The Adult Atheist Thread

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Dave Allen,

Yes that is my understanding, though not every state has this law on the books, and about a year ago a statesman in California came out of the closet and told the public that he indeed was an atheist. I did not here what the consequences to that were. The former president, Bush sr stated publically that he did not think that an atheist should be considered a citizen never mind a patriot, that this is one country under god--frightening state of intellect.

I do know the former president is alleged to have said that (I think it was a remark made in a private conversation though - not a public statement) and, assuming it is the truth, I think it's very sad. But I'm still not sure it's credible to suggest the US legally bars athiests from running for office.

By the way it'd be interesting to know what G H W Bush thought of the citizenship of Mark Twain, or other respected Americans who were sceptics or athiests.

I accept that an athiest running for office will technically make his job a lot harder if he admits to his godlessness - but I'm still not sure that's a problem of legality - just one of appeal. Politicians have to play a popularist game, and the fact that most voters equate faith with morality means most politicians will pretend to have faith.

This is a sad state of affairs, but it's much more benign than to suggest that there is a legal obstacle to office.

As an aside: I suppose one might point out that being asked to swear before God or on the bible, which many offices and courts call for, is intrinsically theist - I just see it as a folksy tradition myself - like judges wearing wigs.

Have you read Schopenhauer on Religion? I think he is much better than the modern crop because he has a deeper understanding of religious beliefs and impulses. He's also funnier. It's all on the web too:

Religion, by Arthur Schopenhauer (chapter1)

Demopheles. Oh, don't take that tone! You're going hand in hand with ochlocracy and anarchy, the arch enemy of all legislative order, all civilization and all humanity.

Philalethes. You are right. It was only a sophism of mine, what the fencing master calls a feint. I retract it. But see how disputing sometimes makes an honest man unjust and malicious. Let us stop.

Demopheles. I can't help regretting that, after all the trouble I've taken, I haven't altered your disposition in regard to religion. On the other hand, I can assure you that everything you have said hasn't shaken my conviction of its high value and necessity.

Philalethes. I fully believe you; for, as we may read in Hudibras-
[INDENT]A man convinced against his will
Is of the same opinion still.
[/INDENT]My consolation is that, alike in controversies and in taking mineral waters, the after effects are the true ones.

Demopheles. Well, I hope it'll be beneficial in your case.

Philalethes. It might be so, if I could digest a certain Spanish proverb.

Demopheles. Which is?

Philalethes. Behind the cross stands the devil.

Demopheles. Come, don't let us part with sarcasms. Let us rather admit that religion, like Janus, or better still, like the Brahman god of death, Yama, has two faces, and like him, one friendly, the other sullen. Each of us has kept his eye fixed on one alone.

Philalethes. You are right, old fellow.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen, Smile

Dave Allen wrote:

I do know the former president is alleged to have said that (I think it was a remark made in a private conversation though - not a public statement) and, assuming it is the truth, I think it's very sad. But I'm still not sure it's credible to suggest the US legally bars athiests from running for office.

Well it is true that it is just hearsay on my part about it being illegal to hold office if your an atheist, but I have heard it again and again in public conflicts and not denied. As to president Bush sr, it is indeed true, and the moron stood by it when questioned after the fact.

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie;48731 wrote:

Just had to share this one!------Praise be to Allah!!

It's this implication that bothers me about your thread (even if your overall theme is a bit different). There is an underlying assumption that religion is "causing" violence, stupidity, hatred. And then, after painting an unfavorable picture, it justifies our spite. Of course, listen to Dawkins or Harris if you want to get an earful of hatred, or what they would do about religion if they were all powerful.

The issue is, is religion the "cause" of what people do in the name of religion? Is atheism the "cause" of Dawkins' and Harris' hatred?

There are number of ways to fault the logic such an assertion. For example (taken from a fallacy website):

Fallacy of Questionable Cause

This fallacy has the following general form:

A and B are associated on a regular basis.
Therefore A is the cause of B.

The general idea behind this fallacy is that it is an error in reasoning to conclude that one thing causes another simply because the two are associated on a regular basis. More formally, this fallacy is committed when it is concluded that A is the cause of B simply because they are associated on a regular basis. The error being made is that a causal conclusion is being drawn from inadequate evidence.

Another type:

Post Hoc Fallacy

This fallacy has the following form:

A occurs before B.
Therefore A is the cause of B.

The Post Hoc fallacy derives its name from the Latin phrase "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." This has been traditionally interpreted as "After this, therefore because of this." This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one event causes another simply because the proposed cause occurred before the proposed effect. More formally, the fallacy involves concluding that A causes or caused B because A occurs before B and there is not sufficient evidence to actually warrant such a claim.

Another type:

Fallacy of Ignoring a Common Cause

This fallacy has the following general structure:

A and B are regularly connected (but no third, common cause is looked for). Therefore A is the cause of B.

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one thing causes another simply because they are regularly associated. More formally, this fallacy is committed when it is concluded that A is the cause of B simply because A and B are regularly connected. Further, the causal conclusion is drawn without considering the possibility that a third factor might be the cause of both A and B

Another type:

Fallacy of Confusing Cause and Effect

Confusing Cause and Effect is a fallacy that has the following general form:

A and B regularly occur together.
Therefore A is the cause of B.

This fallacy requires that there is not, in fact, a common cause that actually causes both A and B. This fallacy is committed when a person assumes that one event must cause another just because the events occur together. More formally, this fallacy involves drawing the conclusion that A is the cause of B simply because A and B are in regular conjunction (and there is not a common cause that is actually the cause of A and B). The mistake being made is that the causal conclusion is being drawn without adequate justification.

So if you are going to talk about prejudice against atheism, for example, don't make your case through logic errors, like assuming unproven causes, or appeal to consequences of a belief, or attacking religion (the fallacy of tu quoque or "you too"), or appeal to spite, or poisoning the well, or appeal to ridicule, or any other of the typical logic fallacies used to "win" an debate rather than get at the truth.

1 Reply

@boagie,

"they're always very angry about religion, I think they think if they are angry enough religion will go away - it won't."

John Grey (himself a skeptic) on Dawkins, Harris et al.

The problem seems to me to be the apprentness of something that cannot be demonstrated. I once heard someone say that the reason politics and religion were so hotly debated was because there was no right answer for everyone. Arguements about simple arithmetic tend not to go on for long, because soon enough the answer is demonstrated to the satisfaction of pretty much everybody.

Which is one of the reasons why it's son intriguing to watch and partake in religious debates, I think, because the 'winners' are just those who make the most eloquent arguements at any given time.

I think Dawkins chooses to debate with very poor arguers a lot of the time. His chat with the Bishop of Oxford shows that a respectful compromise can be reached by people seemingly at theological loggerheads:

YouTube - Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford-Uncut (1/4)

Of course Dawkins looks superior when he goes up against mad baptist pastors or wahabbist mullahs. I'd love to see him up against Alan Moore, who I think is the most intellectual mystical thinker in modern popular culture.

1 Reply

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth,

No I do not believe that I am mistaking correlation for cause and effect, and I do not believe critism of religion is hateful, religion just happens to be use to being a sacred cow, they can make the most absurd statements, and most people will remain silent, if it were anything but religion they would point out these absurdities. It is conditioning is it not, anyone introduced to religion are asked to believe that greatest of absurdities, and once you've bought a pennys worth your in for a pound of bullshit. The religious never tire of claiming morality their soul property, the prisons are fill to overflowing with people claiming to be Christians. Any thread critizing religion is going to be accussed of hatred, it just goes with the territory, if they have to rely on reason they know they are in trouble.
"REASON IS THE ENEMY OF FAITH" MARTIN LUTHER. The statement that I keep pushing is that the origin of everything is a mystery, how can one reasonable argue with that, to do so you would need to reveal the source of all being.

1 Reply

@boagie,

See: Alan Moore knows the score:

YouTube - Alan Moore interviewed by Stewart Lee

0 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;48850 wrote:

Of course Dawkins looks superior when he goes up against mad baptist pastors or wahabbist mullahs. I'd love to see him up against Alan Moore, who I think is the most intellectual mystical thinker in modern popular culture.

Right, but it's not just that. He only studies what supports his position, he filters everything that doesn't fit the epistemology he relies on. If you read my "God" threads, you can see there is a large collection of witnesses talking about another way of knowing altogether.

That "way" will be dismissed with a wave of Dawkins' hand as "unreliable." Why? Because Dawkins and other scientism believers assume a priori that only empiricism is capable of revealing truths about reality. That assumption is extrapolated from all the success they've had in discovering the physical universe, and so causes them to erroneously conclude that if it doesn't show up through empirical investigation, then it isn't true.

To explain a little more, science has amply demonstrated it "works" to reveal the physical universe and how to manipulate it, and scientism believers can correctly point out that after years of empirical exploration the universe has only shown itself (through science) to be of a physical nature. But how is this to be construed?

The way it's reasoned by scientism devotees is that there is nothing to the universe but matter and the physical potentials that brought matter about. However, they've failed to allow for the possibility that their information gathering method can result in a biased sample fallacy; that is, if the investigative methods one uses are those which only reveal physicalness, then should one expect to find anything else?

What empirical researchers have actually proven, beyond all doubt, is that the sole type of knowledge science produces is physicalistic knowledge, and not that science discovers all discoverable things or that existence is purely physical. What scientism enthusiasts don't know is if sense data and brain functions are the only experiences that bring knowledge to a human being.

2 Replies

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth wrote:

Right, but it's not just that. He only studies what supports his position, he filters everything that doesn't fit the epistemology he relies on.

Well, I'd refute that - for example what about his chats with the Bishop of Oxford, they are mutually respectful and give each other time to make their points. There is a bit of conflict, but there is more of an "agree to disagree" tone.

But I agree that the stuff he televises is more heated and contentious - but that's probably because his editors know most TV audiences want to watch a fight rather than a rambling polite debate.

Quote:

That "way" will be dismissed with a wave of Dawkins' hand as "unreliable." Why? Because Dawkins and other scientism believers assume a priori that only empiricism is capable of revealing truths about reality.

I object to you lumping 'science believers' into one bracket, but in the case of Dawkins at his most polemical, yes, I agree, and it puts me off too.

I largely feel that there is no supernatural force in the universe - but I cannot argue with (for example) Moore's call for there to be a sense of spiritual individuality. I might feel mildly uncomfortable with the term 'spirit', but I can't deny the impact of the ... erm ... spirit of his argument.

Quote:

What scientism enthusiasts don't know is if sense data and brain functions are the only experiences that bring knowledge to a human being.

Well as an enthusiast of science I do feel the need to point out that most scientists stress that their positions are only adopted on the grounds of the available data at the time, and are willing to change their viewpoints in light of fresh evidence.

This isn't to suggest that scientists are never dogmatic - they often are, but the spirit of scientific enquiry seems to me to be once of:

An Acknowledged Work In Progress.

I do feel this is at odds with religion's spirit which is so often:

Revealed partly/largely/wholly by Revelation to Our Chosen Prophet.

I feel the spirit of scientific enquiry, as I see it, is more honest - because it admits to not knowing the whole story.

But I realise there are exceptions to the above, and mergers of the two views and more...

1 Reply

@LWSleeth,

Yes of course experience is limited, our biology does the limiting, but what do you imagine you can precieve through, other than your senses and the process of your understanding. We all know that apparent reality is not the whole cake, how do you intend accessing that which is not available to our senses, and if it is not available to the senses it certainly would not be available to the process of the understanding.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie;48853 wrote:

The statement that I keep pushing is that the origin of everything is a mystery, how can one reasonable argue with that, to do so you would need to reveal the source of all being.

A good subject, why not stick to it?

boagie;48853 wrote:

No I do not believe that I am mistaking correlation for cause and effect, and I do not believe critism of religion is hateful

Criticism of religion is fine, generalizing negatively about all people who are religious is not. And you have most definitely been implying that religion is "causing" problems, or that the downfall of the religious somehow supports your malice . . .

boagie;48853 wrote:

. . . the prisons are fill to overflowing with people claiming to be Christians.

Prisons are filled with Americans too, are the principles of America put in doubt because Americans are in prison?

boagie;48853 wrote:

It is conditioning is it not, anyone introduced to religion are asked to believe that greatest of absurdities, and once you've bought a pennys worth your in for a pound of bullshit. The religious never tire of claiming morality their soul property,\\Any thread critizing religion is going to be accussed of hatred, it just goes with the territory, if they have to rely on reason they know they are in trouble.

You are wasting your time worrying about the specific absurdities of religion! What about the absurdities of the human mind? You are fooling yourself if you think getting rid of religion is going to make everybody so enlightened they will instantly become logical, scientific, and free of deluded beliefs.

boagie;48853 wrote:

religion just happens to be use to being a sacred cow, they can make the most absurd statements, and most people will remain silent, if it were anything but religion they would point out these absurdities.

Well now science is becoming the "sacred cow." Is it producing understanding among all the science believers?

I think Dawkins is causing problems, and so do some of his fellow scientists who are also atheists. I listen to him and Harris and want to slap them around, but not because of their atheism. I think they would behave that way no matter what they believed.

You might think I support religion, but actually I dislike it immensely for me personally (I do go on to think all people relying on religion are hurt by it). After my childhood experiences with having it forced on me, the thought of a church turns me off totally. I used to think prejudicially against religion, but now I've stepped back and realized that any institution or belief system that gives people a reason to think they are "right," or have the "truth," or makes them feel superior . . . appeals to human ignorance that is already there.

So the problem with making religion or politics or atheism or any other mode of thought the boogeyman is that we misidentify what the real problem is: human ignorance. As long as we keep getting caught up in fighting manifestations of ignorance rather than going after the root cause, we can never fix things and may even find ourselves in our various resistances having sunk into ignorance ourselves.

That's why I am being hard on you for using logic fallacies and spite to make your case. If ignorance is the enemy, then how will you help it by committing your own acts of ignorance? Surely you don't believe the end justifies the means.

boagie;48853 wrote:

"REASON IS THE ENEMY OF FAITH" MARTIN LUTHER.

Assuming you've quoted that because you dislike it, you may be misinterpreting what he means. A famous Zen quote says a similar thing, "This mind is not the Buddha-[intellectual] learning is not the Way."

It depends on what Luther was talking about. If he was suggesting we mindlessly accept the recommended beliefs and dogmas of the church, then its ignorance.

But there is another "inner" method that requires one to learn to "feel" deeply and quietly in order to pick up on the most subtle of influences. In that endeavor, mentality gets in the way. In that context, as a practitioner might say it in the West, "faith" is a silent commitment and foil to doubting this most intuitive way of delving inward.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie;48866 wrote:

how do you intend accessing that which is not available to our senses, and if it is not available to the senses it certainly would not be available to the process of the understanding.

I don't want to hijack your thread, read my three part series on God, I explain in detail there.

0 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;48860 wrote:

I object to you lumping 'science believers' into one bracket, but in the case of Dawkins at his most polemical, yes, I agree, and it puts me off too.

I didn't say science believers, I said "scientism" believers. Scientism is the belief that only science can reveal knowable truths.

I myself am a science believer, but not a scientism adherent; that is, I believe all that science actually reveals is true, but I don't believe science can reveal everything that is knowable.

Dave Allen;48860 wrote:

I largely feel that there is no supernatural force in the universe

I feel exactly the same way, nothing in my experience or anyone else's I've studied, gives me reason to think the universe isn't wholly natural.

However, most scientists today define "natural" as physicalistic. I, on the other hand, would define natural as "bound to inviolable laws." With that definition I've not limited natural to physicalness.

To me that leaves open the possibility that some sort of consciousness evolved before the physical universe evolved (as in panpsychism), and then helped shape some of the more creative aspects of the universe (e.g., life, consciousness) that seem incongruent with the rather uncreative ways of mechanics/physicalness.

Dave Allen;48860 wrote:

Well as an enthusiast of science I do feel the need to point out that most scientists stress that their positions are only adopted on the grounds of the available data at the time, and are willing to change their viewpoints in light of fresh evidence

I would only dispute that with those religion-hating scientists who have a stake in proving the universe is purely and only physical. Dawkins is the perfect poster boy for that cause; he exaggerates incessantly the evidence he has for one aspect of physicalism, and uses diversionary tactics to argue evolution has occurred versus mythical creationist claims.

No serious thinker doubts evolution occurred. Common descent seems sufficiently established, fossil records are adequate, genetic evidence is supportive, etc. So whether evolution occurred isn't really the issue. Creationism vs. life-gradually-evolved is a red herring.

The real issue is (which Dawkins avoids like the plague) is if natural selection and mutation can create organs. His evidence that they can is actually evidence of "simple adaption" not full blown evolution. Simple adaption is the minor adjustment of extant organs to the environment, but there's virtually no evidence that natural selection and mutation created the organs in the first place.

If some sort of creationary force assisted evolution, it seems to me that at the genetic level is right where it would work. But Dawkins has claimed that spot for randomness and fitness advantages to eliminate any need for another force to create. That would be fine if he had the evidence, but he doesn't so he exaggerates and avoids the issue. For example, he says, "In the story of evolution, the clues are a billionfold."

What do all those billions of clues prove? The entire theory of evolution, or that life slowly evolved? He answers himself, "There are clues from the distribution of DNA codes throughout the animal and plant kingdoms, of protein sequences, of morphological characters that have been analyzed in great detail. Everything fits with the idea that we have here a simple branching tree. The distribution of species on islands and continents throughout the world is exactly what you'd expect if evolution was a fact. The distribution of fossils in space and in time are exactly what you would expect if evolution were a fact."

All of that only proves that life evolved over time, likely from a common prokaryote ancestor (or a few); none of it proves natural selection and mutation are the "creators" of the many life forms.

Anyway, returning to your point, I share your respect for real science, I'd go further to say I love it. That's why I so intensely dislike Dawkins and others using it as a pawn in their religion-hating campaigns.

1 Reply

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth,

So, what is this intutive power you have, and how do you go about using it. It sounds mysterious, but what indeed is it that other people do not utilize.

Well I did take a peek at your god threads. Quite simply I have no interest in making you my study. If you wish to dialogue about a particular point/s fine.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie;48893 wrote:

Well I did take a peek at your god threads. Quite simply I have no interest in making you my study. If you wish to dialogue about a particular point/s fine. I always found those whom post lengthly post intolerable.

Just to end this on clarity, my "God Threads" were not a study of "me." Overall they were written to bring to light a class in epistemologists relatively few people are familiar with, and whose reports atheists always ignore. Very seldom does one get to use the term "always" without over-generalizing, this might be the exception.

Also, some atheists fallaciously associate religion with the issue of if the universe might be conscious somehow (which some have termed "God"). I wanted to straighten out common logic mistakes made in God debates, and also demonstrate it might not be necessary to either believe or disbelieve . . . why not keep an open mind and keep checking things out?

Lastly, the atheist often claims "there is no evidence," without studying the best reports, and without understanding the epistemology behind those particular claims. I took a subject with a 2800 year history that would fill a library, applied 30 years of my study and investigation, and distilled all that into three posts.

If you find that "intolerable," I'm not so sure that is due to me being long-winded or to you being mentally lazy. I've seen no evidence in your posts that you are careful to be in possession of ALL the facts, that you've researched in detail everything that might affect your opinions, or that you subject yourself to tough scrutiny to see if you are being objective or just spouting your personal prejudices.

I might be new here, but I've been debating philosophy for a long time. There aren't many theories and philosophies I haven't heard. Now I value sincere simplicity every time over the self-serving sophistries of clever debaters because that's how every insight I've ever had has come my way.

0 Replies

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth wrote:

I didn't say science believers, I said "scientism" believers. Scientism is the belief that only science can reveal knowable truths.

Ah right.

It's not a word used much in British media commentary on Religion. Dawkins mostly gets lumped (with some derision from certain quarters) into a 'humanist' camp.

Quote:

The real issue is (which Dawkins avoids like the plague) is if natural selection and mutation can create organs. His evidence that they can is actually evidence of "simple adaption" not full blown evolution. Simple adaption is the minor adjustment of extant organs to the environment, but there's virtually no evidence that natural selection and mutation created the organs in the first place.

I think the development of the eye can be drawn back to a change in pigment of a single cell (as the result of a simple mutation).

The change is theorised, rather than demonstrated, and I understand the similarity between faith in a theory and faith in revelation.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Some Catholics would put the orthodox and the protestants in that group. Some Protestants would put Catholics in that group. It doesn't matter -- there is never going to be a yardstick for true versus corrupt practice, and religion is always one of many influences on people's beliefs and behavior.

The fact that people who claim to be Christians argue among themselves as to which of them are right on various points does not at all indicate that there are no basic standards by which we can judge the practitioners.

The essential point here is that atheists and the anti-religion folks almost invariably take aim at the easiest targets when they criticise theism and religion. The easy targets are the imposters, such as so-called "Christians" who aided the Nazis.

If they hated Jews and helped the Nazis to murder them, then they were Christians in name only.

2 Replies

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

If they hated Jews and helped the Nazis to murder them, then they were Christians in name only.

Yet this does illustrate a point about the malleability of scriptural message to the needs of different religious practitioners.

Many Christians might, when times are good, point to the harmonious and tolerant calls by Christ for loving thy neighbour, turning the other cheek, helping the needy, etc.

Some Christians even hold such values in the face of adversity - and I commend their integrity even if I don't agree with their metaphysical viewpoint.

Most Christians I know point more to the idea that humanity is flawed. God wants you to hold such high values as those preached by Christ, but offers forgiveness because he knows they are not possible to hold for everybody all of the time.

Some other Christians almost never seem to couch their belief in the message of Christ - seeming to mch more prefer the Old Testament belligerance or the hallucinatory vision of Revelations. Messages from these sections of holy scripture seem to advocate violent evangelicism - more at odds with Christ's message than anything Dawkins said as far as I can see.

So to 'sin' - even as horribly as to aid and abet genocide - does not seem to conflict with 'being a Christian' for any practical purpose provided one seeks forgiveness.

However, Christian institutions have given their blessing to all sorts of genocide throughout history. I think if they were 'Christian in name only' then true Christians must be very hard to find. To say the Pope who blessed the Nazis was not a Christian seems to be - if you'll forgive the comparison to Pilate - washing your hands of the matter.

Demonisation of the Jews was fundamentally linked with admiration for Christ - because if you are a fan of Christ as a deity to be worshipped - rather than seeing him as someone with an important message of love and toleration - then it is easy to see why you might be affronted with those who asked for his execution and who refuse to accept him as the messiah.

Quote:

The essential point here is that atheists and the anti-religion folks almost invariably take aim at the easiest targets when they criticise theism and religion. The easy targets are the imposters, such as so-called "Christians" who aided the Nazis.

As an atheist I find one of the most common affronts taken to my position by those of faith is:

You cannot therefore have a moral code and if people thought like you there would be widespread immorality.

I find this rather insulting.

To counter it I find the most effective thing to do is to point out the the number of very well documented historical cases where people acting in the name of god have done horrendous things.

So yes athiests bang this drum a lot, but I think the main reason for doing so is illustrated by the fact that those of faith refuse to account for the immorality of their fellow believers whilst often stating that to be athiest is to be without morality.

For example you claim the Christians who aided the Nazis are not real Christians - presumably you therefore assuage yourself of any guilt by association and preserve a moral position (an admirable one I suppose) for those who are like you.

But within Christianity there is a get-out clause for any immoral act, because even the worst of us are promised salvation if they accept Christ as their saviour.

I realise throughout this I have assumed you are a Christian - my apologies if you are not.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

We probably agree on more than it might appear, so I will try to introduce some distinctions and clarifications (rather than counterpoints).

Dave Allen wrote:

Yet this does illustrate a point about the malleability of scriptural message to the needs of different religious practitioners.

Many Christians might, when times are good, point to the harmonious and tolerant calls by Christ for loving thy neighbour, turning the other cheek, helping the needy, etc.

Some Christians even hold such values in the face of adversity - and I commend their integrity even if I don't agree with their metaphysical viewpoint.

Jesus said of the Jewish tradition--the tradition to which he belonged--that it all boils down to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. It's not that "some Christians" hold these values. Holding--genuinely holding--the values is what defines the person as a Christian. An analogy might be that a whole room full of people may claim to be musicians. Only the ones who know an instrument and can play it have a legitemate claim. If one of them claims he can play guitar and demonstrates it by smashing one against the wall, that would be analogous to someone claiming to be a Christian, and then demonstrating hatred against Jews and helping to try to exterminate them.

Dave Allen wrote:

Most Christians I know point more to the idea that humanity is flawed. God wants you to hold such high values as those preached by Christ, but offers forgiveness because he knows they are not possible to hold for everybody all of the time.

Imperfections and weaknesses are distinct from deliberately, regularly, or systematically doing something diametrically opposed to the value system you claim to adhere to.

Dave Allen wrote:

Some other Christians almost never seem to couch their belief in the message of Christ - seeming to mch more prefer the Old Testament belligerance or the hallucinatory vision of Revelations. Messages from these sections of holy scripture seem to advocate violent evangelicism - more at odds with Christ's message than anything Dawkins said as far as I can see.

So to 'sin' - even as horribly as to aid and abet genocide - does not seem to conflict with 'being a Christian' for any practical purpose provided one seeks forgiveness.

Not sure what you mean by the Old Testament and Revelation citations, but anyone who practicies "violent evangelicism" or aids and abets genocide would be a good example of the imposters within "Christendom." They may call themselves Christians, and some people may erroneously think of them as Christians. The world is full of all kinds of illusions like this.

Dave Allen wrote:

However, Christian institutions have given their blessing to all sorts of genocide throughout history. I think if they were 'Christian in name only' then true Christians must be very hard to find.

Absolutely correct.

Dave Allen wrote:

To say the Pope who blessed the Nazis was not a Christian seems to be - if you'll forgive the comparison to Pilate - washing your hands of the matter.

I don't know that particular historic event, but if a pope endorsed the genocide, then no, I'm not washing my hands of anything. I'm just making the appropriate distinction. You can't hate people and be a Christian. It's a contradiction in terms. You can certainly hate people, and meanwhile go to a church, and recite prayers and creeds, and tell everyone whatever you want to tell them. But that doesn't make you a Christian any more than owning a guitar and monkeying around with it makes you a musician.

Dave Allen wrote:

Demonisation of the Jews was fundamentally linked with admiration for Christ - because if you are a fan of Christ as a deity to be worshipped - rather than seeing him as someone with an important message of love and toleration - then it is easy to see why you might be affronted with those who asked for his execution and who refuse to accept him as the messiah.

One of the most prominent and ignorant errors committed by so-called Christians.

Dave Allen wrote:

As an atheist I find one of the most common affronts taken to my position by those of faith is:

You cannot therefore have a moral code and if people thought like you there would be widespread immorality.

I find this rather insulting.

I don't blame you. And I don't blame you for being an atheist either, because, as you have so well summarized, popular forms of theism and Christianity are so revolting.

Dave Allen wrote:

For example you claim the Christians who aided the Nazis are not real Christians - presumably you therefore assuage yourself of any guilt by association and preserve a moral position (an admirable one I suppose) for those who are like you.

Actually, I'm not concerned about guilt by association. I think most people who really examine the situation will conclude, as I have, that the vast majority of popular forms of Christianity have very little resemblance with the essential message of Jesus.

Dave Allen wrote:

But within Christianity there is a get-out clause for any immoral act, because even the worst of us are promised salvation if they accept Christ as their saviour.

Well, it's true that anyone can find salvation by accepting Christ. The problem is, what is "salvation" and what does it mean to "accept Christ"?

Dave Allen wrote:

I realise throughout this I have assumed you are a Christian - my apologies if you are not.

0 Replies

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

If they hated Jews and helped the Nazis to murder them, then they were Christians in name only.

Well, perhaps, but then you've set a bar that defines Christians by their behavior and not by their beliefs. That's fine, but how do you reconcile this with the fact that many perpetrators of violent crimes believe that they are good Christians? Is this a failing of getting out the Christian message, or is the Christian ideal just too much for many people to live up to? Clearly believing ones self to be a good Christian is not sufficient to prevent acts of violence.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Well, perhaps, but then you've set a bar that defines Christians by their behavior and not by their beliefs. That's fine, but how do you reconcile this with the fact that many perpetrators of violent crimes believe that they are good Christians? Is this a failing of getting out the Christian message, or is the Christian ideal just too much for many people to live up to? Clearly believing ones self to be a good Christian is not sufficient to prevent acts of violence.

I think Christianity is a way of life that includes certain beliefs but also includes behavior that is characterized by reverence for the Creator and love of fellow human beings. Probably the biggest heresy in the history of Christanity is the idea that if you believe (i.e., give mental assent to) certain propositions, you have become a Christian. So, although lots of people may believe they are Christians (because they have been taught to give mental assent to some proposition), they are not Christians by virtue of their believing that they are. They are only Christians if they adopt the way of life.

Having said that, I have to admit that it is often not possible to distinguish between the genuine and the imposters. It's also true that many of us try to lead the life, but have serious faults, fail to live up to the standards we set for ourselves.

However, there are some fundamental lines that can be drawn. Anyone who claims to be a Christian, but who would hate and murder his fellow human beings is not a Christian. Such a person may be deluded in thinking he is a Christian, or he may be an imposter.

0 Replies

The Adult Atheist Thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know