular set of words to mean the same thing over and over, then that’s how I’m going to read it coming from conservative, evangelical Christians.
The linguistic construct itself exists explicitly to create distance between the writer and the original claim being described so that the writer is not given any responsibility for the truth of the claim. The common and even in some cases standard implication is thus to cast doubt upon the veracity of the claim without openly questioning it.
And therefore they must secretly, deep in their hearts, really believe — they must be in denial, lying to themselves and others about what they believe. That would be the conclusion if the subject were me saying that I don’t believe that I exist, or that I don’t believe my chair exists. Such claims can’t be genuine because there is too much evidence of the existence of me and my chair. When people believe that the existence of their god is even greater and stronger, then denial is the obvious conclusion there as well.
The only way to not be avoiding what I describe is to conclude that this god is described as being so immoral that, if they were human, they would deserve to be imprisoned at best. Your colleague doesn’t say this. On the contrary, Christianity explicitly denies both that Jesus was guilty of anything at all, never mind anything that would justify what happened to him, and furthermore than he was being punished for any of the things that attributed to God in the Old Testament. Ergo, what is described as happening to Jesus does not in any way, shape, or form qualify as what my article says would and should happen to a human who did a fraction of the things Christians believe their god did. Ergo, your colleague’s “response” didn’t address the substance of my point at all. On the contrary, he evaded it completely – possibly because he recognizes that the acts attributed to God are indefensible and so there’s no point in trying. Better to change the topic and hope no one notices.
If the only way for you to avoid denigrating women and making them feel inferior is to lie to them, then you are inherently an abuser and should get psychological counseling.
I’ll treat that as being asked: I’m honest because I also don’t denigrate my wife by belittling her looks, character, or other qualities. I don’t only have negative things to tell her about herself. So, I don’t need to lie.
It’s really sad that you can’t conceive of anything beyond “lie” and “belittle.”
Between comments 92 and 93 should there not be one of mine?
Quote:
“Abusing implies no reason for the attack.” That was your claim and, as I pointed out, every abuser believes that they have good reasons. If you wish to amend your claim to say that “abusing implies no widely-agreed upon reason for the attack”
Ok I say that then, but is it not clear that if 99% of people think you are wrong, and they understand your argument, is it not fair to conclude that you are wrong? I was assuming that “no reason” was from the point of view of impartial people en masse.
Quote:
not unless you can establish that there is a relevant similarity between children and adults that would justify the sorts of punishments which you religious texts describe your god as inflicting your humans.
Skilfully sidestepped, I did not ask whether the amount of punishment was right, only that God has the right to dish out some form of punishment.
Quote:
If you wish to claim that the future is not fixed, you must amend your original claim to say that your god can see possible futures which may or may not occur.
Fine then, I would have assumed that obvious. I am starting to feel like you are following the letter of my arguments rather than what they clearly, I think, mean.
Quote:
Feel free to explain how that does not entail spending “all moral or ethical judgment and go along meekly with whatever they are told to do.” Remember, the argument in question is: “we must trust that in the long run, God knows best”
An analogy, yes I’m having another go at one, current economic crisis; for people who do not understand economics and do not understand why “authorities” would be taking the measures they are and they may seem unfair and idiotic must trust that they know what they are doing. The only difficulty in applying this to Christianity is that God is so many leaps ahead of us intellectually that we cannot keep up and therefore there are no middle men who get enough of an understanding to tell us that they understand the theory and that it works so we are left trusting God with no idea as to how his idea, which seems stupid, will work. Conclusion: sometimes we must suspend our own judgement if the one in charge is as far ahead of us as God is.
Quote:
Failing to fulfill each and every instruction attributed to a god in exactly the ways that self-proclaimed representatives of said god does not qualify as being an atheist.
So you are saying that the persecuted would still have said “yeah I still believe that God is looking after us and I turn to him with my problems”? You obviously know more about the OT than me, but I think it often says that the Jews turned away from God.
Quote:
Once again: “If I’m not mistaken, orthodox Christian theology still holds that I only have life’s necessities through the good will and grace of God.” Is it or is it not a part of your theology that all the food, water, and other necessities that are available to all humanity are only here because your god wills it and, if your god didn’t will it, then it would all go away?
Surely this backs up my point. You are saying that, in effect, “God wills” you to have the basic necessities of life? Yet your argument says that God takes them away from people who do not follow him. So my your own admittance; you don’t follow God but you have the necessities of life because “God wills it” thereby knocking down your own argument. Thank you for helping me.
Quote:
lying to themselves and others about what they believe
Not at all, I believe that if you never look for the answer you will never find it, if you just go in life believing that Christianity is lunacy without ever looking deeper into it. I’ll rephrase my original man cannot say to God “I looked for you and saw now evidence for your existence”.
Quote:
The only way to not be avoiding what I describe is to conclude that this god is described as being so immoral that, if they were human, they would deserve to be imprisoned at best.
So basically the only way you think that it is possible for someone to be addressing your argument is to agree with it. You believe you have a fool proof argument against God, so foolproof in fact that the only way to discuss it is to agree with you?
Quote:
If the only way for you to avoid denigrating women and making them feel inferior is to lie to them
No, I was drawing the only perceivable conclusion from your statement. For if telling the truth about a direct question is abuse then you must tell an untruth, a lie, so you are condoning lying in relationships and that they should be built on lies rather than abuse. Solid advice, really I don’t know why we aren’t told this in schools.
Quote:
I don’t only have negative things to tell her about herself
So lets bring this back to topic. By this statement you are saying that it is not abuse if you have just as many nice things to say. Well God clearly never said anything nice to people in the Bible did he? Nothing about being “very good”, loved, gave his son “so that whoever believes in him shall not die but have eternal life”. You’re right God never said anything nice to anyone so he is an abuser.
I don’t know.
People aren’t impartial, especially “en masse.” Do you really suppose Christians are completely impartial when evaluating the actions attributed to God in the OT?
No, it is not fair to conclude that some position is right or wrong based solely on the number of people who think so. A position must be evaluated on the quality of the arguments, not how popular they are.
What’s more, your original statement still had nothing to do with popularity or even being “right.” Your claim was simple and unambiguous: “Abusing implies no reason for the attack.” Even a bad reason is a reason. Even an unpopular reason is a reason. Abusive husbands have their reasons and Christians believe that their god has had its reasons. You can’t claim that the two can be differentiated by insisting that abusive husbands don’t “really” have reasons, or that the popularity of explanations justifying God’s actions somehow makes those reasons objectively “better.”
I don’t agree that a right to punish can be separated from the nature of the punishment. If I’m a parent whose only means of punishment is thumbscrews, then I don’t have a right to punish.
I’ll leave that aside for now, however, and say that I don’t recognize any right on the part of any gods to punish humanity.
Since the amended statement is incompatible with what you originally said, of course that wasn’t obvious. That will be revealed when we consider your original assertion re-written to reflect your new position:
The answer is no. I can “see” possible futures, too, but that doesn’t mean I know what is best for anyone. A deity which can see a wide variety of possible futures which might or might not result from my actions cannot be assumed to know for sure what is best for me such that they have an automatic right or have authority to punish me to prevent me from doing those actions.
Put more simply: just because a god knows that some negative consequences might result from some action of mine doesn’t entail any right or authority to punish me when I do the act or to prevent me from doing the act.
The only thing you clearly mean is what you write. I’m not going to change your words to make them mean something different from what you actually wrote — nor should you expect me to. You need to exercise care in your writing because sloppy writing is a sign of sloppy thinking and reasoning.
You shouldn’t have had “another go” at analogies.
First, we have indirect control over those economic authorities and if we don’t like what they are doing, we can replace them. They are only “authorities” over our economic matters because we choose to have them in such a position; that choice can be altered.
Second, we can verify the validity of what the economic authorities are doing by consulting other authorities and by working through the evidence and arguments ourselves. We aren’t told to just have “faith” and “trust” the economists. We are, however, told to just trust that your god knows what it is doing. But by whom? By the same sorts of people you claim can’t understand God enough to judge whether or not what God is doing is right. So humans don’t know enough to judge that God is wrong, but some claim to know enough that God is right and we should just trust this.
Thus your analogy fails because we do not just have to trust that certain economists know what’s best in the long run. We can challenge them, and many people do. We can evaluate their arguments and ideas ourselves or have others do so for us. We can verify whether or not they are even legitimate authorities in economics. We can, if we wish, remove them from their position of authority over our economic affairs.
So once again, we are left with: “all moral or ethical judgment and go along meekly with whatever they are told to do.” You still haven’t established that this is not what you are saying we should do when you say “we must trust that in the long run, God knows best”
Before you try having any more “gos” at analogies, you should take the time to carefully map out whether the two items being compared really are sufficiently similar in all relevant aspects. Don’t just launch into something that sounds similar, because that isn’t working out for you. Go slow and carefully. Make a list. Be willing to abandon your initial choice in favor of something better.
No, because a person can say the above but still believe that God exists. A person who believes God exists is not an atheist.
Correction: Jews who believed that God should be followed in a certain way frequently wrote that other Jews “turned away” from God. At no point do they claim that other Jews became atheists and stopped believing in any gods at all. Instead they either started to follow other gods or stopped doing exactly what some Jewish religious leaders believed a good Jew should do.
I’m saying that this is, if I remember correctly, orthodox Christian theology.
My argument doesn’t depend on God always and in every case taking away the necessities of life from everyone who doesn’t follow it. After all, there are lots of abusive husbands out there whom I don’t obey and they aren’t abusing me, right?
So who gets abused by an abusive partner? Well, the person they choose to be the one they want to have follow them in a direct, personal way. They choose someone for a special relationship and if that chosen person fails to live up to what the abuser expects from the relationship, they get abusive.
Whom does God abuse? The ones which believers say God has picked for a special, chosen relationship. In the OT, it’s the Jews. God isn’t depicted as abusive towards the Chinese, but towards the Jews. Why? Because they had been singled out for a special relationship and when they fail to do what God wants, they get abused.
You wouldn’t have thanked me if you had stopped and given a little thought to the original argument first.
I’ve looked and I have seen no evidence for any gods, much less any one god in particular.
No, it’s possible to argue that a human doing the things attributed to God would not deserve to be punished at all.
Feel free to try, if that’s your position.
If your conceptual universe is limited to either denigrating women or making them feel better by lying to them, then you are inherently an abuser and need psychological counseling.
Fortunately, my conceptual universe isn’t so limited. I can conceive of other options, like telling the truth in a way that isn’t denigrating and belittling.
Here’s your problem: I wrote about “consistent denigration of a person’s looks, intelligence, character, and other qualities.” When you read that, the only way you could respond is to assume it is the only way of telling the truth. So according to you, you can’t tell the truth without being denigrating. That makes you an abuser.
Of course, you can always deny this conclusion by admitting that you can indeed tell the truth — even about whether a person “looks fat” — without engaging in consistent denigration. Once you admit this, you will admit that you originally created a false dilemma. The only question will be whether you did so deliberately, knowing that there were other options, of unknowingly because you honestly and sincerely couldn’t conceive of anything else.
No, I’m not saying this. Your ability to derive sound implications from a statement is as poor as your ability to create analogies.
Here is what I originally wrote which has sparked so many false implications from you:
Re-read the bold-faced passages three of four times — whatever it takes to not ignore it in the future.
Once you stop ignoring this, you will have to face the simple fact that consistent denigration is a form of abuse. Saying nice things as well doesn’t mean the abuse disappears. A single unpleasant truth isn’t abuse. Your only options aren’t abuse or lying because your only options aren’t consistent denigration or lying.
Quote:
Do you really suppose Christians are completely impartial when evaluating the actions attributed to God in the OT?
No, and that is a failing I agree. As I have always said nothing is above question.
Quote:
Your claim was simple and unambiguous: “Abusing implies no reason for the attack.” Even a bad reason is a reason
Sorry I assumed that you had a degree of common sense to be able to tell that I meant a good reason as it would fit into my argument whereas any bad reason would not have.
Quote:
If I’m a parent whose only means of punishment is thumbscrews, then I don’t have a right to punish.
This, it seems, is the problem. I believe that you have the right to punish your children but not to that extreme degree. Your analogy fails, and I know I cant really talk, as you said it has to work from both sides so if they under punished then they would have right to punish.
Quote:
I can “see” possible futures
But what detail can you see? You can see opportunity cost directly to you and sometimes small groups of other peoples, but God can see the detail of what that decision will mean in the long run of hundreds of years so I think I’ll trust him before I trust you thanks.
Quote:
just because a god knows that some negative consequences might result
I’m saying he does know, its not a possibility
Quote:
You need to exercise care in your writing because sloppy writing is a sign of sloppy thinking and reasoning.
Or perhaps a lack of time in a lunch break to respond?
Quote:
By the same sorts of people you claim can’t understand God enough to judge whether or not what God is doing is right. So humans don’t know enough to judge that God is wrong,
but some claim to know enough that God is right and we should just trust this.
First comment I completely agree with; I am saying that we cannot understand God we don’t know enough about him and therefore cannot judge him if he exists. Second comment I think is a bit pointless as I have never expressed this view and if we are going to bring up the foolishness of the minority of Christians then I could do the same with atheists and I think that would be counter productive. Do you agree that we are so intellectually far behind God, if he exists, and know so little about him that we cannot judge him?
Quote:
Before you try having any more “gos” at analogies, you should take the time to carefully map out whether the two items being compared really are sufficiently similar in all relevant aspects. Don’t just launch into something that sounds similar, because that isn’t working out for you. Go slow and carefully. Make a list. Be willing to abandon your initial choice in favor of something better.
Thankyou for the advice, sincerely.
Quote:
No, because a person can say the above but still believe that God exists
I disagree, if a person is saying that they do not think God is looking after them and don’t turn to him with their problems then they do not believe in the key aspects of God e.g. omnipotence, that make him up and may not be an atheist but would not be what I would call a true Christian and therefore, if God has the same screening process, would qualify to him as not being a Christian. If I said that they had to be atheist then that was wrong, what I should have said is that they just are not Christians.
Quote:
At no point do they claim that other Jews became atheists and stopped believing in any gods at all
Same as above, I’m talking about non-Christians you are talking about atheists.
Quote:
I’m saying that this is, if I remember correctly, orthodox Christian theology.
You brought this point up so perhaps you could explain its relevance to the discussion? If you are not saying that the orthodox Christian theology is still in use then it has no bearing on what Christians believe and therefore no bearing on the conversation.
Quote:
My argument doesn’t depend on God always and in every case taking away the necessities of life from everyone who doesn’t follow it. After all, there are lots of abusive husbands out there whom I don’t obey and they aren’t abusing me, right?
But the problem is that the “abuser”, God, is, in your analogy, your abusive ‘husband’ not just some random one. I say that the whole world is God’s children and you say God is abusing them or has in the past, if I am not mistaken, that makes him a personal “abuser” to the world.
Quote:
So according to you, you can’t tell the truth without being denigrating
Not so, I just took a simple example to show that your analogy is telling people that in some circumstances it is better to lie and make someone feel better than to tell the truth and make them feel bad.
Quote:
consistent denigration of a person’s looks, intelligence, character, and other qualities — even if ground in some measure of truth — qualifies as psychological abuse
So you say that God is constantly denigrating his chosen people but there is far more evidence of love than abuse in the bible. An easy example; sacrificing his son to save us, you’re right what an abusive, evil, sadistic, hateful God!
The quality of your argument thus far did not and do not warrant assuming anything beyond the words you use.
If that is the only degree to which I can punish, then how can I still have a right to punish?
If that were the case, you should have been able to show how. Of course, the “child” analogy was your analogy all along — I simply pointed out some of the implications of this. If the analogy fails, it’s your analogy that fails because you didn’t think it through.
I can see all kinds of possible detail. So long as we’re limited to what’s merely possible, I can see as much as anyone — or any deity.
No, according to you your god can only see possible outcomes.
What “trust” is there to place in merely being able to see a possible outcome?
Oh? Let’s review:
So you agree to amend you statement that your god can only see possible futures, not a fixed future, and act indignant that I didn’t immediately see that this is what you meant all along.
But once the implications of this are made clear, you are back to your original claim: that your god definitely knows exactly how the future will go.
I’m not even going to read the rest because there’s just no value in it when you can so easily contradict yourself in such a massive way.
Here’s some advice: when your thinking is so sloppy that you can’t even maintain a consistent position on something so basic of the course of just a couple of comments, don’t act indignant when people don’t keep trying to attribute anything more to your position than what you say. You might want to clean up your own intellectual house before you try to defend your ideas to others.
Quote:
If that is the only degree to which I can punish, then how can I still have a right to punish?
You are missing my point, every parent as the right to punish to a certain degree.
Quote:
I can see all kinds of possible detail. So long as we’re limited to what’s merely possible, I can see as much as anyone — or any deity.
So you know every single repercussion of a decision by me to change a future action? I don’t think so. I am saying that yes, you can see the instant effects of, say, eating a bran muffin instead of a yoghurt but you can certainly not see how this decision will change the future that would have come about in 100 years. That is what I mean by how much detail you can see.
Quote:
No, according to you your god can only see possible outcomes.
I may have phrased this badly to start with but what I am getting at is every action has a reaction. God knows EVERY reaction that will take place descending from that action until the end of time even before you make the action.
Quote:
So you agree to amend you statement that your god can only see possible futures, not a fixed future
I never said in my original statement that God could only see the fixed future, you assumed that. I said God can see the future. That could just have meant the future course we are taking right now before decisions are made that possibly change it. I amended my statement to appease you.
Quote:
I’m not even going to read the rest because there’s just no value in it
Is that boredom of this, frustration at my faults? I myself am losing the enjoyment of this debate that I was always going to lose. But please show me the courtesy to read what I have written or just stop this altogether since the bit that you ignored is for me the prominent point in the current debate.
You didn’t “phrase it badly,” you phrased your statement to say the exact opposite of what you’re saying now. You phrased it one way to avoid an unpleasant consequence I pointed out at the time, now you’re reversing yourself to phrase it the opposite way to avoid another unpleasant consequence. That’s neither honest nor intellectually serious. It strongly suggests that you don’t even really know what you believe but are just making it up as you go along, trying to introduce small changes along the way when problem are pointed out but without regard to whether those modifications actually fit or not.
Even if you weren’t jumping around, altering what you write, the fact would remain that now you’re back to the position I critiqued in comment #93. There’d be no point in going forward, only back to that position to see how long you could maintain it.
If your god sees exactly where the future is going, then punishment is unnecessary and pointless; if your god sees all the possible futures but doesn’t know exactly how the future will actually turn out, that doesn’t entail that it “knows what’s best in the long run” — but even if it did, that wouldn’t confer authority to punish me after some action that it would prefer not have happened.
Disgust at the degree to which you contradict yourself then deny that you contradicted yourself. If you aren’t going to do me the courtesy of trying to create a coherent, consistent position then I’m not going to waste my time reading what you write.
You have absolutely no right to expect the “courtesy” of being read in full if you can’t manage to write something that is consistent and coherent.