Religion Matters: Take 3

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: Piano man on Jun 17, 2017, 09:17PMRonkny, I think you're trying way too hard to choose up sides. This thread in no way lines up as 'atheists vs. believers', because there's just as much disagreement within those groups as between them.
 
To name only a few examples from very recent posts:
 
I liked JtT's article, but T42B, a believer, didn't.
 
BvB and BillO aren't believers, but they strongly disagree on the relevance of historical violence compared to current violence vis-a-vis Christianity and Islam, which puts him in agreement with your most recent post.
 
I'm an atheist, but I agree with the Theologian's article that persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses was more secular than religious, and that nationalism closely mimics religion. BillO, who is a fellow atheist, disagrees with John and me.
 
I agreed with you that defining people who devote their lives to religion as 'zealots' was too broad.
 
I don't see any point in an 'atheist' topic, because what the heck could you write about? I get the sense that you're trying to create rancor where there is none, and maybe you're a little frustrated that the sides don't draw up quite as cleanly as you like. I'm not in here to lob shots across anyone's bow. It seems like a good discussion to me.
I agreed quite strongly with you and JtT about the zealot issue as well. I think we were both pretty taken with that article (same for the friends and some other forum members at the Sam Harris forum I've since shared it with, by the way). I also suspect there's closer agreement on the violence against JWs thing than you guys are seeing, but I'm not very close at all to being sure either.
 
 --
 
But your post is a good example of what I'm talking about when I say we need to learn to stay out of our own way. You saw all of this because you didn't just decide what was going on based upon a quick first impression or your own expectations or ideology. Thinking through those things as filters probably didn't even occur to you because you don't have any personal investments at stake here, but when we do have investments in play it can easily become an obstacle to actually seeing reality.
 
We all have biases of course, even if not to a very significant degree, that we need to learn to set aside like this--ideally internalizing doing so so it becomes second nature--automatic, at least more or less. When we rely on our filters up front, we're altering what we perceive--the information we take in from which we understand reality--rather than taking it in as raw and true to life as possible, and then processing it. If we never experience reality without filters we use to spin it the way we want it, we never really quite experience reality as it is, or at least closer to as it really is than with those filters in place. The more filtration we can remove the better ... if we really want to understand reality as-is as best we can rather than reality that's been filtered to affirm our personal sensibilities.
 
Anyway ... that's what I'm saying when I say we need to get out of our own way if we're really interested in what's really on the other side of our personal investments and such. We need to learn to clear out at least our more imposing filters if we want to see what's really there in order to understand it very well rather than to just affirm our sensibilities--to just rehearse our prejudices. Ideally we work toward investing in divesting ourselves of the use of filters to manipulate the perceptions and experiences and information we take in rather than shoring up and strengthening our use of filters so we never see anything without them in place, distorting our view.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Thought some of you might want a bit more information on the Jehovah's Witnesses and their troubles.  Both of the links tell the story of their persecution-- one is more sympathetic to them than the other, but both detail the opposition to them by many members of society.

I believe that it confirms what the author of the article I posted claimed that the opposition to the JW's was and continues to be political and nationalistic rather than what we traditionally think of as religious. 

http://www.freeminds.org/history/conflicts.htm

http://www.historynet.com/what-we-owe-jehovahs-witnesses.htm

I'm certainly no fan of their beliefs-- I believe they are very seriously erroneous by traditional Christian standards-- but I also very much believe that they have been treated horribly for what are really the political implications of their beliefs, including such important patriotic organizations as the American Legion.

[ttf_ronkny]

Quote from: BillO on Jun 17, 2017, 04:44PM
I don't think there are too many millions of followers of radical Muslims, but I get your point.  They do seem the be the religious wackos of the present day.  I'm beginning to believe their radicalism is not even well connected to their religion at all.  Nutbags are nutbags.  But Being a religious person can bring with it some things that help the radicalism along.

And please understand, I don't have a huge quibble with religious people as long as they keep it to themselves.  Right now radical Islam is not doing that.  I think we can probably agree on that.  However, I do see a lot of folks just generalize the acts of these nutbag radicals to all Muslims.  That is just plain wrong from any perspective.  Unfortunately, in my circle those folks are more often than not (way more, actually) religious people.

However, being an anti-theist I do believe religion has had it's time.  The need to muster up some supreme being that everyone needs to live if fear of, in order to live reasonably with each other, has past.  A lot of effort goes into keeping organized religion going.  If you really want to do good, put those resources into actually helping people in need, or animals in need, or into research for the betterment of mankind.  Don't waste it on building a new church, or supporting an immense hierarchy of otherwise useless clerics like the RC church.

Following doctrine has never been a great way for man to develop.  It teaches you to not be open to new ideas.  I'm not sure which branches of Christianity that you, John and Dusty belong to, but I'm sure you are all aware that some Christians (as well as other religions) look at genesis as being an historical account (despite the numerous contradictions and other problems with that concept).  They believe the universe is only ~ 6500 years old.  Yet those same people own and use modern cars, fly in airplanes, and use the internet without realizing that the very existence of modern cars, airplanes and the internet demand that the universe be billions of years old.  Seriously, you can't have it both ways.

Putting effort into keeping such archaic concepts going seems, to me, like a waste of valuable resources.

Another thing I have no problem with are the teachings of Jesus.  It is a little difficult to get them exactly right as the new testament is very inconsistent.  However, one gets the feeling he taught thing like peace, love, helpfulness, acceptance and tolerance.  These are good things.  But we know that anyway, don't we?  Do we really need to be involved in an organized religion to adopt these principles?  Do we need the adherence to doctrine and authoritarianism that comes with that?  Do we need minds molded to follow doctrine and authoritarianism?  Do we need faith to be good people?

One of the nasty things about religion is that every religion is 100% sure they got it right and all the rest have it wrong.  Personally I have a problem with this.  Not that I'm the worlds most open mined person, but it is just plain hubris.  That smells.  It smells bad.  One way I have of keeping religious people from attempting to proselytize me is to ask them to explain to me how their religion is better than another.  I have done this most the JW, as they used to come around here quite a bit, but I've done it with other folks too when they have tired to push religious beliefs on me.

Do you know what?  Not one has ever accepted the challenge.  Not a single one.

I was raised United Methodist to a RC dad and a Presbyterian mom in a Jewish Italian neighborhood.I married to a former Greek Orthodox. Studied Biology, History, Judaism and Hebrew in college. And now about to start law school. So I know a little.

"I'm beginning to believe their radicalism is not even well connected to their religion at all."  I'm not sure what you mean. I have not read the Koran but I do know that these nutjobs say they base their zealotry on the Koran.

"I do see a lot of folks just generalize the acts of these nutbag radicals to all Muslims." I don't see "a lot" and the ones I do see are not reasonable people to begin with.

"I don't have a huge quibble with religious people as long as they keep it to themselves." Keep it to themselves? That's a broad statement. What does that mean?

"being an anti-theist I do believe religion has had it's time." So religion was good but now it's not? You do know that many religions do good in the world and have been on the forefront of this for a long long time. I give money to my church and much of it goes to good efforts. If one believes in God then you can't just ignore that fact because that's what you want.

Believing in Genesis as a historical document doesn't harm anyone.
"the very existence of modern cars, airplanes and the internet demand that the universe be billions of years old." Huh? BTW, I believe Genesis and other parts of the bible is not a textbook. So Genesis 7 days may actually mean billions of years. I don't know and it doesn't matter to me.

"Another thing I have no problem with are the teachings of Jesus.  It is a little difficult to get them exactly right as the new testament is very inconsistent.  However, one gets the feeling he taught thing like peace, love, helpfulness, acceptance and tolerance.  These are good things.  But we know that anyway, don't we?  Do we really need to be involved in an organized religion to adopt these principles?  Do we need the adherence to doctrine and authoritarianism that comes with that?  Do we need minds molded to follow doctrine and authoritarianism?  Do we need faith to be good people?"  Inconsistent? How? 
"Need to be in organized religion"? Yes. Can everyone who reads it interpret the bible? Same with Judaism. Most religions have schools to learn and understand God and his ways. Not everyone can do this. Just like not everyone can be a surgeon with schooling.
"Authoritarian"? "Doctrine"? Yes. I think everyone needs to be accountable to someone. I wouldn't call it authoritarianism though. That's a bit harsh.

I believe the RC church is the original (Peter was the first Pope)so a couple thousand years plus and lots of people studying it more than I have convinced me. But I'm not harsh towards other religions unless they don't reign in their crazies. The RC's have had their share of crazies, as have others. We are, after all, human.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: ronkny on Yesterday at 10:45 AMI was raised United Methodist to a RC dad and a Presbyterian mom in a Jewish Italian neighborhood.I married to a former Greek Orthodox. Studied Biology, History, Judaism and Hebrew in college. And now about to start law school. So I know a little.
Credentials accepted.

QuoteI'm not sure what you mean. I have not read the Koran but I do know that these nutjobs say they base their zealotry on the Koran.
Yes they do, don't they.  They can't very well say "we're doing this because we're nutbags".  So they push the blame to some of the violent rhetoric depicted in the Koran.  However, Islam is no more based solely on the Koran than is Christianity based solely on the Old Testament.  The Old Testament BTW, is just as full of violence as it the Koran.  You should read the Koran and see.  Islam, like Christianity, teaches peace, love, understanding ... etc.

QuoteI don't see "a lot" and the ones I do see are not reasonable people to begin with.
Well, for this sort of thing 'a lot' must be maintained at a fairly low threshold in actual numbers.  Look at what happened in London this last weekend, and that is just the most recent and more spectacular example.  The traditional Muslim women suffer the most  daily - as they are a visible target.  But I essentially agree with - the people that do this are not reasonable.

Quote"I don't have a huge quibble with religious people as long as they keep it to themselves."  Keep it to themselves? That's a broad statement. What does that mean?
Exactly what I say.  Don't try to convert those that are not open to it, and don't openly denigrate others for their beliefs. As someone here recently said "But I'm not harsh towards other religions unless they don't reign in their crazies."

QuoteSo religion was good but now it's not?
Yes, that it correct.  At one time, before there was knowledge, law, education and a way to help us seek further knowledge about what we don't understand (science) it was a convenient way to keep order.  The use of a vengeful almighty being to bring fear into play was rather brilliant.  Cuts down on the explanations.

QuoteYou do know that many religions do good in the world and have been on the forefront of this for a long long time. I give money to my church and much of it goes to good efforts. If one believes in God then you can't just ignore that fact because that's what you want.
Sure, and there are a lot of secular charities that do good too.  However, how much of the money you give gets to where it's needed?  According to recent history, in many cases none at all.  My wife and I do not give one red cent to organized charity.  Instead we contribute directly by bringing into our home and looking after a mentally challenged man whose parents are no longer able to do so.  You simply do not have to be religious to be a good person and there is nothing that will ever make me believe that.  Nothing.  Good and bad can be taught without the use of religion.

QuoteBelieving in Genesis as a historical document doesn't harm anyone.
Of course it does.  It closes your mind to the facts and has you believing in nonsense.  Which is exactly what Genesis boils down to if you take literally.  The proof of that is the length those that promote Genesis as history feel they need to go to support the concept.  There is a movie out right now on Netflix "Is Genesis History".  Get some popcorn and watch it.  It's good for a laugh.

Quote"the very existence of modern cars, airplanes and the internet demand that the universe be billions of years old." Huh?
The science and mathematics used to engineer those proves that the universe cannot be 6,500 years old.  They show it is billions of years old.  You can't have it both ways.  Either the science and mathematics is correct and modern cars, airplanes and the internet work + the universe is billions of years old - OR - the science and mathematics is wrong and the universe is only 6,500 years old and I have no idea how the heck I'm communicating with you or how that bloody truck got in my driveway. 

QuoteBTW, I believe Genesis and other parts of the bible is not a textbook. So Genesis 7 days may actually mean billions of years. I don't know and it doesn't matter to me.

Quote Inconsistent? How?
This is well documented and there is waaayy too much to go into here Dave.  I invite you to have look HERE. and do some further research on the subject.  The references cited are a good start.

Quote"Need to be in organized religion"? Yes. Can everyone who reads it interpret the bible?
My very point is that you need not interpret the Bible, or ever read it, or believe in or understand Allah and his ways.

Quote"Authoritarian"? "Doctrine"? Yes. I think everyone needs to be accountable to someone. I wouldn't call it authoritarianism though. That's a bit harsh.
We'll have to disagree on this.

QuoteThe RC's have had their share of crazies, as have others.

Oh yes.  We do agree on this.

If you want to continue this discussion, let's break it up.  The quotes are getting long....

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 12:13 PMIslam, like Christianity, teaches peace, love, understanding ... etc.
That was Elvis Costello, man.

[ttf_ronkny]

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 12:13 PMCredentials accepted.

Yes they do, don't they.  They can't very well say "we're doing this because we're nutbags".  So they push the blame to some of the violent rhetoric depicted in the Koran.  However, Islam is no more based solely on the Koran than is Christianity based solely on the Old Testament.  The Old Testament BTW, is just as full of violence as it the Koran.  You should read the Koran and see.  Islam, like Christianity, teaches peace, love, understanding ... etc.

Well, for this sort of thing 'a lot' must be maintained at a fairly low threshold in actual numbers.  Look at what happened in London this last weekend, and that is just the most recent and more spectacular example.  The traditional Muslim women suffer the most  daily - as they are a visible target.  But I essentially agree with - the people that do this are not reasonable.

Exactly what I say.  Don't try to convert those that are not open to it, and don't openly denigrate others for their beliefs. As someone here recently said "But I'm not harsh towards other religions unless they don't reign in their crazies."

Yes, that it correct.  At one time, before there was knowledge, law, education and a way to help us seek further knowledge about what we don't understand (science) it was a convenient way to keep order.  The use of a vengeful almighty being to bring fear into play was rather brilliant.  Cuts down on the explanations.

Sure, and there are a lot of secular charities that do good too.  However, how much of the money you give gets to where it's needed?  According to recent history, in many cases none at all.  My wife and I do not give one red cent to organized charity.  Instead we contribute directly by bringing into our home and looking after a mentally challenged man whose parents are no longer able to do so.  You simply do not have to be religious to be a good person and there is nothing that will ever make me believe that.  Nothing.  Good and bad can be taught without the use of religion.

Of course it does.  It closes your mind to the facts and has you believing in nonsense.  Which is exactly what Genesis boils down to if you take literally.  The proof of that is the length those that promote Genesis as history feel they need to go to support the concept.  There is a movie out right now on Netflix "Is Genesis History".  Get some popcorn and watch it.  It's good for a laugh.

The science and mathematics used to engineer those proves that the universe cannot be 6,500 years old.  They show it is billions of years old.  You can't have it both ways.  Either the science and mathematics is correct and modern cars, airplanes and the internet work + the universe is billions of years old - OR - the science and mathematics is wrong and the universe is only 6,500 years old and I have no idea how the heck I'm communicating with you or how that bloody truck got in my driveway. 
 

This is well documented and there is waaayy too much to go into here Dave.  I invite you to have look HERE. and do some further research on the subject.  The references cited are a good start.

My very point is that you need not interpret the Bible, or ever read it, or believe in or understand Allah and his ways.

We'll have to disagree on this.

Oh yes.  We do agree on this.

If you want to continue this discussion, let's break it up.  The quotes are getting long....
Not sure how to quote one section so...
Regarding "Islam is a religion of peace". Why is it that several countries in the Mideast believe that anyone that leaves Islam should be put to death?  Doesn't sound peaceful. I can't think of any country where the Christians believe in death to converts. Mohammed was a warrior. Jesus was not. Huge difference.

http://www.historynet.com/muhammad-the-warrior-prophet.htm

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/01/64-percent-of-muslims-in-egypt-and-pakistan-support-the-death-penalty-for-leaving-islam/

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: ronkny on Yesterday at 07:33 PM I can't think of any country where the Christians believe in death to converts.
Islam is 570 years or so younger.

The history of Christianity is filled with killings for minor theological differences.

Of course you're familiar with the Filioque Clause?  No small amount of death over whether the Holy Spirit "proceedeth from the Father" versus "proceedeth from the Father AND the Son." 

Look at Protestants vs Catholics in Europe for a few centuries of war. 

For that matter, look at the crusades, though I'm not sure to what extent that was theological versus economic. 

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: timothy42b on Today at 05:11 AMIslam is 570 years or so younger.

The history of Christianity is filled with killings for minor theological differences.

Of course you're familiar with the Filioque Clause?  No small amount of death over whether the Holy Spirit "proceedeth from the Father" versus "proceedeth from the Father AND the Son." 

Look at Protestants vs Catholics in Europe for a few centuries of war. 

For that matter, look at the crusades, though I'm not sure to what extent that was theological versus economic. 

Tim, while to some measure your statement is correct, you overstate things.

The Filioque clause, for example, was certainly a major sources of controversy, but it was all tangled up with the very confused web of East-West politics, the Byzantine empire''s caesaro-papism, the rise of the authoritative papacy, etc, and as our article that we discussed claimed often happens, it is often extremely hard to untangle the theological from the political issues involved.  To simply claim that the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit was responsible for "no small amount of death" is very oversimplified.  We need a lot more nuance than that to understand what was happening.

BTW, here's a link from an Eastern Orthodox site about that controversy.  I take the other, Western perspective, but if you follow the article which explains what was involved, you will find some mention of physical violence, but the issue was obviously entangled with many other issues.  Undoubtedly, it happened in places when the Fioloque was involved, but, as I said, the issues were far more complex, as in many controversies.

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque

[ttf_ronkny]

Quote from: timothy42b on Today at 05:11 AMIslam is 570 years or so younger.

The history of Christianity is filled with killings for minor theological differences.

Of course you're familiar with the Filioque Clause?  No small amount of death over whether the Holy Spirit "proceedeth from the Father" versus "proceedeth from the Father AND the Son." 

Look at Protestants vs Catholics in Europe for a few centuries of war. 

For that matter, look at the crusades, though I'm not sure to what extent that was theological versus economic. 
If you read my previous posts you'll see that I stated that the world is at peace now more than ever but for radical Islam. And I was comparing today's Christianity with Islam. There's no comparison. Life is valued more now than centuries ago. Except in many Islamic countries.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: ronkny on Yesterday at 07:33 PMNot sure how to quote one section so...
Regarding "Islam is a religion of peace". Why is it that several countries in the Mideast believe that anyone that leaves Islam should be put to death?  Doesn't sound peaceful. I can't think of any country where the Christians believe in death to converts. Mohammed was a warrior. Jesus was not. Huge difference.

Yeah, Jesus and Mo were very different people. No doubt about that.  But aren't you Christians all about tempering your actions when they are no very flattering with external circumstances (see John's response below).  Unfortunately Mo was a war at the time.  HE an his followers were forcibly kicked out of Mecca (religious intolerance again) and as being both the leader of his people and their prophet had to take up arms.  Before he felt the need to defend his faith and his followers he had no military experience.

As to apostasy, it is even difficult to get Cristian to admit it exists:

QuoteMichael Fink writes:

    Apostasy is certainly a biblical concept, but the implications of the teaching have been hotly debated. The debate has centered on the issue of apostasy and salvation. Based on the concept of God's sovereign grace, some hold that, though true believers may stray, they will never totally fall away. Others affirm that any who fall away were never really saved. Though they may have "believed" for a while, they never experienced regeneration. Still others argue that the biblical warnings against apostasy are real and that believers maintain the freedom, at least potentially, to reject God's salvation.
However we also have:

QuoteHebrews 6

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:

8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
Seems to set a tone.


Apostasy is more likely to be treated has heresy by the Christians.  A crime for which people have been put to death, (now this is important) by order of the Church (not just some deranged nutbag) as late as 1839.  In fact, this fascination of putting to death heretics via official Church decree last from 385 AD!  That's nearly 1500 years of it.  This was Church orders stuff - thousands of lives.  I wonder how many more were taken by Christian nutbags.  Hey, isn't the 6th commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Hmmm...

In any case, I am saying that the teachings of Mohamed - the basis for Islam, just like Jesus' teaching were the basis for Christianity, were of peace, love, yada, yada.  The fact that neither the followers of Mohamed, nor the followers of Jesus have put much real effort into following those teachings is another matter.  One that does not speak flatteringly about religion.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: ronkny on Today at 06:38 AMIf you read my previous posts you'll see that I stated that the world is at peace now more than ever but for radical Islam. And I was comparing today's Christianity with Islam. There's no comparison. Life is valued more now than centuries ago. Except in many Islamic countries.
This is a cop out.  You can't forget what Christianity has done, especially not if you are religious.  Doesn't your region ask to to continue to bear the burden for Adam's fist sin?  How about the doctrine of ancestral fault?  No, sorry.  No sweeping under the rug is allowed.  It would be heresy to do so.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Today at 07:30 AMYeah, Jesus and Mo were very different people. No doubt about that.  But aren't you Christians all about tempering your actions when they are no very flattering with external circumstances (see John's response below).  Unfortunately Mo was a war at the time.  HE an his followers were forcibly kicked out of Mecca (religious intolerance again) and as being both the leader of his people and their prophet had to take up arms.  Before he felt the need to defend his faith and his followers he had no military experience.

As to apostasy, it is even difficult to get Cristian to admit it exists:

However we also have:

Seems to set a tone.


Apostasy is more likely to be treated has heresy by the Christians.  A crime for which people have been put to death, (now this is important) by order of the Church (not just some deranged nutbag) as late as 1839.  In fact, this fascination of putting to death heretics via official Church decree last from 385 AD!  That's nearly 1500 years of it.  This was Church orders stuff - thousands of lives.  I wonder how many more were taken by Christian nutbags.  Hey, isn't the 6th commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Hmmm...

In any case, I am saying that the teachings of Mohamed - the basis for Islam, just like Jesus' teaching were the basis for Christianity, were of peace, love, yada, yada.  The fact that neither the followers of Mohamed, nor the followers of Jesus have put much real effort into following those teachings is another matter.  One that does not speak flatteringly about religion.

You seem to be mixing up the theological discussions on the nature of apostasy, which would include serious discussion of texts such as the Hebrews passage that you quoted above, with the political/cultural implications.  Yes, Christians have always believed that apostasy happens, while disagreeing whether the apostates were ever really genuine Christians or only psedo-believers, but official violence for apostasy usually only occurs when there is is blurring of church/state such as was prevalent in the Middle Ages.  This clearly did happen, but then again, the issue needs to be asked as to what is driving the violence-- religious views or political views and that is not easy to untangle.  Can unofficial violence occur?  Of course, it can, but it can happen to anyone who goes against a widely accepted belief or practice, whether religious or not.

Yes, there can be community ostracization.  The modern Amish practice of shunning is a good example.  It can cause real emotional anguish for those shunned, but it is by no means inherently violent to those shunned.  Apostasy was often treated in the same way by non-Amish churches throughout history with similar effects.  We need to make distinctions here.  I'm not denying the emotional "pain" if we want to use that term of the one shunned.  We just need to make sure we are comparing apples and oranges.  Sometimes we're not.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Today at 06:05 AMTim, while to some measure your statement is correct, you overstate things.

The Filioque clause, for example, was certainly a major sources of controversy, but it was all tangled up with the very confused web of East-West politics, the Byzantine empire''s caesaro-papism, the rise of the authoritative papacy, etc, and as our article that we discussed claimed often happens, it is often extremely hard to untangle the theological from the political issues involved.  To simply claim that the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit was responsible for "no small amount of death" is very oversimplified.  We need a lot more nuance than that to understand what was happening.

BTW, here's a link from an Eastern Orthodox site about that controversy.  I take the other, Western perspective, but if you follow the article which explains what was involved, you will find some mention of physical violence, but the issue was obviously entangled with many other issues.  Undoubtedly, it happened in places when the Fioloque was involved, but, as I said, the issues were far more complex, as in many controversies.

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque
Yeah, region's attempt to muddy the waters surrounding their disgraceful behavior by trying to put the blame on something else.  Nice try.  Here is the acid test.  If you take religion out of the situation and the ugly event goes away, then religion has to take the hit.  You can point finger's all you like, but it changes nothing.

That's like Joe the bank robber saying "Well, Bob drove the car.  If he hadn't drove the car I'd never have been at the bank, so I'm innocent."  Sorry, that kind of reasoning doesn't pass the acid test.  Joe and Bob are both guilty and neither one's involvement absolves the other.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Today at 07:47 AMYeah, region's attempt to muddy the waters surrounding their disgraceful behavior by trying to put the blame on something else.  Nice try.  Here is the acid test.  If you take religion out of the situation and the ugly event goes away, then religion has to take the hit.  You can point finger's all you like, but it changes nothing.

That's like Joe the bank robber saying "Well, Bob drove the car.  If he hadn't drove the car I'd never have been at the bank, so I'm innocent."  Sorry, that kind of reasoning doesn't pass the acid test.  Joe and Bob are both guilty and neither one's involvement absolves the other.

No, it's not trying to put the blame on someone else.  It's simply saying that human history is far more complicated than the mono-causal approach that you seem to say must happen every time religion is in the picture.  Trained historians always shy away from such mono-causal approaches because they are the very things that really do cause divisions and violence in society. 

Once we begin to understand the complicated nature of human motivation and how human beings can cloak their actions-- often very unpleasant actions-- under the guise of religion, politics, anti-religion, etc., it helps us a lot more than simplistic mono-causal claims.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Today at 07:44 AM official violence for apostasy usually only occurs when there is is blurring of church/state such as was prevalent in the Middle Ages.
So, that provides absolution for church?  Does the Church not teach you to reach out to your god during testing times, rather than strike out and murder then blame it on economics, politics or poor choice of state leadership?

[s]Or are you really saying that the church should not be given too much power as they are likely to corrupt and turn against the teachings of their faith and run amok?[/s]

Forget that last one.  I'm spending too much time on this and have other things I really must do.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Today at 07:55 AMNo, it's not trying to put the blame on someone else.  It's simply saying that human history is far more complicated than the mono-causal approach that you seem to say must happen every time religion is in the picture.  Trained historians always shy away from such mono-causal approaches because they are the very things that really do cause divisions and violence in society. 
No, I'm advocating the mono-causal approach.  I'm just saying other causal factors do not lessen the blame.

QuoteOnce we begin to understand the complicated nature of human motivation and how human beings can cloak their actions-- often very unpleasant actions-- under the guise of religion, politics, anti-religion, etc., it helps us a lot more than simplistic mono-causal claims.

The religious hold themselves morally above those who do not have religion (or indeed have a different religion).  So when it come to a moral issue, like acting against your own faith, or committing atrocities, then the religious must be held to higher account regardless of other circumstances.

PS:  You seem to saying "Well, we're all just human."  Let's say that's true, then what is the advantage in following a religious faith?

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Today at 08:03 AMNo, I'm advocating the mono-causal approach.  I'm just saying other causal factors do not lessen the blame.

The religious hold themselves morally above those who do not have religion (or indeed have a different religion).  So when it come to a moral issue, like acting against your own faith, or committing atrocities, then the religious must be held to higher account regardless of other circumstances.

You seem to have shifted the argument here to a version of "the Christians are really hypocrites" or are completely self-righteous or something like that.

No we don't hold ourselves morally above others if you mean that we are always "better' than others.  In fact most historic Christians clearly teach that we struggle mightily with the sin that still clings to us and the hypocrisy that we are all prone to. We are all accountable to the same high standards-- God's standards.  Most Christians I know are quite aware of their failure according to that standard.

I'm reminded of an anecdote about a famous preacher in London in the 1940s.  An elderly woman gushed all over him about his saintliness after a service.  The preacher said something like this:  "Woman, stop it!  If you really knew what was in my heart, you'd spit in my face."  I can attest from my own personal experience the very same feeling.

In fact from my experience, anyone who tenaciously holds to an opinion, whether religious, political, economic, etc can become self-righteous about it.  We have a secular friend who has very strong political beliefs and he regularly calls those who disagree with him "******."  In fact I would argue that some of the militant atheists that I have encountered either in person or in their writings really are rather self-righteous about it.  They often do believe that they are morally and/or intellectually superior to the 'hoi polloi" that cling to "neandethral" beliefs.

No, pointing out multi-causal aspects of human culture is not an attempt for Christians to avoid responsibility.  It is simply an attempt to understand how even good intentions can be co-opted for bad results.

BTW, apparently the filters inserted all the asterisks above.  What my friend calls them is a term of severely limited intellectual capacity that begins with the letter "m."

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Today at 08:49 AMYou seem to have shifted the argument here to a version of "the Christians are really hypocrites" or are completely self-righteous or something like that.
Where did I say Christians?

Christianity is just another religion in my view.  One of the really bad things about religion is their contempt for every other religion.  Islam, Judaism, Christianity .. they all bear guilt in the kind of horrors we've been speaking of.  Don't feel I'm picking on your particular kind of self delusion.  However, if you try to use another religion as an example of how not to do it, then yes, I'll put up a mirror.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Today at 08:49 AMIn fact from my experience, anyone who tenaciously holds to an opinion, whether religious, political, economic, etc can become self-righteous about it.
On this we can agree.  See, we have common ground.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Today at 08:49 AMIn fact I would argue that some of the militant atheists that I have encountered either in person or in their writings really are rather self-righteous about it.  They often do believe that they are morally and/or intellectually superior to the 'hoi polloi" that cling to "neandethral" beliefs.  Yes, I can agree with that too.  That is one of those human failings you allude to.  No ideology is free from human failings.  From my perspective, outdated, not neanderthal.  I'd hate to put that basket of 'goods' in the lap of the poor neanderthal.  If the neanderthal had spiritual beliefs they would almost certainly be ecologically based.  Like those of the North American aboriginals... I but I digress.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Today at 08:49 AMBTW, apparently the filters inserted all the asterisks above.  What my friend calls them is a term of severely limited intellectual capacity that begins with the letter "m."

Mormons?

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Today at 08:49 AMNo, pointing out multi-causal aspects of human culture is not an attempt for Christians to avoid responsibility.  It is simply an attempt to understand how even good intentions can be co-opted for bad results.
Well, I knew that, but there is no way to be 'adversarial' if I agree with everything you say.  Then the discussion ends...

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Today at 10:00 AMMormons?

Nope, not a religious group, but a derogatory term for someone with a low IQ.

[ttf_timothy42b]

Note to BillO:

Always explain the joke, just in case. 

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Today at 08:49 AMIn fact from my experience, anyone who tenaciously holds to an opinion, whether religious, political, economic, etc can become self-righteous about it.  We have a secular friend who has very strong political beliefs and he regularly calls those who disagree with him "******."  In fact I would argue that some of the militant atheists that I have encountered either in person or in their writings really are rather self-righteous about it.  They often do believe that they are morally and/or intellectually superior to the 'hoi polloi" that cling to "neandethral" beliefs.
I've always found that situation to be amusingly accidental self-deprecation. They're basically saying "you have to be really stupid to disagree with me", which suggests you're such a simpleton you only understand things that only seriously stupid people might have trouble with. If they want to be arrogant about such things then it would serve them much better to consider many who disagree with them smart perhaps, just not quite smart enough ... eh?
 
 

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Today at 07:58 AMSo, that provides absolution for church?  Does the Church not teach you to reach out to your god during testing times, rather than strike out and murder then blame it on economics, politics or poor choice of state leadership?

[s]Or are you really saying that the church should not be given too much power as they are likely to corrupt and turn against the teachings of their faith and run amok?[/s]

Forget that last one.  I'm spending too much time on this and have other things I really must do.

Not claiming it provides absolution for the church.  Just saying that when the state wants only one religion in the realm, often for purely political reasons, the church can and has been co-opted.  Often those of religious faith who have fought against this have suffered greatly at the hands of the state.  

Cf. the recent history of Nazi Germany when it was those university scholars and churchmen who had adopted the evolutionary models of religion advocated by many German academics who capitulated most quickly to the anti-Semitism of the Nazis--- BTW a few famous academics such as the philosopher Heidegger were among those as well--  it was the theologians and churchmen who held to more orthodox Christian beliefs who often opposed the Nazis in the Barmen Declaration because the rights of the church to preach orthodox Christian doctrines were compromised by the so-called "German Christian" movement that the Nazis were advocating which was really just a quasi religio/nationalistic cloak for extreme and violent anti-Semitism.  Some of the signers of the Barmen Declaration suffered imprisonment and even lost their lives because of their opposition.

The classic studies have been those by Robert Ericksen.  His latest work is

https://www.amazon.com/Complicity-Holocaust-Churches-Universities-Germany/dp/1107663334

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Today at 09:49 AMWhere did I say Christians?

Christianity is just another religion in my view.  One of the really bad things about religion is their contempt for every other religion.  Islam, Judaism, Christianity .. they all bear guilt in the kind of horrors we've been speaking of.  Don't feel I'm picking on your particular kind of self delusion.  However, if you try to use another religion as an example of how not to do it, then yes, I'll put up a mirror.

I fail to see what the essential difference is in what you say religious people have-- "contempt for every other religion" and what you say you have which is contempt for every religion.

Please explain the difference to me, because I can't see it.

And don't say that you don't have any contempt for all religions because isn't "self-delusion" a kind of contempt by your definitions.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Today at 11:10 AMI fail to see what the essential difference is in what you say religious people have-- "contempt for every other religion" and what you say you have which is contempt for every religion.
They're holding others in contempt while playing the very same game by slightly different rules. BillO isn't playing that game.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Today at 02:49 PM
They're holding others in contempt while playing the very same game by slightly different rules. BillO isn't playing that game.

I'm not sure I understand your point.  What rules are different?

I don't really think either is necessarily "holding them in contempt."  Saying someone is completely wrong is not holding them in contempt, but rather saying that they are seriously mistaken.  I would say eternally mistaken, but how is that different from the view that serious atheists have of religious people?  Contempt is another issue, I believe.  One can still treat them courteously as people which is what many of us religious people do, even when we radically disagree with their POV.  Saying someone is eternally lost for their unbelief, can be done in love, no matter what one may claim.  The New Testament quotes Jesus as saying just that very thing and unbelievers often point to Christians and say that we should follow the example of Jesus.

The real issue is for Christians, that it's only the grace of God that makes us differ, not who we are intrinsically.  For me, that makes a world of difference in how i view myself. 

I don't think all atheists hold religious people in contempt, but many do. 

I was simply using BillO's definition of what he claims is the attitude of religious people and I fail to see how atheists aren't sometimes, perhaps often, guilty of the same thing.

[ttf_BillO]

The trouble with writing on the Internet is that emotion is not conveyed, it's assumed by the reader.  When I say religious people a self-delusional, I don't mean it contemptuously, but I do mean it. As in the act of allowing yourself to believe something that is not true.  You must know from my post that I don't believe in the existence of a god.  In fact, I deny it.  BvB beat me to the other part of my response.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Today at 03:14 PMThe real issue is for Christians, that it's only the grace of God that makes us differ, not who we are intrinsically.  For me, that makes a world of difference in how i view myself.

Now to your comment above, please clarify - differ from who?

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Today at 03:42 PMThe trouble with writing on the Internet is that emotion is not conveyed, it's assumed by the reader.  When I say religious people a self-delusional, I don't mean it contemptuously, but I do mean it. As in the act of allowing yourself to believe something that is not true.  You must know from my post that I don't believe in the existence of a god.  In fact, I deny it.  BvB beat me to the other part of my response.

Now to your comment above, please clarify - differ from who?

Every ounce of any "goodness" that I might have is a result of the grace of God working in me.  Any ounce of goodness in any human being, for that matter, I believe, is the result of the common grace of God-- I distinguish, as many Christians do. between common-- non-saving-- and special-- i.e saving-- grace.  That's because I believe that the natural human condition is what the Protestant Reformers, following Augustine, believed that we are all, including myself, are Incurvatus in se-- curved in on ourselves-- see the link below for more.  I am no more exempt from that than anyone else in this world.  Only the grace of God has enabled me to become a Christian believer, not any inherent "goodness" in me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incurvatus_in_se

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Today at 04:47 PMEvery ounce of any "goodness" that I might have is a result of the grace of God working in me.  Any ounce of goodness in any human being, for that matter, I believe, is the result of the common grace of God.
That's perhaps the most harmful, tragic aspect of traditional religious belief--at least for the majors (and whatever other religions do the same basic thing with their gods). Our own good nature is projected onto a fabricated supreme authority. It's part of the same issue that has people thinking the real connection we have with each other, as with all social species, isn't really us--we have to shift the focus outward, away from each other in order to find anything so special. It's a kind of hubris, really--as if mere earthly, natural humans can't be so special as we feel when we make these natural connections. It may not be all that sad and tragic though ... the same aspects of our nature that find expression in religious beliefs and practices would also have us limiting ourselves to relatively small tribes rather than one species. But then that just adds a really huge additional obstacle to navigate on the way to overcoming our darker nature. It may just have to be that way though, I suppose.
 
The real profundity is in the fact that this is simply natural--just part of being human, and it's deeply moving and powerful. It's part of who we are, not external at all. We're not really loathsome and horrible and "worthy" as filthy rags and all that nonsense. We're what really matter to each other in the deepest, most profound sense. But our religious nature robs credit for that from us, because mere humans aren't special enough for most of us to appreciate what we really are. Most need more special than nature offers, which is both quite comical and disheartening at the same time.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Today at 06:28 PM
That's perhaps the most harmful, tragic aspect of traditional religious belief--at least for the majors (and whatever other religions do the same basic thing with their gods). Our own good nature is projected onto a fabricated supreme authority. It's part of the same issue that has people thinking the real connection we have with each other, as with all social species, isn't really us--we have to shift the focus outward, away from each other in order to find anything so special. It's a kind of hubris, really--as if mere earthly, natural humans can't be so special as we feel when we make these natural connections. It may not be all that sad and tragic though ... the same aspects of our nature that find expression in religious beliefs and practices would also have us limiting ourselves to relatively small tribes rather than one species. But then that just adds a really huge additional obstacle to navigate on the way to overcoming our darker nature. It may just have to be that way though, I suppose.
 
The real profundity is in the fact that this is simply natural--just part of being human, and it's deeply moving and powerful. It's part of who we are, not external at all. We're not really loathsome and horrible and "worthy" as filthy rags and all that nonsense. We're what really matter to each other in the deepest, most profound sense. But our religious nature robs credit for that from us, because mere humans aren't special enough for most of us to appreciate what we really are. Most need more special than nature offers, which is both quite comical and disheartening at the same time.

I couldn't more fundamentally disagree.  Filthy rags isn't nonsense because it's comparing the mixed bag nature of our actions that can't escape our own self-interest with the moral purity of the holy sovereign God.  Such an attitude attempt to rob God of his glory, but it never really works. No need to argue the point because you've got your mind made up-- sadly from my perspective. 

[ttf_BillO]

 Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 21, 2017, 10:44AMNote to BillO:

Always explain the joke, just in case. 

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 21, 2017, 06:43PMI couldn't more fundamentally disagree.  Filthy rags isn't nonsense because it's comparing the mixed bag nature of our actions that can't escape our own self-interest with the moral purity of the holy sovereign God.  Such an attitude attempt to rob God of his glory, but it never really works. No need to argue the point because you've got your mind made up-- sadly from my perspective. 
Are you serious John?  We should look at ourselves as filthy rags?

I'm not perfect, and always look at myself to identify things I can make better, but I will not admit to being a filthy rag.

I've read about your god.  In fact I have probably read almost everything about your god.  I see his vengeance, his violent demeanor, his short temper, his inconsistent 'rulings' and I think, well -- that dude could be a bit more tolerant, helpful and understanding.

Explain to me his glory and his idealistic behavior, please?  Seriously, use his acts as an example I can follow.  From what I can see, if I were to follow his example I'd be killing innumerable souls just because they didn't meet my expectations to the letter.  Sound familiar?

Yeah, there in the acts of god are tolerance and a true sense of selfless pedagogy (not).  I would certainly be about organizing a modern inquisition if I were to use his example.  Then maybe I could meet his expectations, eh?

John, do you listen to yourself?  Do really cast a critical ear toward what you say?  Or do you just tow the dogmatic line?

I feel sorry for that you think you are a filthy rag.  I feel sorry for you that your deity would have it this way.  I really hope you don't feel the compulsion to flagellate yourself after every moment of simple human pleasure you feel.  I pity anyone that voluntarily submits to a deity that requires them to think of themselves as a filthy rag.

One more question John.  Does your deity provide a clear and achievable path for you to make it at least to the level of clean rag?

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 21, 2017, 06:43PMI couldn't more fundamentally disagree ...Yeah ... I know.
 
The cool thing is that when genuine concern and compassion drive these sentiments rather than self-affirmation (it's probably always going to be a combination, and lots of other things are going to be in the mix as well, but I think there's a lot more genuine concern and compassion going on out there on this one), that's our positive nature winning out, so even when we try to shift our sense of worth and our values to some Other Source, we can't quite pull it off--the Better Angels of Our Nature still win out. Unfortunately we can still be pretty provincial and tribal about it, but that also seems to be fading. As ugly as things seem as the world has so dramatically shrunk over the last several decades (particularly the incredible, precipitous shrinkage over the last couple), the better angels of our nature still seem to win out, even if it seems to happen very, very slowly.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: BillO on Jun 21, 2017, 10:52PMFrom what I can see, if I were to follow his example I'd be killing innumerable souls just because they didn't meet my expectations to the letter.
Not just that, but because of their nature--because of the way they were created.

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 04:19 AM
Not just that, but because of their nature--because of the way they were created.

Yeah, created "in His image." 

But now considered filthy rags.  It seems somehow contradictory, doesn't it?

While I continue to see good in religion, I've here often pointed out what I see as a risk:  the tendency to generalize the suspension of critical thinking necessary to believe in miracles and the supernatural, to other practical decisions.

This discussion is pointing out another risk that may be more relevant to the Islam discussion, and that is the tendency to be harshly judgmental towards other opinions, and smugly confident we are right.  John denies this phenomenon, I guess largely because doing it would violate some of the Christian tenets.  Well, he's right that it would, but it is one of the problems that we do witness across denominations and across faiths, and probably the single most troubling thing to nonchristians.   

[ttf_ddickerson]

I'm feeling the love from all the non-Christians. You guys are setting good examples of what love is all about.

IOW, you guys are the ones that are doing all the bashing for NOT believing as you do. Very interesting indeed......

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: ddickerson on Yesterday at 05:09 AMI'm feeling the love from all the non-Christians. You guys are setting good examples of what love is all about.
 
IOW, you guys are the ones that are doing all the bashing for NOT believing as you do. Very interesting indeed......
I don't think that speaks for all believers by any stretch, but it's telling when someone sees a different perspective as "bashing" rather than just a different perspective. It's a manifestation of a sense of entitlement. Daring to disagree is an offense, particularly if it's done openly (as if it's okay to disagree with What's "Right"), all the more if it's explained, and of course if it's explained well and it seems reasonable that just makes it even worse.
 
Maybe the fact the points I'm making are very positive is an even deeper offense, which makes it seem the opposite from an especially entrenched position.

[ttf_ddickerson]

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jun 22, 2017, 05:27AM
I don't think that speaks for all believers by any stretch, but it's telling when someone sees a different perspective as "bashing" rather than just a different perspective. It's a manifestation of a sense of entitlement. Daring to disagree is an offense, particularly if it's done openly (as if it's okay to disagree with What's "Right"), all the more if it's explained, and of course if it's explained well and it seems reasonable that just makes it even worse.
 
Maybe the fact the points I'm making are very positive is an even deeper offense, which makes it seem the opposite from an especially entrenched position.

You probably don't think that you are bashing as you go about psycho'ing. What does that say?

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: ddickerson on Jun 22, 2017, 05:42AMYou probably don't think that you are bashing as you go about psycho'ing. What does that say?
It's another expression of precisely what I just described, actually.

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: ddickerson on Jun 22, 2017, 05:09AMI'm feeling the love from all the non-Christians. You guys are setting good examples of what love is all about.



dd,

Go to any internet site that allows comments and read some of the comments from Christians on any topic with religious and social overtones.  Same sex marriage, LGBT, abortion would be classic examples.

You will find some Christian bashing, to be sure, but no nonbeliever comes close to matching the sheer vitriol of the believers. 

Perhaps this results in a biased viewpoint - but it is so consistent across sites from Patheos to Christianity Today to yahoo to etc. etc.  I'm not even talking the radical sites like Pen and Pulpit (now THERE'S a scarey site.)

[ttf_BillO]

You know something, I don't have it out for all folks that call themselves Christians.  Some are just good people, but I think they'd be good people regardless.

Another little anecdote - for those that read the last one.

Back in Ghana - After the faith destroying blow dealt us at the Christian mission, my parents decided to brave the bad roads an go to the Catholic church on the university grounds just east of Kumasi.  It did mean we had to miss services when there were heavy rains, but we made it when we could.  The church was run by a Ghanaian priest who was one of the nicest people I have ever met.  My mother noticed at one service that one of the congregation took money from the offering plate.  She mentioned this to the priest afterwords.  He said he knew.  He said some of the destitute people from a nearby village do it once in a while.  With the church being on the university grounds, and being attended by relatively wealthy people, the collections were more than sufficient for the needs of the church.  If some of his most indigent need a few peswas now and then he was not going to deny them or call them out.  He knew who they were and they never abused the situation.  He did not consider it theft for multiple reasons.  First he thought they were just as entitled to it as him since they would be the benefactors of any aid he could provide anyway.  Also, they were the first to volunteer any time he needed help and frequently brought him fruits and vegetables when their fortunes allowed.  They knew he knew, and the congregation knew as well. His feeling was that this arrangement allowed then to keep their dignity.  Kind of an honor system.

He also made room in his church for a multi-faith ecumenical drop-in.  There were people of all faiths and from all around the world attending as students or as faculty at the university.  He set aside a couple of rooms for them to use as they required and provided a library of religious texts for them to use.  He never interfered with them and never attempted to get them to convert.

He did a lot of hard physical work for the villagers too.  It seemed if he was not at the church he was in the village helping fix a hut, dig a well - whatever they needed a hand with, even if that was just playing soccer with the kids.

What a contrast to the missioner.  His services were a little less formal than one might think for a Catholic church.  His homilies never had any hint of admonishment or shaming in them.  Just simple discussion about being good.  He sometimes ignored the readings given during the Liturgy of the Word and geared his homily to important events concerning life in the village.  He became close friends with us and often came for a visit.  Outside the church he never spoke of religious things and was always interested in what we were all doing in our lives.  I can't help but feel he was not good because he was a priest or religious.  He would be a good man regardless.

[ttf_Piano man]

Quote from: ddickerson on Jun 22, 2017, 05:09AMI'm feeling the love from all the non-Christians. You guys are setting good examples of what love is all about.

IOW, you guys are the ones that are doing all the bashing for NOT believing as you do. Very interesting indeed......

I can find instances on this thread where I've defended believers. You cannot do the reverse.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: Piano man on Jun 22, 2017, 02:06PMI can find instances on this thread where I've defended believers. You cannot do the reverse.
I think most of us non-theist (even anti-theism) types can say the same thing--defended and/or expressed appreciation and recognition of the fact there are plenty of believers who are solid people and such. It is a rather notable contrast.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: BillO on Jun 22, 2017, 09:32PMYou quoted this in your last post.  That is quite remarkable.  I wonder why?

Driz, do you believe in evolution?

Do I believe in evolution?  That's a shocking question?  Are you suggesting that deciding that the Theory of Evolution is correct is a matter of blind faith? I'm horrified.   

(In case you hadn't noticed I can be a bit tongue in cheek sometimes.  I try and indicate this with smilies  )

Being serious, I think that evolution in general terms is likely true, with the following proviso's
- it is a changing theory, so I'm not going to get precious about details
- If its true than that's the way God got us to where we are now
- I've just got a basic understanding of it so am not really qualified to say whether its true or not.

Do you believe in evolution?

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: BillO on Jun 22, 2017, 09:19PM Byron is anything but dogmatic, and your ambiguity was rather ... transparent.  That's to be expected.

I'm normally glad to be transparent, but I don't think you meant it as a compliment.  Oh well.  But I am interested in why you expected me to be transparent?  Do you know me that well?

QuoteCritical thinking demands you are primarily critical of your own thought first, before you go hunting for others to criticize.  I find this talent lacking in a lot of people.  Especially those that give their personal thought over to the doctrine prescribed by an alleged supernatural being.

I know this.

I was commenting on our discussion rather than Byron.  And pointing out that the ambiguity meant I was talking about myself as well as Byron.  Doesn't that count as being critical of my own thought?

"Guilt by Association"  Isn't that a logical fallacy or something?

Quote
Of course those so afflicted with doctrine are unable to recognize real critical thought.  Comes with the territory.  You'd realize that if you just put the pieces together.

I am too afflicted to possibly be able to put any pieces together.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: BillO on Jun 22, 2017, 09:08PMSorry driz, the client isn't firing on all cylinders.  Fear of divine punishment has not cleared our prisons or reduced the incidence of senseless violence.  It really doesn't work that way.
what's that got to do with God's strategy?

QuotePositive reinforcement and education has proven, hands down, to be a better way to gain compliance.  Education is one of the things the Bible does not abide.  This is not limited to the Hanif religions either.  Control of the masses has always required their ignorance.  Trump counts on it (excuse the side slide).

We must be reading different bibles?

Where does the bible proscribe education?

I can't see how your other points are relevant.

QuoteThe archaic religious way of instilling lithification to doctrine through fear has the smell of spoiled meat.  It's past its prime.

You are entitled to your opinion.

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 22, 2017, 11:10PM

Where does the bible proscribe education?


There are segments of religion that are very negative to education, particularly for their womenfolk!, but others with a tradition of respect.  I'm not sure it's fair to link the two directly. 

In the US there has been a longstanding tradition of contempt for education and scholarship, again within a segment of the population.  In recent years that segment tends to align with a conservative element of US religion, but I think that's an artifact of the US confusion between politics and faith. 

Clearly teaching critical thinking is hazardous to faith.  But I don't think that is the motivation - I don't think the religious establishments have ever become aware of that.