"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They don't resemble Christ at all." - Gandhi
I tire of all these 'True Christians', and the acrimonious hypocrisy they spout.
Where is the love they are supposed to have in their hearts, for the rest of mankind? They are supposedly spreading the 'Good News'. But rather than turn the other cheek, they continue to harangue, harass, belittle, and otherwise behave like children who have been poorly toilet trained.
There is a new breed of apologist in town. They see themselves as 'warriors of god', with delusions of the gunslinger's gait, the tipped hat, the 'cowboy of Christ'. Fighting fire with fire (so they think), chomping at the bit to throw the fallacies back in the skeptics' teeth.
And who doesn't want to style themselves as some sort of warrior, some shining beacon of truth? Everyone does: atheist or theist, Buddhist or Muslim, we all have our moments, where we envision ourselves as matador, or gladiator (well, at least the guys, most of them).
I am trying very much to avoid name-calling myself, but I find the vast (no hyperbole) majority of apologists to be egocentric, sophistic, spiteful malcontents, w/far too much time on their hands and convinced of their moral superiority, to a degree of antinomianism.
1. Theology. The doctrine or belief that the Gospel frees Christians from required obedience to any law, whether scriptural, civil, or moral, and that salvation is attained solely through faith and the gift of divine grace.
2. The belief that moral laws are relative in meaning and application as opposed to fixed or universal.
In this instance, both definitions apply. [Author's note: while I am aware of the history of Antinomianism, and it's subsequent rejection as a heresy by the Nicene council, it has become readily apparent, in my researches on the 'Net, that a vast majority of Xtians practice some form of this mindset, on levels varying from subtle to outrageous]
There are 3 citations from their own holy book that apply here:
'Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor REVILERS, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. '1 Corinthians 6:9-10
And:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." Matthew 7.1
Thirdly:
"But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. " Matthew 5:22
Here's a perfect example:
The "Inspiring Story" of Induction into the Loser's Club
This, from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/03/10/LV124772.DTL
"STEREOTYPES
Atheists say they constantly are reduced to stereotypes.
"Yeah," Rice said, "we are mean, bitter, angry Devil-worshippers, God- haters, confused and immoral, unpatriotic and closed-minded. (But) I've found atheists to be some of the most enjoyable, affectionate and mentally stimulating people in my life. We are very ethical. We do the right thing because we think it's right -- not because we think we'll be rewarded or punished in the afterlife based on our actions."
George the Sr.:
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.
-President George Bush"
For those of you who still need a primer, here:
http://myweb.cableone.net/silentdave/common_myths.htm
All debates descend into acrimony. It's difficult to have a conversation with a theist, when the automatic assumption is that we're all 'tools of Satan', 'losers', the auto-assumption of 'self-worship', the 'lost soul', 'there are no atheists in foxholes', etc, etc, ad nauseum.
It becomes readily apparent, that there are only two scapegoats left in American society: Arab Muslims, and atheists. Whatever shall we do, when bereft of these?
All I can say, is this: If you don't play by your own goddam rules, why the hell SHOULD I listen to you?
You're obviously not a 'true' xtian.
/autorant off
And that, dear readers, is my nickel's worth. Spend it wisely, and well.
42 comments:
udonman:
Yeah, it's tiresome. Walk the talk, I say: or shaddap (I mean them, of course).
Oops-
I meant to write that they were scapegoats too.
MF:
Point taken: there may be some I've missed, & so, apologies to any I've missed.
That loser club story is unbelievable! This Evan May character was spewing venom everywhere! Very scary. People don't like to have their warm & fuzzy fantasies disturbed. I prefer the cold hard truth to a comfortable fantasy. Pretty sure Sagan said that. One definitely has to excercise some tact when revealing your atheism. I for one am proud to be a member of the "Loser Club". "I'm a loser baby so why don't you kill me" - Beck. (Some xtians I'm sure would be more than happy to comply with that request)
PLV:
That loser club story is unbelievable! This Evan May character was spewing venom everywhere!
Yeah, it's WAY over the top.
Where's the love?
Is there any?
That crap really negates any positive crap they're trying to convey, that's for sure.
PLV:
P.S, thx for the heads up on that cartoon not coming out right. 1st experiment, & all that. It looked fine on my PC: used Picasa, too trusting.
RA,
While I generally agree with your post, let me make a few comments. 1) Don’t expect Christians to roll over with their tail between their legs every time their challenged 2) Christians are human too, we may have our occasional slips, but so do you and everyone else. 3) There are occasions where calling reprehensible arguments what they are (insert whatever ‘belittling’ comment here) is necessary insofar as they are justified 4) both atheist and theist would do better if they lighten up and develop thicker skin.
Also note that as you said “Atheists say they constantly are reduced to stereotypes” and provided a supporting quote. Well, theists are constantly reduces to stereo types too:
Quote: It's difficult to have a conversation with a theist, when the automatic assumption is that we're all 'tools of Satan', 'losers', the auto-assumption of 'self-worship', the 'lost soul', 'there are no atheists in foxholes', etc, etc, ad nauseum.
So you’re making a stereotype ascription to theists as well.
I respect the fact that you want to eliminate the ad homs, but let’s not act as if you (or more often other atheistic blogs) have set the standard of the harmonious exchange of ideas when you bash, belittle, disparage, mock, and ridicule what Christians believe and the Bible ad nauseum (note this especially in comment sections, where dialogue occurs).
Don’t get me wrong RA, I’m all for intellectual freedom, and I support your liberty to disagree, reject, and criticize any belief system including Christianity. But if I go through your atheist blog roll and read the posts what will I find? From a Christian perspective, I see Christianity, for lack of better words, shit on. Equally, there are dumb atheists, and there are dumb theists, and there are smart atheists, and there are smart theists, sometimes which ever boat you’re in, you have to call it the way you see it.
Regarding the “loser’s club”, I think you missed the context of their previous dialogues with “Debunking Christianity” and clarification of tactical responses.
I can’t speak for them, but here are a couple comments Hays has made on it:
“Loftus and his crew focus so much attention on their own personalities. If they are going to make their personal testimony such a large part of their case against the faith, then it’s only fair game to reply in kind.
iii) But they don’t respond to my issue-oriented pieces either. They prefer to characterize what I’ve written instead of quoting and rebutting what I’ve written.
And they characterize what I’ve written in very ad hominem terms even as they loudly profess to deplore ad hominem tactics.
I’ve mounted a two-pronged counteroffensive in which I respond to them on their own turf, whether in issue-oriented pieces or ad hominem pieces.
c) As to Christian ethics, we are not dealing here with some know-nothing teenager or confused collage student whose view of the Christian faith is based on hostile, thirdhand sources.
Someone like that should be gently corrected and patiently instructed.
BTW, I happen to know some well-informed teens and twenty-somethings. I’m talking about those with no Christian background.
No, what we are dealing with over at Debunking Christianity is hardened unbelief by those who sin in full knowledge of the light.
The Bible doesn’t treat everyone the same way. There are degrees of guilt and aggravating circumstances.
If you read what the Bible has to say about open apostates and false teachers, they come in for a very different treatment”
I think you would get a respectable answer if you email Evan May and ask him about the manner of their response to “the loser’s club.” His web is veritasredux.com and there is a contact feature to which he responds readily. I personally would encourage you to do so (just something to think about).
On a side note, I see that you like to take the ‘moral high ground.’ I was wondering if you have posted on your system of morality, or are planning on doing so.
P.S. blogger sucks, it’s always down when you need it!
RA:
I like your thoughts. Christianity has a long tradition of hate and destruction that the most conservative Christians do not know about but reproduce with their acts and thoughts. You will probably like let lat post in my blog
BF:
While I generally agree with your post, let me make a few comments. 1) Don’t expect Christians to roll over with their tail between their legs every time their challenged
I’d not expect any such thing from anyone. Sounds like a pre-judgment to me. When does ‘turn the other cheek’ ever apply?
2) Christians are human too, we may have our occasional slips, but so do you and everyone else.
Hey, no argument there.
3) There are occasions where calling reprehensible arguments what they are (insert whatever ‘belittling’ comment here) is necessary insofar as they are justified
Fine, then call the argument that, not the person. What qualifies as ‘reprehensible’, then? Genocide and pedophilia are reprehensible: abortion is not. Hatred is reprehensible. Murder is reprehensible.
4) both atheist and theist would do better if they lighten up and develop thicker skin.
Agreed. However: if you walk past a crazy person once, they make threatening, belittling comments, you never see that derelict again, well, easy enough to shrug it off. But you meet that person every day in some way, and this person does it again, and again, and again, until you dread the next day? This is an illustrative example.
Also note that as you said “Atheists say they constantly are reduced to stereotypes” and provided a supporting quote. Well, theists are constantly reduces to stereo types too:
Quote: It's difficult to have a conversation with a theist, when the automatic assumption is that we're all 'tools of Satan', 'losers', the auto-assumption of 'self-worship', the 'lost soul', 'there are no atheists in foxholes', etc, etc, ad nauseum.
So you’re making a stereotype ascription to theists as well.
In some ways: it’s also a matter of observation. It’s one of the many items that turned me away from the belief systems of religion altogether. Note that I avoided the blanket statement here: there IS an automatic assumption tacked on, for most. Note that I have two xtian friends, so no, not every xtian does this: but enough to make it a pattern.
I respect the fact that you want to eliminate the ad homs, but let’s not act as if you (or more often other atheistic blogs) have set the standard of the harmonious exchange of ideas when you bash, belittle, disparage, mock, and ridicule what Christians believe and the Bible ad nauseum (note this especially in comment sections, where dialogue occurs).
I’m not acting that way at all. I’m pointing out, that most (no, not all) of your side of the debate behaves quite poorly. YOU folks are the ones claiming higher moral ground: act accordingly.
Now why do you think that is? Could it be a knee-jerk response, much like the one white folks encounter, when they seem to look at a black person cross-eyed, and the black person wants to beat the snot out of them?
Whenever a minority comes of age, whenever a historically silenced group of folks finally find their voice, there’s going to be acrimony, there will always be anger. Let’s face facts: not until the 20th century, has an atheist even had the ability to speak out, or up. Note the L.A riots (blacks): or the Harvey Milk debacle (gays). Face it: your side has had power for far too long, and has abused it. This is the backlash. This is the aftermath of many decades of bottled resentment. I’m not saying it’s right: but when you fling feces and call foul, you spit on a person and not expect the same treatment in kind, well then, good luck changing human nature.
Don’t get me wrong RA, I’m all for intellectual freedom, and I support your liberty to disagree, reject, and criticize any belief system including Christianity. But if I go through your atheist blog roll and read the posts what will I find? From a Christian perspective, I see Christianity, for lack of better words, shit on. Equally, there are dumb atheists, and there are dumb theists, and there are smart atheists, and there are smart theists, sometimes whichever boat you’re in, you have to call it the way you see it.
See commentary above. Y’all made your bed: don’t complain to me if it’s a tad on the lumpy side.
Regarding the “loser’s club”, I think you missed the context of their previous dialogues with “Debunking Christianity” and clarification of tactical responses.
and here we have it: ‘tactical responses’? You see, you do indeed see it as a war. You and your cohorts. I could honestly care less about some pissing contest between atheists and theists. The final response is all that needs be said. Anything goes, in the war for souls. Some sort of ‘virtual’ crusaders, that’s the impression I receive. And even if slander, which is inveighed against in your own book of rules is called for, you (or someone else) will use it. ‘Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead’. ‘Break a few eggs’ is the aphorism that springs to mind.
I think you would get a respectable answer if you email Evan May and ask him about the manner of their response to “the loser’s club.” His web is veritasredux.com and there is a contact feature to which he responds readily. I personally would encourage you to do so (just something to think about).
I’ll take it under advisement.
On a side note, I see that you like to take the ‘moral high ground.’ I was wondering if you have posted on your system of morality, or are planning on doing so.
No, you have it all wrong. Again, your side likes to take the ‘moral high ground’. It’s a stumping point, which irritates me to no end, when few enough actually walk the talk. I’m more than willing to forgive the occasional slip, as we are all human, and prone to error. But your side always seems to do it w/a certain amount of glee. Perhaps as mine does. But we don’t have a book of rules to tell us otherwise: YOU DO. Look up the concept of ‘agape’. No referral to tektonics, please: I find Holding’s ‘extenuating circumstances’ a little on the convenient side.
As to morality? “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Note that that was espoused by JC, Hillel, and Confucius alike, so no accusations of ‘borrowing’, please.
The Golden Rule suits me just fine. Read the post ‘Ahimsa’: I believe that fits it all very well. I don’t need a novel-length explanation of what I do, and why I do it.
"Whoever imagines himself a favorite with God, holds other
people in contempt.
"Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God,
there is in that man no spirit of compromise. He has not the
modesty born of the imperfections of human nature; he has the
arrogance of theological certainty and the tyranny born of ignorant
assurance. Believing himself to be the slave of God, he imitates
his master, and of all tyrants, the worst is a slave in power."
-Ingersoll, Some Reasons Why
Reluctant,
your Ingersoll quotes
are bulls-eye appropriate.
Because if someone is -convinced unto death- that they, and only they, has seen the light and are keepers of THE ONE TRUTH,
well, stands to reason they'll do whatever is necessary to enforce said "truth"... and never mind the inconsitencies, the defamation or, even, in the end, the corpses.
I doubt this old world of ours has seen its las crusade... from whatever angle of evangelical arrogance.
RA,
I said I agreed with your post in general. I think that ad homs are an impediment to fruitful discussion.
Now, regarding the “Christian Moral Code”: Christianity doesn’t teach that Christians are morally superior to non-Christians. It does teach, however, that Christians ought to advance moral ethical behavior (this is where we agree). However, the Bible also (since you brought it up) advances the periodic mocking to the opposing view point (1 Kings 18:27), and calls non-Christians foolish (1 Cor. 1:20) and fools (Rom 1:22) and corrupt (Psalm 14:1). The Bible also calls unbelievers wicked. And the passages you posted are misused.
It seems that you want the Christians to be the wishy washy doormat that any atheist gets to walk all over because they don’t have a “book of rules” and theists do. While acrimony is justified for the atheist due to centuries of oppression (even when they have never personally experiences this historical oppression-if there was such), and the theist gets to respond with a cheesy smile while everything they believe to be sacred, holy, and personal gets shit on. This is more like the fallacy of self exclusion. How would you like it if someone slandered and spat in your mothers face (or someone close to you)? Well, imagine that feeling. I think that many Christians have done well—some not. I’m not arguing that you are completely unjustified; your frustrations are certainly warranted.
You do however make some pretty strong moral claims:
"I find the vast (no hyperbole) majority of apologists to be egocentric, sophistic, spiteful malcontents, w/far too much time on their hands and convinced of their moral superiority"
Your “Ahimsa” post blurs some distinctions (well, take into consideration I’m on my first cup of coffee). So maybe you can answer this question so I can better understand where your coming from:
The golden rule is catchy, but, according to your moral system are you saying this is wrong because it IS wrong? Or, Is it wrong because you SAY it’s wrong?
Contrary to what you may (or may not) think, the golden one liner doesn’t answer the question (or “Ahimsa”).
bf said:
"Christianity doesn’t teach that Christians are morally superior to non-Christians."
Huh?
What?
Come again?
Did I hear your lunacy right?
Then why is the god of the bible so adamant that none may be worshipped but he?
And why does he, by the proxy of his followers, wage war upon those who feel/think/live differenlty?
Yeah, riddle me this...
BF:
Now, regarding the “Christian Moral Code”: Christianity doesn’t teach that Christians are morally superior to non-Christians. It does teach, however, that Christians ought to advance moral ethical behavior (this is where we agree). However, the Bible also (since you brought it up) advances the periodic mocking to the opposing view point (1 Kings 18:27), and calls non-Christians foolish (1 Cor. 1:20) and fools (Rom 1:22) and corrupt (Psalm 14:1). The Bible also calls unbelievers wicked. And the passages you posted are misused.
Okay, so Kings, Elijah's mocking the prophets of Baal. Psalm 14:1 (don't even need to look that up) says that only a fool says there's no god.
1 Corinthians 1:20 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
20 - Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
&
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
Sorry, but nowhere in any of those do I see a license for xtians to resort to mockery. I believe the phrase here, is 'cherry-picking'. & if you'd be so kind, show me how the passages I quoted were misused.
It seems that you want the Christians to be the wishy washy doormat that any atheist gets to walk all over because they don’t have a “book of rules” and theists do. While acrimony is justified for the atheist due to centuries of oppression (even when they have never personally experiences this historical oppression-if there was such), and the theist gets to respond with a cheesy smile while everything they believe to be sacred, holy, and personal gets shit on. This is more like the fallacy of self exclusion. How would you like it if someone slandered and spat in your mothers face (or someone close to you)? Well, imagine that feeling. I think that many Christians have done well—some not. I’m not arguing that you are completely unjustified; your frustrations are certainly warranted.
I would not expect any human being to subject themselves to having a welcome mat on their backs, thank you very much.
As to being passionate about something sacred - I take your point. Freedom is my sacred cow, and the bill of rights, so understood.
You do however make some pretty strong moral claims:
"I find the vast (no hyperbole) majority of apologists to be egocentric, sophistic, spiteful malcontents, w/far too much time on their hands and convinced of their moral superiority"
You realize, of course, that this can also be an honest assessment of the matter?
If you read more of my posts, you'll probably find that I'm something of a hard ass. Atheist or theist. I am on record as having gone rounds w/more than 1 atheist. So if I see something wrong, I'm gonna say so. I don't care who you are, what you believe, if I think an opinion's a crock, or I find a commentary that I personally think is reprehensible, you (or the person who said it) is going to hear it. If the Shrub was an atheist, I'd STILL say he's an incompetent boob. Read my post, 'When Atheists attack!'.
I'm big on rules. You agree to the rules, you play by them. I agree to them, so do I.
If this makes me unpopular w/my fellow atheists, well, I could give a rat's fart in a whirlwind. If no 1 says anything, silence is taken as assent. To paraphrase John Adams, "Facts are those pesky critters that don't go away."
Your “Ahimsa” post blurs some distinctions (well, take into consideration I’m on my first cup of coffee). So maybe you can answer this question so I can better understand where your coming from:
The golden rule is catchy, but, according to your moral system are you saying this is wrong because it IS wrong? Or, Is it wrong because you SAY it’s wrong?
Contrary to what you may (or may not) think, the golden one liner doesn’t answer the question (or “Ahimsa”).
Don't harm others: what else is there to say? Fair & equal treatment, what you expect for yourself, you should give to others. It IS that simple. Empathy.
The 'golden 1 liner'? Is that...perchance mockery I hear? ;) Go ahead & re-read it (after the 3rd or 4th cup). I'm curious as to how I blurred the distinctions.
HMDK:
And why does he, by the proxy of his followers, wage war upon those who feel/think/live differenlty?
Aye, now THERE'S the rub!
Monkey,
I am just as much as a loser as anyone else (believer or non-believer). I make mistakes, sometimes dumb and immoral ones. There are many non-Christians (read: Gandhi) who have exemplified superior moral conduct than many Christians. So, when I said that Christianity does not teach that Christens are morally superior, it was a correct statement. As I stated before, Christianity does teach that Christians *ought* to be moral, because it’s what God wants and we now have the assistance of the Holy Spirit.
I suppose if I accused you of “lunacy” I would be charge with the immoral tendencies to “harangue, harass, belittle, and otherwise behave like children who have been poorly toilet trained.” But I guess “Fair & equal treatment, what you expect for yourself, you should give to others” doesn’t apply if it comes from an atheist.
“Why is the god of the bible so adamant that none may be worshipped but he?”
Because according to the Bible, he is the only true God and a jealous one at that.
“And why does he, by the proxy of his followers, wage war upon those who feel/think/live differenlty?”
He doesn’t
RA,
I never said that the passages were a license for mockery. I pointed out that in contrast, the Bible says that unbelievers are fools, wicked etc… and if the Bible teaches it, we are justified articulate biblical expressions and teachings insofar as it’s used in context of how it was used in the Bible. I’m a little more gracious theist, but read this article and it will give the root of what I’m talking about.
In regards to Ahimsa, I think you failed to address the following: you did not define evil. Is it your opinion? What is the standard to which you measure it? Where does the standard come from? If it’s your own personal convention why should anyone accept your definition? Does your subjective opinion apply to anyone else? Can you force your morality on anyone? Why? Why not? The golden 1 liner is not mockery, it just doesn’t answer the essential questions, and it’s a cop out.
I like how you dodged my question:
According to your moral system are you saying this is wrong because it IS wrong? Or, Is it wrong because you SAY it’s wrong?
Hi RA,
I wrote a comment this afternoon and it took some time to write, but only seconds for the error page to show up when I tried to submit it; how frustrating. So, here I am trying again.
Try Try Again....right?
Anyway, I have a question. I've read only a few of your posts and thus,I don't claim to be fluent in them. Still I will ask. It seem to me in this discussion about atheism vs theism, the main antogonist is Christianity. My question is why do you not speak of Judaism.
Now, take into consideration that I, myself am Jewish. I am an agnostic, but definitely Jewish.
So, do be gentle in your response. You can respond here or if you choose come over to my blog and respond and comment there. I believe you did come around once.
I happen to be in Israel at the moment and for another week or so and have blogged a bit about my trip. You are welcome.
sherril
BF:
I never said that the passages were a license for mockery. I pointed out that in contrast, the Bible says that unbelievers are fools, wicked etc… and if the Bible teaches it, we are justified articulate biblical expressions and teachings insofar as it’s used in context of how it was used in the Bible. I’m a little more gracious theist, but read this article and it will give the root of what I’m talking about.
Thanks for the article. It was most amusing. I consider that complete sophistry, BTW. Cherry-picking. That's EXACTLY what that article claimed: license for mockery.
In regards to Ahimsa, I think you failed to address the following: you did not define evil. Is it your opinion? What is the standard to which you measure it? Where does the standard come from? If it’s your own personal convention why should anyone accept your definition? Does your subjective opinion apply to anyone else? Can you force your morality on anyone? Why? Why not? The golden 1 liner is not mockery, it just doesn’t answer the essential questions, and it’s a cop out.
Evil=harm. In word or deed. No, I didn't fail to address it at all. No, the 'golden 1 liner' does answer the question, stop poisoning the well.
I like how you dodged my question:
According to your moral system are you saying this is wrong because it IS wrong? Or, Is it wrong because you SAY it’s wrong?
Oh, this old dodge. I could see this coming a mile away. Standard talking point. If I say it's wrong because it is, then we have the same old discussion about 'objective morality'. If I say it's because I say so, then it's self-worship.
It's wrong because it is. Causing pain is wrong.
BF:
I suppose if I accused you of “lunacy” I would be charge with the immoral tendencies to “harangue, harass, belittle, and otherwise behave like children who have been poorly toilet trained.” But I guess “Fair & equal treatment, what you expect for yourself, you should give to others” doesn’t apply if it comes from an atheist.
Listen:
A. I didn't call them immoral, I called them hypocritical.
B. "As you sow, so shall you reap."
Oh, wait: I misused that quote (somehow).
Never mind.
Sherril:
My question is why do you not speak of Judaism.
Ummm...I think my post, 'Dishonest Abe' did cover that, didn't it?
I was thinking of going after a few others. Buddhism, Judaism, etc.
And so we come back to this,
as always:
"Because according to the Bible, he is the only true God and a jealous one at that. "
But since there's no reason to believe (other than -wanting to-)
that the bible is the infallible word of said god...
well, we just tumble down into the abyss of circular logic.
Monkey,
You asked me the question, so I answered. I see that no matter what response I would have given would be insufficient. So why did you ask? Interacting with you, since you auto-reject everything that I say without benefit of argument, is waste of time. Anyone can make assertions, atheist, theist, whatever…, but if you want to claim the intellectual high ground at least back it up.
Bf.
All I asked... hell, all I EVER WILL ask, is that you prove the infallibility of the book you get your morals from.
Sorry.. I know that's a tall order.
But don't give me your bitchy little, "Well, so are you!",- argument.
It really is very easy.
It is incumbent upon those who make extraordinary claims to prove such proclamations.
In other words,
prove not only that god exists,
but that he/she/it conforms to your interpretation of the "rules".
If you can manage THAT,
THEN I might consider your outpourings as more than mouthiness.
“But don't give me your bitchy little, "Well, so are you!",- argument.
If you can manage THAT, THEN I might consider your outpourings as more than mouthiness.”
This must be the empathy RA was talking about.
What kind of evidence would count as proof?
bf.
Evidence of the bible's veracity for one.
And don't dump a few links
from Dembski, Tectonics or, worse,
Fall-Down-The-Well.
We're not children here.
We've been through this before.
We'll need actual facts...
you know, the kind that allowed man to walk on the moon...
not the kind that condemned people for saying the earth had a roundish shape.
Another thing would be proving the existence of god...
pick a god, any god.
In essence, my antagonistic tone
aside, why believe when there's absolutely nothing to support it?
Out of your entire rant, you still didn’t answer my question.
What kind of evidence would count as proof? In other words, what would you consider as proof?
Plus:
"This must be the empathy RA was talking about."
Wow. There's that bitchiness again.
You want my empathy?
Then don't act like a jilted lover,
when all I do is ask obviously needed questions, okay?
And remove the stick while you're at it, and have a seat.
There's a chair here for you
and we do value your input.
So quit with the petulant facade,
sit down and expound.
"what would you consider as proof?"
Easy.
Show me god.
You can't?
Then why should I believe?
And even if you could,
I'd still like to pose him a few questions before I'd get on my knees for him, that's for certain.
Particularly why the world is as it is, when he has absolute power
to make it better.
Is it possible that your criterion for evidence is not reasonable? Even if God appeared before you, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you? How would you know?
Skeptics like yourself will always succeed at being a skeptic. Your request is predicated on the assumption that a theistic argument is unsound unless it can meet some apodictic standard of proof. Thus, I’ll pass on your request, because it would never meet your satisfaction.
You do make comedy easy:
"Even if God appeared before you, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you? How would you know? "
Uh... I suppose that if
he's all-powerful and omnipotent
I'd not have a choice.
I'd be convinced by the very
fact that I couldn't choose NOT to.
"Thus, I’ll pass on your request, because it would never meet your satisfaction. "
Translated to human-language:
"I have no real argument,
so I must run".
Bye, buddy.
Do drop in again.
BF:
This must be the empathy RA was talking about.
Well, at the risk of 'siding' w/HMDK, you HAVE been making the effort to turn the tables on the skeptics in that regard. I've been making the effort to remain civil, but I keep hearing, "What about you?" every time a criticism is voiced.
Such as But I guess “Fair & equal treatment, what you expect for yourself, you should give to others” doesn’t apply if it comes from an atheist.
Or:
You do however make some pretty strong moral claims:
or:
On a side note, I see that you like to take the ‘moral high ground.’
While normally I consider turnabout fair play, I find the 'Jerry Springer' apologist (no, not you, though you're starting to lean towards it) particularly obnoxious.
What I see is an effort to make the other side bend to your rules (a bootless effort: each atheist plays by their own rules, there really IS no set standard). I am all for spirited debate. But unless a set of rules is agreed upon in advance, it's pretty much free-style, isn't it?
I feel obliged to point these things out. If I saw a Buddhist who claimed to be a pacifist starting fights all the time, well, you get my drift. I do strive for some kind of standard, though I fumble, as any human does.
I find this statement telling:
I am just as much as a loser as anyone else (believer or non-believer).
Perhaps I'm taking this out of context, but this says so much to me.
I feel:
A. Loser isn't a person, it's a mindset
B. This reeks of original sin
& there we have another divide. OS (original sin) is perhaps 1 of the more unbelievable doctrines of xtianity. I find that reprehensible. It stunts the mental potential of every human being that believes it. I find it loathsome: that humanity is some thalidomide baby, purposely stunted by its maker upon existed. What kind, loving being would wish that upon its offspring? & for the sin of the father? I call it cruel: I call it inhumane, I call it many things. & washing 1's sins away in the blood of another, no matter the name?
I'm sorry, but that smacks of savagery. In this, I DO take the higher ground. Moral, intellectual, whatever you choose to call it.
As to this:
both atheist and theist would do better if they lighten up and develop thicker skin.
Well, there is a way to do this.
Turn the other cheek.
Live by your own rules, is my advice. Set an example.
& I give you this:
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails." (First Epistle to the Corinthians Chapter 13, verses 4-8a)"
I do not need to abide by these rules, as I've not agreed to them. It is you & yours that lay claim to the higher ground. Justify & represent: that's all I ask. That, & honesty.
Make of that what you will.
RA
Let’s take this to its logic conclusion:
If “there really IS no set standard,” then there is no standard to which others must follow their own standard. In other words, there are no rules that one *ought* to follow their own rules.
BF:
If “there really IS no set standard,” then there is no standard to which others must follow their own standard. In other words, there are no rules that one *ought* to follow their own rules.
I did say this (in its entirety):
What I see is an effort to make the other side bend to your rules (a bootless effort: each atheist plays by their own rules, there really IS no set standard).
Yes, let's do this.
The rules are set by 2 items: the individual's upbringing, and the environment set around the individual. I was talking about debate, failed to qualify, & so we'll talk in circles a bit.
My standard is...well, I've given it to you. This was formed by a # of negative experiences as a child, which makes 1 either
A. Totally numb, or
B. Empathic, or
C. Sociopathic
I went w/B.
Now this:
In other words, there are no rules that one *ought* to follow their own rules.
You have consciously chosen to follow a specific set of parameters, in accordance w/the agreement of your specific clique/herd/choose noun of your choice.
In order for any individual in a pack environment to exist w/said pack, there is obviously select patterns to maintain. This is observable in humanity, in nature, w/any living organism (sans the loner animal).
There are indeed set social mores, that we're obliged to follow. Set at the core of these, is empathy.
If an animal sets itself against the pack, more often than not, that animal is outcast, or destroyed.
In your pack, the parameters were set 2000 years ago, by an alpha wolf. Apparently, said parameters were almost impossible to follow.
Whereas, in my pack, we have set ourselves outside the majority, ergo, in a manner of speaking, there's a certain amount of isolation. Hence the anger, the frustration.
So if you're trying to set up some strawman attack (& if I'm off on this, apologies), that's not going to fly.
I still have YET to hear about my misuse of scripture quotation.
Oh, & this:
Even if God appeared before you, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you? How would you know?
Perhaps the better question, would be: how would you know yourself? What is your criterion? I'm genuinely curious. Have you had such a thing occur?
RA,
You have consciously chosen to follow a specific set of parameters, in accordance w/the agreement of your specific clique/herd/choose noun of your choice.
Agreed, but my specific set of parameters qualifies me to its adherence. Someone without any specific set of parameters (Read: rules) has no specific set of parameters (rules) to require those who have chosen to adhere to a certain specific set of parameters to actually adhere to them.
It’s not as if just because one has consciously chosen to follow a specific set of parameters, one *ought* to follow those parameters. What if there was a group who’s specific set of parameters was to murder atheists? Would you require them to follow those parameters? I think not (neither would, but actually oppose it). It’s not just about having parameters (or rules), we must be able to appeal to a standard to judge whether or not those rules *ought* to be followed.
Hence, if you deny objective standards, you disqualify your own standard of requiring others to hold to their own standard. It’s self refuting.
In order for any individual in a pack environment to exist w/said pack, there is obviously select patterns to maintain. This is observable in humanity, in nature, w/any living organism (sans the loner animal).
According to this, only that “pack” that holds to these values can enforce them. If you have two different “packs,” with two different sets of “pack” values, one “pack” cannot force it’s own values on another “pack.” If it can, then were talking about might makes right and whomsoever can overpower, will be in the right.
There are indeed set social mores, that we're obliged to follow.
And if the standard of society is racism are we obligated to follow? Was Martin Luther King going against his obligation to follow the ‘social mores’? According to this standard, there can never be moral reform in a society, and people in social mores like Nazi Germany were “obligated to follow.”
Set at the core of these, is empathy.
First you say that there is no standard, and then you say that empathy is the standard. Which is it? If empathy is something that everyone *ought* to follow then it is and objective moral standard. If it is an objective moral standard, where does it come from? If empathy objective moral standard, then there no necessary requirement for anyone to follow it.
an animal sets itself against the pack, more often than not, that animal is outcast, or destroyed.
Yes, but if your not in the pack, you don’t get to kick out pack members.
In your pack, the parameters were set 2000 years ago, by an alpha wolf. Apparently, said parameters were almost impossible to follow.
Whereas, in my pack, we have set ourselves outside the majority, ergo, in a manner of speaking, there's a certain amount of isolation. Hence the anger, the frustration.
So if you're trying to set up some strawman attack (& if I'm off on this, apologies), that's not going to fly.
I am really not tying to se up a straw man. What I am doing is showing where your position logically follows. If you want to show that it’s not where your position logically follows, I’m all ears.
I still have YET to hear about my misuse of scripture quotation.
Yes, I’m on borrowed time, so forgive me. I’ll try and make an effort to respond to that.
Perhaps the better question, would be: how would you know yourself? What is your criterion? I'm genuinely curious. Have you had such a thing occur?
I don’t know that this is a better question per se; noting that I asked this question in response to monkeys request to “Show me god.” But since it seems that you genuinely asked the question I will do my best to answer. I have not had such things occur. While we don’t have infallible cognition, in my Christian worldview, I would use my faculties as I do any other. Most importantly, I would test the experience with it’s consistence with what God has already revealed in his Word. This is not to say that I could prove God came before me to any one; I can only know that I had an experience. This is why when monkey said to show him God, I knew even that would not suffice. I was not using experience as an argument (not that you were insinuating), rather as an example that no matter what is presented (it seems) — he would not believe—even with an experience. Though, experience is a positive form of evidence; inexperience is neutral on the existence of the object in question.
There is a difference between artificial, make-believe skepticism and genuine doubt. I have no problems when people challenging certain claims—they ought to, but skeptics can always be successful at being a skeptic no matter what is presented before them.
BF:
Agreed, but my specific set of parameters qualifies me to its adherence. Someone without any specific set of parameters (Read: rules) has no specific set of parameters (rules) to require those who have chosen to adhere to a certain specific set of parameters to actually adhere to them.
So this is your roundabout way of saying, "You can't criticize me?" Nu-UH. Obviously, I have a set of parameters to follow: otherwise, you'd be reading about me in the newspapers, or seeing me on an episode of 'Cops'.
Hence, if you deny objective standards, you disqualify your own standard of requiring others to hold to their own standard. It’s self refuting.
No way, no dice. Nice try. No such thing as 'objective standards'.
It’s not as if just because one has consciously chosen to follow a specific set of parameters, one *ought* to follow those parameters. What if there was a group who’s specific set of parameters was to murder atheists? Would you require them to follow those parameters? I think not (neither would, but actually oppose it). It’s not just about having parameters (or rules), we must be able to appeal to a standard to judge whether or not those rules *ought* to be followed.
'Do unto others...', see, it still applies. I'm really making an effort here not to resort to 'appeal to ridicule', or the ad hominem: your 'murdering atheist' analogy almost opens up a whole can of worms.
According to this, only that “pack” that holds to these values can enforce them. If you have two different “packs,” with two different sets of “pack” values, one “pack” cannot force it’s own values on another “pack.” If it can, then were talking about might makes right and whomsoever can overpower, will be in the right.
Which is historically verifiable.
And if the standard of society is racism are we obligated to follow? Was Martin Luther King going against his obligation to follow the ‘social mores’? According to this standard, there can never be moral reform in a society, and people in social mores like Nazi Germany were “obligated to follow.”
Again, sadly, historically verifiable. File under 'moral relativism'. However, social mores change, and they DO evolve. There will always be problems, ironed out in time, but evolution gives us the ability to move forward.
It takes one mutation, whether that's in the social meme, or in the act of speciation, to change the flow of life.
Yes, but if your not in the pack, you don’t get to kick out pack members.
I'm not in a position to kick anyone out. Honesty impels me to point it out.
Yes, I’m on borrowed time, so forgive me. I’ll try and make an effort to respond to that.
You are forgiven, my son. Say ten hail mary's, call me in the morning. Hmmm....it does seem as if you've spent a lot of time on my site recently. No biggee and all. You're likely to find an error or 2 somewhere (I am, after all, human). I'm curious about what you find so fascinating about me, though. Should I be worried? ;)
I have no problems when people challenging certain claims—they ought to, but skeptics can always be successful at being a skeptic no matter what is presented before them.
Not a cheap shot, but the same claim can be made for religious folk.
Thus far, your successful adoption of my simile sways me not in the slightest. It's simplistic reductionism. As a pack animal, we as a species have evolved a far more intricate, complex set of interactions that (dare I say it? YES!) transcend the simpler format that you've presented. If we were talking about dogs, all of your examples would be correct. But we are talking about a creature w/approx. a billion (guesstimate) separate mechanisms used to interact w/other creatures of the same species.
To pare those down to just 1 core ingredient? I'm going to have to go w/empathy. There may be a couple of more.
Ingersoll moment - "'Thou shalt not kill' is as old as time itself, as most men object to being killed."
& so, regardless of whatever Gordian knots of logic you use, I will, to borrow a metaphor, cut them w/my blade. I haven't named the bloody thing yet.
How goes fatherhood, BTW?
RA,
Fatherhood is tiring, but magnificent; thanks for asking. I see you’re taking Alexander’s sword to cut through “Gordian Knots.” Well that’s fine, if you refuse take your view to its logical conclusion, then you only proved my point about skepticism. Otherwise, feel free to show how my argument is logically false. I am going to be posting our dialogue on my blog. Don’t be flattered, it’s not that you’re so “fascinating”, but I did spend more than 2 ½ minutes on it so…you can pull your rational card out there if you like.
BF:
Well that’s fine, if you refuse take your view to its logical conclusion, then you only proved my point about skepticism.
I'm sorry, how is that?
Likewise:
Someone without any specific set of parameters (Read: rules) has no specific set of parameters (rules) to require those who have chosen to adhere to a certain specific set of parameters to actually adhere to them.
You know, I was actually looking for some honesty. You've shown some. Then you hide behind an article that echoes an old essay of Holding's (see, if they're really AWFUL people, we get to say whatever we want about them!), then you want to quibble on the concepts of standards (another old dodge), & my only error isn't handing you a 500 word essay which you won't agree w/anyways.
So in short, you've achieved very little, outside a post on your blog. Except validating your methodology for yourself in a vast labyrinth of sophistry.
To quote Merv Pumpkinhead, "I ain't afraid to call a spade a goddam shovel."
No offense: I gotta call 'em the way I see 'em.
RA
I think you missed my point. I am not justifying inappropriate personal attacks for myself or anyone else. I told you I agreed with you on that point. I don’t want to push the issue.
You can make an observation that someone is not following their code. However, you CANT tell them to follow their own code while rejecting an objective standard without refuting yourself. In effect, you’re saying there are no “codes.” Then you say, you must follow your code. If you *must* follow your code then there is an objective standard; you refute yourself.
I think the distinction is between identifying hypocrisy vs. requiring adherence. You can do the former, but you run into problems with your own philosophy when you do the later. That’s all. Anyway, I don’t want to think of our exchange as just another post for me, rather for something we should both think about.
Thanks for the dialogue
BF:
I think the distinction is between identifying hypocrisy vs. requiring adherence. You can do the former, but you run into problems with your own philosophy when you do the later.
I'm sorry, I did understand your point...but it does indeed sound very much like, "Well, you're not 1 of us, so therefore, you don't get to criticize."
I don't require adherence from anyone: I require adherence from myself, in re: my own code.
Sadly, I hope that others look in a mirror, & are honest. I try to be self-aware (agonizingly so), but perhaps it's just naivete, that I expect others to do the same.
But I don't need to be an Emperor to say: "The Emperor has no clothes."
In reference to christians having the monopoly on morality, morality is a human construct in order for a society to function peacefully and to ensure teh rights of every citizen. I hope that xians will actually READ this entire comment before responding:
In the absence of religion, society would still need some set of guidelines for us all to co-exist peacefully. Governments and the people of a society construct laws using COMMON SENSE and take into consideration what will be best for the peaceful function of that particular society which will ensure the health, happiness and liberty overall for each individual as well as the society as a whole.
Most religions are a contradiction to our society’s moral codes. Xianity, in particular, is founded on violence (argument between god and satan, god throws him into a pit and then lets him out to wreak havoc, god wreaks havoc and kills (he especially likes to kill firstborn babies instead of going after who he really has a beef with — like Pharoahs), Jesus comes and preaches that he didn’t come to bring peace, but war (Matthew 5:17 for those who want sources), this god creates himself a son and allows his “son” to be mutilated and ultimately put to death in a most violent way, and in the end, as written in the book of Revelation, there will be a great war between heaven and earth…I could provide many more violent examples but it’s all in the Bible, (but most xians skirt around the bad stuff, and take the good stuff. They only want to believe the stuff that suits themselves and what will benefit them…mostly ETERNAL LIFE because they are afraid to die.)
Xianity is a religion based on violence and often used to justify violence. This god was violent BEFORE humans were supposedly created. This god of Xian mythology kills, mutilates, destroys, tortures, teases, tests, wants animal sacrifices, wants people to sacrifice their children, wants people to disown their families for him. Every moral code we hold dear in our society is violated by this god.
And as for Evan May and others like him who have infested my blog and the blogs of other atheists at one time or another, here is a quote:
""He [god] seems way too cowardly to tell me to my face that he is real and what's more, he has to send people in my path, many of whom are just the most arrogant, argumentive, self-righteous, judgemental sons-of-bitches imaginable, to 'witness' to me."
If there was such a place as hell (which I don't believe there is) I would rather spend eternity there than in heaven with the likes of most of the christians I have encountered. Heaven seems like it is going to be one big asshole convention.
stardust:
Governments and the people of a society construct laws using COMMON SENSE and take into consideration what will be best for the peaceful function of that particular society
As Voltaire once noted: 'Common sense is not so common."
Xianity is a religion based on violence and often used to justify violence.
Which goes to my theory, that from the womb of evolution, religion sprang.
This god of Xian mythology kills, mutilates, destroys, tortures, teases, tests, wants animal sacrifices, wants people to sacrifice their children, wants people to disown their families for him.
My theory, is that it was the priests that voiced these...atavisms. I'd bet the rent on it.
Why does post #1 sound so familiar, BTW?
If there was such a place as hell (which I don't believe there is) I would rather spend eternity there than in heaven with the likes of most of the christians I have encountered.
I have voiced similar sentiments in the past.
Maybe that's why JC said, "In my father's house, there are many rooms." To keep the inmates from assaulting one another? ;)
I've been trying to maintain a civil tone w/BF, but it comes hard when I hear, "Only we can criticize ourselves." & yet I see social darwinism on an abstract scale (Hey, embarrass us? You're OUTTA the club, fella!), elitism (whether intended or not) and whatnot.
I'm trying to build bridges. Problem is, materials are scarce.
As for BF's comment on atheist discrimination, here's a menage a trois:
http://www.startribune.com/614/story/329295.html
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/03/antiatheist_dis.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Discrimination
Post a Comment