View Full Version : What is the appeal of attacking Christianity?
Seamus Fermanagh
08-25-2005, 16:31
It has always struck me as odd that some of (not all) the folks who doubt the existence of God take such joy in attacking defenders of that belief, and Christians in particular.
The basic issues are inherently insoluble.
Evolution, Science, and Rationality in general cannot explain the "why" behind existence. Despite the power of science to describe and validate much of what has happened since, the origin of things boils down to "it just happened."
Religion, and Christianity in particular, answers the "why" with certitude -- "because God loves me." However, no positive proof can be proferred for this belief system. One can say that the "Big Bang" had to come from somewhere, but data is clearly lacking.
Both belief systems (which science is, though it is clearly NOT a religion) proceed from largely irreconcilable premises.
So why, having decided for yourself that a lack of verifiable data/proof indicates non-existence, does it become important to hammer someone of the opposite view -- as opposed to noting that you simply disagree with their premise? What exactly constitues the "threat?"
I would assert that the fact that some individuals take their belief too far is cause for wariness -- fanatics can be disconcerting -- but why assume that those of the differing opinion support the most fanatical of those who share their basic system of belief? It's not as though a fanatical "science at all costs" type is any less dangerous than a "my way or the inferno" religionist.
Oh well, just wanted to get that off my chest.
Seamus
Geoffrey S
08-25-2005, 16:41
There's no proof for either approach, either religion or not believing. Therefore attacking the other view on the basis of so-called facts is just as pointless for either case. Me, I don't believe in God yet, but it'd be nice to think that someday I will be able to.
Al Khalifah
08-25-2005, 16:44
Because Dan Brown told them to and it's 'cool' at the moment.
Sjakihata
08-25-2005, 16:46
Evolution, Science, and Rationality in general cannot explain the "why" behind existence. Despite the power of science to describe and validate much of what has happened since, the origin of things boils down to "it just happened."
There is no big why. It's all random and meaningless. People who believe, are just fooling themselves.
In my case it's possibly because my maternal grandparents were from Seville and Granada, so I have a repressed Moorish heritage or some such making me rather anti-Christian. And on my father's side of the family most were refugees from the Rheinhessen to America during the great Auswanderung of the late 17th and early 18th centuries, which was the direct result of the tragedy and insanity of the religious 30 Years' War. Or perhaps it's because some on the paternal side of the family just happened to come from Carcassonne and Toulouse, which maybe accounts for a certain pent-up repressed Cathar seeking revenge on the woman-killing, child-killing rapists and pillagers of the Albigensian Crusade who called themselves Christians.
Then again, maybe I just have trouble understanding why people choose to believe in superstitions, constructed religions and other nonsense and have such a seemingly deep-seated need to be mothered by a nebulous, unprovable Something-Greater-And-More-Important-Than-Them to give meaning to their lives.
Sjakihata
08-25-2005, 16:52
Because Dan Brown told them to and it's 'cool' at the moment.
At the moment. It's quite a long moment. From The Era of Enlightenment, to Nietzsche, to Dan Brown (who ever he is).
English assassin
08-25-2005, 16:53
Personally I am equal opportunities in my belief that religion is a poison. I wouldn't single out the christians.
I don't, personally, much care if people think God loves them. That's fine. If religion consisted of believing in God and thinking he loved you I would shut up.
What I mainly object to is religions that claim that you have to behave in such and such a way (which is to say, all religions). Locating moral and ethical standards in religion is bad . Most importantly, it stunts human growth. We can formulate moral and ethical standards of our own. We ought not to need a supernatural instruction to tell us to be good, or what being good means. This is like having legs but preferring to crawl rather than walk, because we think God will transport us where we need to go. rather than thinking how we should act we look it up in a book.
I also find it rather implausible that a being like God would give a moral framework to us. Its a bit like humans having a view on how an amoeba should behave.
Secondarily, looking at the sweep of history, has religion contributed positively or negatively to the sum total of human happiness? The crusades, the inquisition, oppression, the holocaust, superstition, hellfire preachers....
Thirdly its just all so silly, and patently made up out of a desire for a father figure to remove the burden of choice from us. Its an infantile regression, really. I'd be equally opposed to adults sucking their thumbs or pooping their underpants too.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-25-2005, 16:54
There is no big why. It's all random and meaningless. People who believe, are just fooling themselves.
Well you have just shown your a closed minded person and exaclty what he was speaking of. Can you prove what you BELIEVE?
Sjakihata
08-25-2005, 16:58
I'd be equally opposed to adults sucking their thumbs or pooping their underpants too.
Some 'adults' actually enjoy behaving like a baby. I don't know what it is called, but I know it exist.
Meh, personaly, the only thing I have a beef against is 'organized religion'. Spirituality to me is a very powerful and personal thing, and is best experienced and understood alone, so organizing it and applying rules and laws to it, and making such and such thing a punishable sin, and etc etc etc...That's just bad.
And, despite being a spiritual person, I usually hover somewhere around agnostic and athiest. The idea of God as most people have it today, least most people that I know, is just...limited imho. Nowadays, it's almost political in nature, and again, that in my honest opinion detracts from the spiritual side.
I apologize if I offend, sorry for the typos, and please, debate me away. ~:)
Al Khalifah
08-25-2005, 17:07
What I mainly object to is religions that claim that you have to behave in such and such a way
Society claims you have to behave in a certain way too. There are far more laws imposed on your behavior by the secular government than there are by the Church - the secular western governments by the way basing their morality on the foundation principles of Christianity it must be added. I forget where in the Bible it says you cannot construct a permanent structure in your garden over 6ft tall without permission, where it says you cannot exceed a certain speed on the roads, where it says you have to pay 40% of your income back in tax to the state.
I don't think religion has a monopoly in dictating to you how you live your life. The only difference is that religion is optional.
We can formulate moral and ethical standards of our own. We ought not to need a supernatural instruction to tell us to be good, or what being good means.
Instead we rely on punishment in this life rather than the next. The supernatural omnipresent dispenser of justice in the west in the police, the hell is prison. The difference between Christianity and secular law is that Christianity asks that you don't commit offences and that you try to be a nice person, where as secular law doesn't care how much of a monster you are as long as you stick to the rules and you don't get caught.
This is like having legs but preferring not to crawl rather than walk,
We have cars that can go 140mph easily, but the state tells you that you cannot exceed 70mph. Why are you obeying them? They're just telling you how to live your life, are they not restricting your freedom?
Secondarily, looking at the sweep of history, has religion contributed positively or negatively to the sum total of human happiness? The crusades, the inquisition, oppression, the holocaust, superstition, hellfire preachers
Nice impartial list there, list no good points. Also, how is the holocaust a negative point for religion? The Nazi part was a secular power acting AGAINST religion in their suppression of not just the Jewish faith, but also the Catholic Church. Speak to Jewish survivors of the holocaust, they will tell you that without their faith and the sense of brotherhood and unity it gave those in the concentration camps, they could not have made it. Religion does not have the monopoly on oppression.
to Dan Brown (who ever he is).
The author of the DaVinci code, who claims that Jesus was a man and that he had children and that the Catholic church has been covering it up for the past 1500 years. And that the Merovingian dynasty of the Franks was decended from Jesus. Which is all horseshit most of Dan "facts" are based on lies, surealist bullshit, a mistake made by a Spainish scribe, and Leonardo Davinci's penchant for sticking efeminate men into some of his paintings.
What is the appeal of attacking Christianity?
Easy target what can I say. For 1500 years the church has claimed to be right in all things spiritual. So taking the piss out of the "faithfull" any chance you get is a good idea. Basically people who have no capacity for faith (like me) get bothered by religious types. And it really people like me when religious types try and impose their beliefs on everybody, so we attack them.
Some 'adults' actually enjoy behaving like a baby. I don't know what it is called, but I know it exist.
Infantilism. The second funniest episode of CSI was devoted to it. The funniest episode was devoted to furries and plushies.
English assassin
08-25-2005, 17:21
@ al kalifah, the existence of secular rules is nothing to the point, since I expressly said we should formulate our own morality, not look for it in god. So deciding that we should not build structures over 6 foot in our gardens (not that that is PRIMARILY a moral issue...) is all fine with me. I'm not against rules I'm against rules that claim not to be human.
No, I didn't list good points in religion. I don't doubt that there are some, that it has been a comfort, and that it makes some people better people. My view is that the net balance is negative, which is not to say there are no positives.
But basically if it didn't get rammed down our throats (and outside this board I have to say it doesn't) I don't really care all that much.
yesdachi
08-25-2005, 17:31
There is no big why. It's all random and meaningless. People who believe, are just fooling themselves.
Or are People who don’t believe, just fooling themselves? ~;)
For me there isn’t much appeal for attacking Christianity but Christians on the other hand are fair game. As are any other religious practitioner that tries to push their belief system on others. In the grand scheme I probably fall into the Christian category but I cant stand anyone that pushes their dogma on others. Missionary work in s. America, leave them alone :furious3: ! Would you like to join our bible study? Why your interpretations are always unquestionable :furious3: ! These closed minded and often hypocritical people are the easiest to make fun of and to get riled ~D . If I were of another religion and was faced with these people I would want to attack Christianity too. It is another case of the few making the majority look bad.
I do not think this is specificaly dedicated to christians, it is only due to the fact that the diferent categorys of christianism are the most known religions in countries where mockery of religion is not a crime.
Just take the point of view of a man that does not believe concerning, for example, some of the catholic rituals.
For example, during the mass, the believers eat a piece of bred that is supposed to be both their god's flesh an man flesh.
Litteraly speaking, this is a cannibal ritual.
So how could a person that does not believe in catholic christianism observe this without feeling horror, disgust or the wish to mock?
This is but an example without intend to harm no one, but it can make you understand the point of view of an outsider of a formally organized sect concerning this sect activities.
Globaly what you see as attacks are much more qualified as mockerys and attempts to show the absurdity of rituals and religious morals - still, from the point of view of non believers.
Its actually fun to provoke christians, but I dont make it a habbit, I respect their right to believe what they want.
BUT, I allways attack christians, muslims, jews, etc etc, when they in ANY way try to tell me how to live my life and if they try to interfere with politics.
well thats just me.
Al Khalifah
08-25-2005, 18:08
But basically if it didn't get rammed down our throats (and outside this board I have to say it doesn't) I don't really care all that much.
Likewise, I find that Christianity isn't as badly assaulted when people speak to you in person, but on this board people seem to think it is open game.
I wouldn't feel the need to complain in threads like this if it wasn't for the constant criticism of Christianity and religion in general in the backroom.
Can you prove what you BELIEVE?
yes Gawain can you?
Devastatin Dave
08-25-2005, 19:10
I forgot where it says it in the Bible, But Jesus said, "The world will hate me and those who believe in me".
It has always struck me as odd that some of (not all) the folks who doubt the existence of God take such joy in attacking defenders of that belief, and Christians in particular.
The basic issues are inherently insoluble.
Evolution, Science, and Rationality in general cannot explain the "why" behind existence. Despite the power of science to describe and validate much of what has happened since, the origin of things boils down to "it just happened."
Religion, and Christianity in particular, answers the "why" with certitude -- "because God loves me." However, no positive proof can be proferred for this belief system. One can say that the "Big Bang" had to come from somewhere, but data is clearly lacking.
Both belief systems (which science is, though it is clearly NOT a religion) proceed from largely irreconcilable premises.
So why, having decided for yourself that a lack of verifiable data/proof indicates non-existence, does it become important to hammer someone of the opposite view -- as opposed to noting that you simply disagree with their premise? What exactly constitues the "threat?"
I would assert that the fact that some individuals take their belief too far is cause for wariness -- fanatics can be disconcerting -- but why assume that those of the differing opinion support the most fanatical of those who share their basic system of belief? It's not as though a fanatical "science at all costs" type is any less dangerous than a "my way or the inferno" religionist.
Oh well, just wanted to get that off my chest.
Seamus
Do you really feel Christianity limits itself to answering the "Why?". Much of the trouble likely stems from Christianity not merely answering Why, but then proceeding to answer what and how.
I forgot where it says it in the Bible, But Jesus said, "The world will hate me and those who believe in me".
I don't think anyone hates Christians any more than any other religion. Probably less in fact. Everyone wants to be American after all.
Not me! And I'm an American. I want to be a Martian; but they have strict immigration quotas and there isn't a conveniently shallow river I can just wade across.
Silver Rusher
08-25-2005, 19:24
Me, I'm an atheist. But I think that religion should not be discouraged. I envy people who have the ability to believe in spiritualism, religion and everything else like that. Religion means that curiosity, man's greatest friend yet also his greatest enemy (IMO) is put in a good balance as the belief of what is really going on in the universe keeps people happy and gives them the feeling that they "know" but still makes them want to try new things. What I have a problem is is religion going too far, causing people to kill and force others into belief, e.g. terrorism, heresy crusades etc.
Adrian II
08-25-2005, 20:10
What I mainly object to is religions that claim that you have to behave in such and such a way (which is to say, all religions).That comes closest to my own objection. I don't object to religiously inspired ideas or rules of behaviour as long as they are justified in rational terms, not religious ones. For instance I agree with Christians that killing my neighbour is bad, but I do not agree that it is bad because of a divine proscription. It is bad because its ultimate consequence is the disintegration of the society I live in.
My daily life is guided by many notions and rules that have religious origins and so is the life of the society I live in. l do not mind a bit because the large majority of those rules and notions are perfectly reasonable and even -- 'God forbid' -- civilised. I would mind, though, if my government decided to introduce laws because 'God wants us to'. I would demand to see God's affidavit.
It has always struck me as odd that some of (not all) the folks who doubt the existence of God take such joy in attacking defenders of that belief, and Christians in particular.
Attacks on faith typically reveal more about the labeler than what they attempt to label.
Adrian II
08-25-2005, 20:11
Attacks on faith typically reveal more about the labeler than what they attempt to label.That is so true. And the same can be said about attacks on 'the left'. ~;)
Gawain of Orkeny
08-25-2005, 20:12
yes Gawain can you?
Well then as the smartest man in the world maybe you can enlighten the rest of us poor bastards. ~D
PanzerJaeger
08-25-2005, 21:01
People who attack Christianity enjoy the anti-establishment aspect of it. There is also a lot of youthful rebellion and "Im smarter than my parents" thinking in the anti-Christian movement. Immaturity is probably the biggest factor that leads people to attack Christians.
Geoffrey S
08-25-2005, 21:21
It certainly works both ways though; Christians can be just as vehement and rhetorical when it comes to non-believers. It'd be nice if both groups could realise how ridiculous it looks to attack the other view's lack of evidence, when that exact same argument can be applied to either side of the debate.
I forgot where it says it in the Bible, But Jesus said, "The world will hate me and those who believe in me".
Yeah but I might add that most people just dont have a trubble with Christianity (me only if they try ot teach and interfer with politics) but also Islam (like many of you americans for example) and Hinduism, Judeaism (sp?) and so on and so on.
Its not like its Only christianity I have a problem with but just about every religion ive come in contact with.
That comes closest to my own objection. I don't object to religiously inspired ideas or rules of behaviour as long as they are justified in rational terms, not religious ones. For instance I agree with Christians that killing my neighbour is bad, but I do not agree that it is bad because of a divine proscription. It is bad because its ultimate consequence is the disintegration of the society I live in.
My daily life is guided by many notions and rules that have religious origins and so is the life of the society I live in. l do not mind a bit because the large majority of those rules and notions are perfectly reasonable and even -- 'God forbid' -- civilised. I would mind, though, if my government decided to introduce laws because 'God wants us to'. I would demand to see God's affidavit.
Any system that makes coercive appeal needs to be able to justify the claim. In a secular society referencing God alone as the basis for legislation does not pass muster.
Attacks on faith typically reveal more about the labeler than what they attempt to label. That is so true. And the same can be said about attacks on 'the left'.
The standard doesn't apply when the system's advocates don't bath regularly, hold a stable job or have an accent. ~;)
Bohemianism and the nanny state are there own refutation.
Well then as the smartest man in the world maybe you can enlighten the rest of us poor bastards. ~D
well I could try but you all probably wouldn't understand me but you avoided the question: Can you proof what you believe.
you said we couldn't prove we're wrong but so can't you. I just posted this not because I was waiting for an awsering but to show you this is't a good argument.
It's like saying: can you prove that only one line can go trough 2 certain points.
finnaly my intellect gets credit ~;)
sharrukin
08-26-2005, 00:02
well I could try but you all probably wouldn't understand me but you avoided the question: Can you proof what you believe.
you said we couldn't prove we're wrong but so can't you. I just posted this not because I was waiting for an awsering but to show you this is't a good argument.
It's like saying: can you prove that only one line can go trough 2 certain points.
finnaly my intellect gets credit ~;)
The difference is that Christians admit it is just a matter of faith.
Is what you believe nothing more than a matter of faith?
If so, then how is that different from a religion?
If on the other hand, you think it is different from a religion, then step forward with some proof for your claims.
bmolsson
08-26-2005, 00:11
Religions, with few exceptions, are judging outsiders harshly and doesn't allow external criticism. The undemocratic approach to powerstructure also doesn't allow any practical way of reformation, which would allowing the religion adapt to changes. In many cases religion is used as an excuse to commit crimes, atrocities and violent actions against the outside society.
These facts makes a democratic and secular viewer less tolerant against the religion and it's follower.
Strike For The South
08-26-2005, 00:18
Because people like thinking there being cool or bad ass and sticking it to the man. When in reality there just assholes Imo religon is a persanol thing and shouldnt be pushed on others
Gawain of Orkeny
08-26-2005, 00:43
well I could try but you all probably wouldn't understand me but you avoided the question:
Yeah Im too stupid. Was this addressed to you. Someone said that there is no god and that everything is random. He said your only fooling yourself if you believe in God. I countered that its just as big a leap of faith to believe everything camre from nothing as it is to belive in god. He said he could prove what he belived. I say he cant. Can you? I never claimed to ne able to prove what I belive because thats not the meanng of the word. If its proven I KNOW it I dont have to believe it.
Papewaio
08-26-2005, 01:52
Christianity is your personal relationship with God. "God doesn't have grandchildren."
I never liked people trying to set me up on dates, telling me who I should like or dislike or any other form of heavy handed relationship coercion. Hence I am not a great fan of organised religions aspect of trying to force a spiritual relationship on me.
I'm not sure if I am counted in those who attack Christianity, but I am certainly one of those who debates concepts people try and attach to it like Intelligent Design.
See, that's why I prefer spirituality. To me, religion is basically the regulated and regimented version of spirituality, its political aspect and it just doesn't work. The concept of religion isn't bad, but most examples I've seen of it is...unappealing.
AntiochusIII
08-26-2005, 04:59
Self-centered admittedly selfish individualists like me need no gods to justify my existence. ~:)
Admittedly, I too wonder what awaits me in the afterlife. Theories abound, mostly in religious traditions, but the most plausible, and, in my megalomaniac opinion, worst possibility is the loss of my very existence. (Crap, that kind of thing is actually THE goal of Buddhism: the Nirvana!!! - Also, a lot of people are probably as uncomfortable as I am that they won't exist once they died that the concept of "heaven" (hell is for other purposes ~;) ) comes into being) Others turn to religion for answer, either in the form of ancient scriptures (man-made, I'm sure ;p), ancient institutions (organized religion, where millions believe in the same divine thingy), or mysticism as personal spirituality. I've heard rumors that hippies are quite good in the last, though they probably need the help of addictive, dangerous smoking plants for that...
The problem is (and why there are so many religion bashers) that the religious institutions, thanks to the fact that the justification that their "God" is the real one makes them especially self-righteous and delicately sensitive to all sorts of criticism, caused many harms throughout history and continue to influence (I'd rather use "disturb", but in fear of being torched...) politics. Many of us are pissed by their self-righteousness. So the reaction is negative. The faithful are also quite angry at each other and the godless, "God must be pissed off by these unbelievers!" The result is a lot of bickering, and, thanks to the fact that the people who disagree with a particular religion (or religion as a whole) don't quite unite (they don't have a real reason to do so, do they? Until...), things also often got violent, and organized religions managed to get their hands on the faithless and torture, kill, torch, cut, tickle them.
Spetulhu
08-26-2005, 05:23
It has always struck me as odd that some of (not all) the folks who doubt the existence of God take such joy in attacking defenders of that belief, and Christians in particular.
Because people in the west are mainly christians, and we have the kind of living standard where you can let go of old superstitions? The drug-induced dreams of today are better than those of some hashish-smoking guys dead for 2000 years? People LIKE to tell others how superior they are, no matter what they base that feeling on? :duel:
Wow
So when did you stop beating your wife?
The whole premise of this is so fundamentally flawed that I don't know where to begin. Like the question above, the whole idea that non-believers must attack religion for some unknown reason just perpetuates the persecution complex.
First, to lump science and religion together as though science is just another myth is a big part of the problem. Science can provide many deeper answers, eventually it will, unless it is derailed by theologians (as occurred in the dark ages).
Second, most folks that I know of don't go about attacking religion. In my experience they are reacting to some religious imperative. Like this thread.
The 'threat' as you put it, is when fundamentists from any religion assume that the light shines brighter on them then the rest of us, and try to control the lives of others.
Look, if you want to believe that some guy sits on high passing judgment on all of us and will someday return and make things all better, go ahead. Just don't try to foist your beliefs on the rest of us.
This persecution thing seems to be part of the whole deal.
ichi :bow:
Crazed Rabbit
08-26-2005, 07:39
For instance I agree with Christians that killing my neighbour is bad, but I do not agree that it is bad because of a divine proscription. It is bad because its ultimate consequence is the disintegration of the society I live in.
So, if you could kill your neighbor without consequences for yourself, it wouldn't be bad?
Religions, with few exceptions, are judging outsiders harshly and doesn't allow external criticism. The undemocratic approach to powerstructure also doesn't allow any practical way of reformation, which would allowing the religion adapt to changes. In many cases religion is used as an excuse to commit crimes, atrocities and violent actions against the outside society.
These facts makes a democratic and secular viewer less tolerant against the religion and it's follower.
One of those exceptions is Catholicism, in that they do not say that everyone who isn't Catholic is going to burn in hellfire. As to reform, ever heard of Vatican II? And in the past hundred years (at least) Christianity has not been used as a basis for any crimes.
The only reason secular gov'ts don't like it is because they want to claim supreme authority, that they can decide what is best.
Christianity--indeed most if not all organized religion--promotes ignorance. As a man of knowledge, I find that loathesome.
Ah...dur..that must explain people like St. Thomas Aquinas and Pope John Paul II. :dizzy2:
Many of us are pissed by their self-righteousness.
You're pissed because people believe strongly in something that you don't? Or because Christianity states that man is not all knowing, incapable of finding truth alone, and you don't want to have your judgement questioned?
Crazed Rabbit
AntiochusIII
08-26-2005, 07:49
You're pissed because people believe strongly in something that you don't? Or because Christianity states that man is not all knowing, incapable of finding truth alone, and you don't want to have your judgement questioned?Because Christianity (and some other religions) states that their divine being is all knowing, capable of being truth alone in themselves, and don't want their judgement questioned...which is fine for your own faith but really cause much irritation when this is being used in secular "issues" in a secular society as reasons/motives/etc. :bow:
Soulforged
08-26-2005, 08:10
[QUOTE]So, if you could kill your neighbor without consequences for yourself, it wouldn't be bad?
It has real concequences by real penalties. And anyway the main consequence is the degradation of humanity. That's what means:"Every time that a man is killed, is like killing humanity itself" (though as always i don't know if the translation is certain).
One of those exceptions is Catholicism, in that they do not say that everyone who isn't Catholic is going to burn in hellfire. As to reform, ever heard of Vatican II? And in the past hundred years (at least) Christianity has not been used as a basis for any crimes.
Yes indeed. That was one of the best tactics of Catholicism. Just make all the Gods your God, and you'll extend your power. But don't missunderstand me, of course i'm talking about organized religion wich acts like a politic group of pressure.
The only reason secular gov'ts don't like it is because they want to claim supreme authority, that they can decide what is best.
You're right here. But if you reflex on it a little you'll see that secular governments swear the Constitutions on God to legitimate it. So paradoxicaly the same religion helps to give that authority that they seek, and that i don't like. That's the principal reason why religion should be totally out, so the state decreases it's power to a minimum, preferably not exist at all.
Ah...dur..that must explain people like St. Thomas Aquinas and Pope John Paul II. :dizzy2:
That was some time ago, in those times they kept the science, premitive and original. Today they keep the dogmatics teachings and most of the old unimproved science.
You're pissed because people believe strongly in something that you don't? Or because Christianity states that man is not all knowing, incapable of finding truth alone, and you don't want to have your judgement questioned?
Well i think that human can achieve truth by science and not by religion. But besides that i don't care what everybody thinks.
Al Khalifah
08-26-2005, 09:52
The question I would put to the non-believer camp is this. If you don't believe in a religion as a higher cause, what do YOU believe in? What is your reason to be?
bmolsson
08-26-2005, 10:08
The question I would put to the non-believer camp is this. If you don't believe in a religion as a higher cause, what do YOU believe in? What is your reason to be?
Why does there have to be a reason ? Why not just enojoy the fact.... ~;)
Al Khalifah
08-26-2005, 10:14
If your existance is pointless, why does it continue? Something that has no purpose has no reason to exist. It could even be argued that it has no right to exist.
Existence is it's own purpose.
Adrian II
08-26-2005, 12:11
If your existance is pointless, why does it continue? Something that has no purpose has no reason to exist. It could even be argued that it has no right to exist.Yes, existence is quite unreasonable. I've always wondered why I was doomed to exist. It is not as if I have done anything wrong, have I? ~:handball:
Sjakihata
08-26-2005, 12:17
Yeah Im too stupid. Was this addressed to you. Someone said that there is no god and that everything is random. He said your only fooling yourself if you believe in God. I countered that its just as big a leap of faith to believe everything camre from nothing as it is to belive in god. He said he could prove what he belived. I say he cant. Can you? I never claimed to ne able to prove what I belive because thats not the meanng of the word. If its proven I KNOW it I dont have to believe it.
dude, I never said anything like that, re-read my initial post.
Al Khalifah
08-26-2005, 12:19
Yes, existence is quite unreasonable. I've always wondered why I was doomed to exist. It is not as if I have done anything wrong, have I?
Nah, your parents did.
Ser Clegane
08-26-2005, 12:26
Existence is it's own purpose.
Seemingly this is not the case for a lot of people - thus the attraction of religion. "Knowing" that one is part of a "greater purpose/plan" (even if the details are not known) can certainly be soothing.
Note that it is not my intention to ridicule religion - as I personally would rather tend towards agnosticism (although I don't have the feeling that the term precisely describes my feelings with regard to God and religion)
However, I noticed that a lot of people who went from non-religeous to religeous specifically point out the satisfaction gained from "knowing" that their life has a purpose.
Adrian II
08-26-2005, 12:35
Nah, your parents did. ~D :balloon2:
Yeah Im too stupid. Was this addressed to you. Someone said that there is no god and that everything is random. He said your only fooling yourself if you believe in God. I countered that its just as big a leap of faith to believe everything camre from nothing as it is to belive in god. He said he could prove what he belived. I say he cant. Can you? I never claimed to ne able to prove what I belive because thats not the meanng of the word. If its proven I KNOW it I dont have to believe it.
1)the parts: "well I could try but you all probably wouldn't understand" and "finnaly my intellect gets credit~;)" were a joke note: the ~;)
2)yes, you don't have to believe it if it's prooved but usually somethings that are proven are true.
3)I bet he can't prove it or he's one **** of a genius. yes it was stupid of him to say he could prove it. but you can't prove god either so therefor I think at the moment it's a draw between Science and religion.
4)yes my English is bad, I know.
The difference is that Christians admit it is just a matter of faith.
well then I can say it's just a matter of not enough prove, logical thinking,...
now, the question why do atheists like attacking Christians. One of the verry things wich are common for humans; humans have always attacked people wich were in one way or another different from them. is it religion, colour, opinion,... This is also the case with Christians. there are a lot of cases in history but there are a lot of examples now too.
Paul Peru
08-26-2005, 13:48
The question I would put to the non-believer camp is this. If you don't believe in a religion as a higher cause, what do YOU believe in? What is your reason to be?
I am because I am.
And I try to have a good time and make a difference for the good.
If you can't relate to existence being without inherent purpose, you need to grow up.
Religion just puts anoother turtle under the one the elephants are standing on, and you are still left with explaining that turtle.
A nice crutch for the near-sighted.
(lovely mixed metaphor ~;) )
I attack religion because I'm provoked by so many people letting obvious BS control their lives, and because they are so loud and conspicuous about it.
It needs to be said, IMO, that all religion is obviously utter nonsense, based on varying mixtures of lies, delusions and manipulations.
We ought to be at a point today where we can look at religion, have a good laugh and move on.
Al Khalifah
08-26-2005, 14:40
I am because I am.
And I try to have a good time and make a difference for the good.
How do you make a difference for the good? What does your effort matter for at the end of it all?
Paul Peru
08-26-2005, 15:45
How do you make a difference for the good? What does your effort matter for at the end of it all?
My effort matters to those who get some joy or use from it here and now.
Life is what's happening to you, and a lot of other people, right now!
At the end of it all it doesn't matter, like everything else.
Grow, wake, and wisen up!
The whole thing is so patently infantile, so
foreign to reality, that anyone with a
friendly attitude toward humanity
must be pained to think that the great
majority of men will never be able to
rise above this view of life.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-26-2005, 16:09
I have stayed out of this since posting it in order to listen rather than "speak."
A few posts have done little more than exemplify the kind of "attack" to which I referred.
Most, as expected, have tried to take on the substance of the discussion -- and I have enjoyed the interplay.
Ichi here, has attacked the premise, so I feel constrained to respond, at least in the interest of clarity.
So when did you stop beating your wife?
The whole premise of this is so fundamentally flawed that I don't know where to begin. Like the question above, the whole idea that non-believers must attack religion for some unknown reason just perpetuates the persecution complex.
A bit harsh. My question ackowledged that "christian-bashing" was not the choice of all non-believers, I am well aware that many (most?) who hold such views are more than willing to "live and let live." The subtext of the question was meant to get those who ARE prone to such a persecution response to consider whether or not such a response is valuable and productive. Does the question itself also represent a continuing sense of persecution on my part? Perhaps, though I do not consciously believe that to be the case.
First, to lump science and religion together as though science is just another myth is a big part of the problem. Science can provide many deeper answers, eventually it will, unless it is derailed by theologians (as occurred in the dark ages).
I very purposefully did not label science as "just another myth." I have, among other things, TAUGHT the scientific method at the university level. The principles of science: sound ethical behavior, measurement, validity, reliability, hypothesis-testing and the like, are one of the most powerful tools developed by mankind. I also recognize it as a "belief system" -- not a myth. Those who embrace science as a belief system come to view it as a sort of ultimate tool for intellectual progress, that it will, in the fulness of time, lead us to all the answers. Or, as you put it:
Science can provide many deeper answers, eventually it will, unless it is derailed by theologians.
This is an expression of belief. By the way, I agree, science has and will continue to provide many "deeper" answers. I am not attacking science or seeking to belittle it with this label.
Regrettably, some theologians have "derailed" science (and learning in general) for a time. I would suggest that many such efforts were made in order to preserve their temporal power, and may well have been in contravention of their own spiritual teachings. For example, the Church's opposition to the writings of Galileo and Copernicus may well have been motivated more by a desire to maintain the extant power structure rather than for spiritual concerns. It is instances such as these that leave a "sour taste" in the mouths of GelCube and others...and me. The Church has, of course, changed its stance on the works of both of these brilliant men.
Second, most folks that I know of don't go about attacking religion. In my experience they are reacting to some religious imperative. Like this thread.
Most of the folk I know don't either, but...This thread had no religious imperative. It posed a question and explained the conditions leading to that question. If I am "preaching" here, it is only to the extent of trying to get you to think about the issue. Your conclusions, your beliefs are -- and should be -- your own.
The 'threat' as you put it, is when fundamentists from any religion assume that the light shines brighter on them then the rest of us, and try to control the lives of others.
I whole-heartedly agree -- except I did not use the term religion. Be it Nazism, Islamo-fascism, Conservatism or some judge legislating from the bench, all such efforts are wrong. In fact, my belief (religion in this case) suggests that such efforts are doomed to fail. You simply cannot force anyone to believe as you believe. You can only live your life the best you can and MAYBE get them to think about sharing that belief for themselves.
Look, if you want to believe that some guy sits on high passing judgment on all of us and will someday return and make things all better, go ahead. Just don't try to foist your beliefs on the rest of us..
I have not, I will not, and I believe I would be wrong to do so. As to some of the other posts, they must answer for themselves.
This persecution thing seems to be part of the whole deal.
This last issue is easily the most compelling you raise. It is food for thought as to whether my post, and other similar sentiments expressed on this thread and others, reveal more of a sense of persecution being self-imposed rather than enacted from without. I will think on this for a time -- and would enjoy any expansions on this theme you or others would care to add.
Seamus
Al Khalifah
08-26-2005, 17:25
At the end of it all it doesn't matter, like everything else.
Grow, wake, and wisen up!
It's not immature to ponder the nature of existance. Some of the world's greatest thinkers have spent their entire lives trying to find hummanity's raison d'etre. It's also central to this debate. So perhaps you should do likewise, but add the word shut.
If everything doesn't matter, then this existance of Christianity shouldn't matter to non-Christians, therefore they shouldn't attack it, its principles and its followers.
A bit harsh. My question ackowledged that "christian-bashing" was not the choice of all non-believers, I am well aware that many (most?) who hold such views are more than willing to "live and let live."
Please forgive me for my frankness, but this is either quite naive or rather disengenious. To start a thread titled "What is the appeal of attacking Christianity? containing statements like
So why, having decided for yourself that a lack of verifiable data/proof indicates non-existence, does it become important to hammer someone of the opposite view -- as opposed to noting that you simply disagree with their premise? What exactly constitues the "threat?"
and then call someone harsh for saying
Like the question above, the whole idea that non-believers must attack religion for some unknown reason just perpetuates the persecution complex
feels like I've been set up. Either I accept the premise that non-Christians must 'hammer' true believers or look like a bully because I don't think the premise is true.
Regarding science. When you say
Both belief systems (which science is, though it is clearly NOT a religion) proceed from largely irreconcilable premises.
you lump them together as belief systems, reeducing science from what it is (a system of understanding) to an unsubstantiated group of theories. Again, maybe I am being harsh, but this constant attempt to undermine the difference between reality and belief is one of the reasons we infidels must constantly respond to the religious, thus inciting the persecution complex. You may not have meant to lump science in with other myths, but IMO you did a great job of it.
If I am "preaching" here, it is only to the extent of trying to get you to think about the issue.
Xactly, as I had hoped to get you to think about the premise. IMO Christians and other religious fundamentalists spent a lot of time attacking the beliefs of non-faithful; this starts a cycle of response and reaction, which leads to the fundamentalists feeling attacked.
For me the real question is when is it appropriate for one man to interfere in the life of another? Since there are times when it is appropriate (eg to prevent the murder of a child) and other times when it isnt (eg to prevent the overcooking of a steak) I'm interested in where the thresholds are. So it may be appropriate to 'attack' anoter persons actons or beliefs.
At any rate Papewaio said it best. Please don't count me among those who hate or attack Christianity, but as one who wants to explore rationally.
ichi :bow:
Posted by ichi
This persecution thing seems to be part of the whole deal.
I think it is part of the deal. There are multiple citations in the New Testament regarding persecution and derision of the believers. Many sects cite examples of hostility as a way of showing their tie to the Canon. Even so, it doesn't follow from that recognition that hostility doesn't in fact exist. Further, there is nothing in this initial comment: "It has always struck me as odd that some of (not all) the folks who doubt the existence of God take such joy in attacking defenders of that belief, and Christians in particular." that is baiting. Rather it appears a simple impression. It may be a wrong or a right impression, but I don't think there is an agenda at work above sharing that view for comment.
AntiochusIII
08-26-2005, 18:18
It's not immature to ponder the nature of existance. Some of the world's greatest thinkers have spent their entire lives trying to find hummanity's raison d'etre. It's also central to this debate. So perhaps you should do likewise, but add the word shut.I just posted that I am a self-centered individualist. I don't need any divine being to justify my very existence. So, yes, it's not immature. But for some, it can be answered with something as easy as "I am", and religion is not needed for that person. You may need religion to justify your existence; that's okay, nobody hates your for that; except other worshippers of another divine being that disagrees with you. However...
If everything doesn't matter, then this existance of Christianity shouldn't matter to non-Christians, therefore they shouldn't attack it, its principles and its followers.They attacked it, as Ichi said, to "respon[d] to religious imperative." (Ichi page 2 :p) Imperative: that's the key. We are angry that these religions, as I said, self-righteous thanks to divine justification, try to shove their morality, their way of life, their "faith", which should be personal rather than political, into our throats; you are demanding that we must believe in something, even if we don't need to do so. Science, after all, is not supposed to be believed in; it's supposed to be a collection of facts, learning, human experience, data, and theories with factual support; not faith.
KafirChobee
08-26-2005, 18:19
It is not a matter of "bashing".
It is a matter of challenging the religious rights attempt to make their agenda the only agenda. Their "science", the only science. Their "moral values", the only acceptable way. And their ignoring of ethics (as being in the way of propagaiting their wholesome virtues) as being an OK thing if the end justifys the means.
No one is attacking "religion", except the Christian right that perceives any but theirs as being evil (Islam, Judaism, ... name one - they got the answer why it is wrong and why it is evil, and if one doesnot accept Jesus they will go to hell) or just a bunch of myths accepted by misguided souls (that will still go to hell for not accepting Christ as their saviour).
That is not bashing, it is reporting it as it is. In other threads I have posted up a number of Christian threads to demonstrate their intolerance for the beliefs of others. They all have one thing in common - they are absolutely correct and everyone else is absolutely wrong. There is no gray area for the Christian Coalition or Jerry Falwell, or Mr. Roberts, or Billy Graham's son (Billy understood the true word of Jesus and never attempted to twist it to mean anything but love thy neighbor - or to support a political movement.).
See, the Christian right seem to understand that only they have the right to bash others beliefs. Anyone that opposes their dogmatic structure of beliefs and explains why - is bashing them.
Ethics has no place in their system - all they need do is say "I'm a sinner" and all those that think as they do simply nod and all is forgiven. After all (as I said) the end justifys the means - and their end is the subjigation of all other belief systems that diametrically oppose their perfect view (I mean God told them to think this way - some guy holding a cross told them so.).
And that is why they think that opposing thoughts are the same as bashing "religion" (their version of christianity - all other religions they bash themselves).
:book:
Take a look, judge for yourself. And, take note it is estimated that their are over 50,000 like sites on the web.:
http://www.bible.ca
http://www.creationministries.org
http://www.rcfm.org j/k ~D
http://chick.com
Al Khalifah
08-26-2005, 19:53
They attacked it, as Ichi said, to "respon[d] to religious imperative." (Ichi page 2 :p) Imperative: that's the key. We are angry that these religions, as I said, self-righteous thanks to divine justification, try to shove their morality, their way of life, their "faith", which should be personal rather than political, into our throats; you are demanding that we must believe in something, even if we don't need to do so. Science, after all, is not supposed to be believed in; it's supposed to be a collection of facts, learning, human experience, data, and theories with factual support; not faith.
HOWEVER: it is acceptable to force democracy upon people, even those who do not believe in it and would rather live in a fundamentalist society. Is that not forcing morality, standards and a way of life upon those who do not want it?
Al Khalifah
08-26-2005, 20:52
I wasn't looking at you I was responding to AntiochusIII. However, you have brought me to an interesting point.
I think we should let the rest of the world do whatever they want in regards to religion or democracy. Here in the states, however, we were founding on democracy, and not only freedom OF religion, but freedom FROM religion.
The US Administration clearly thinks otherwise however and according to your President any non-democratically elected Government is bad. I know you might think otherwise, however, the theme running throughout this thread has been tar everyone within a group with the same brush. The attitude seems to be "the extreme Christian Right is bad and the Pope has some antiquated opinions, therefore all Christians must be the same. They must all be creationists who thinks AIDs is a punishment from God and hate homosexuals." Therefore I have decided that all Americans must believe that their value system is the one true system and that they believe it must be enforced upon others, even those that don't want it, because that is what their leaders want and they chose their leaders.
If my logic seems crude and crass, please bear in mind that all I have done is hold up a mirror to the argument persistantly being put across by those who view Christianity as evil. Only 50% of voters voted for Bush - less than 50% of Christians are members of the extreme Christian Right. I do believe in democracy, but I also believe in my religion - they are both value systems that don't have to be mutually exclusive.
AntiochusIII
08-26-2005, 21:31
First, our president and our administration does not represent (or at least, is failing horribly to do so) the viewpoints of most of us. Bush's "the world is about good vs evil; and I'm good and all who oppose me is evil" self-righteous attitude angers many of us. In fact, his attitude is THE SAME to many religions in the world. The neo-imperialism agenda does not represent America as a country, though it may represent the current administration.
Second, clearly you have to understand that I am targeting only the ones that try to force their ways on me, right? That I don't care you'd worship "Harry Potter" as your savior as long as you don't try to use this as a basis of your decisions on society; as a basis of our laws, etc. The attitude isn't "the extreme Christian Right is bad and the Pope has some antiquated opinions, therefore all Christians must be the same. They must all be creationists who thinks AIDs is a punishment from God and hate homosexuals." but rather "the extreme Christian Right is bad and the Pope has some antiquated opinions, therefore they should just shut up and don't try to interfere with our politics, pray to their "god" that our judges die off because we're infidels, try to use their "god" to justify the latest abortion clinic bombing." Okay, I'm exaggerating here, but you get my point.
Third, America is a large country and opinions are greatly divided. True, religious people are also various and different; I have to reiterate this again: I don't mind or care that Christians would go to their church and pray all they want even if I feel they are stupid to do so, as long as they don't get self-righteous with their beliefs and decide that the world is inferior or that "god" wishes them to establish religiously-justified laws over us non-believers.
Fourth, did I force you to live in a democratic society? Did I force you to have faith in democracy? Did I call you infidel if you don't?
No.
Logic and faith are mutually exclusive. I may make logical arguments to convince you that this system is better, but I'm not demanding you to believe in this system entirely out of faith.
*And by you I'm not targeting specifically you, Al Khalifah, but rather a general statement; if that seems like a personal attack.*
Al Khalifah
08-27-2005, 00:33
I see what you're saying, but please acknowledge the following:
First, our president and our administration does not represent (or at least, is failing horribly to do so) the viewpoints of most of us.
Don't use this one. It might have washed the first time when there was some dispute about things, but let's look at the cold hard fact here:
George W Bush (Rep): 59,841,499 votes (51%)
John Kerry (Dem): 56,382,976 votes (48%)
Ralph Nader (Ind): 406,880 votes (1%)
You chose this guy. He is your representative to the world, like it or not - that's democracy for you. What the majority of the people (that is people who can be bothered to vote of course) want - everyone gets.
If you feel that the democratic system in your country is not representative of the people and requires change - change it. One of the major criticisms levelled at the Church is that it is not responsive enough to change and public opinion, yet many on the left also criticise the American electoral system for the exact same thing.
I agree with your second point. I dislike the extremists in Christianity too. I think America has been dealt somewhat of a 'raw deal' when it comes to Christians though, because you seem to get more than your fair share of extremists and they also seem much better at hogging media attention too.
Fourth, did I force you to live in a democratic society? Did I force you to have faith in democracy?
No, but your Government that your country elected has forced the people of Iraq to live in a democratic society and is forcing them to have faith in democracy - within certain imposed restraints on how they want to be governed of course. You had no need to force my country to live in a democracy because we already are one.
Logic and faith are mutually exclusive. I may make logical arguments to convince you that this system is better, but I'm not demanding you to believe in this system entirely out of faith.
I could believe in many of the core principles Christianity from a purely logical perspective too, if I so wished. "Do not do to others as you wish done unto yourself" - from a logical perspective this makes sense whether it was said by Jesus or by George Bush. Even if you choose not to embrace the aspects of Christianity requiring faith, all I would ask is that you embrace the aspects that will make the world a better place. Every non-maniac Christian (i.e 95% of Christians) would also ask nothing more of you. Be good and others will be good to you - like with karma.
Divinus Arma
08-27-2005, 00:49
I enjoy attacking Christianity because the religion is absurd.
Edit: And that is, of course, my opinion. I am not so arrogant as to assume that I am correct and all others are wrong.
AggonyDuck
08-27-2005, 01:00
Well I used to be a christian myself, but somehow I just lost faith in God for various minor reasons. It actually started with me still believing in God, but choosing not to serve him. Eventually I just reached a point where I stopped believing that we could possibly know anything of God or any other higher being. This pretty much led to me being without an faith, due to my inability to actually believe what anyone would say about higher powers etc.
I have this need of experiencing things myself to truly believe in them.
But sadly what I've recently noticed that a belief is actually needed to truly justify everything's existense. Without faith a man is left without anything to actually give anything a true meaning. Without faith the only thing that a man can do is to use himself (maybe other humans too) as the base for his universe and be the one who has to make his own values and be his own justification.
But this again falls on the fact there is no such thing as a relative truth, which results in the fact that you're pretty much left with a personal belief based on yourself, that actually is as far away from the real truth as other beliefs. So this results in me being back to square one with no real belief, no real meaning in my life and the resulting lack of meaning in everything.
But I'm still attempting to build up my values and create a meaning for my life, even though I have severe problems with it due to the fact that I don't believe that even I know the real truth. (and I have a strange obsession with the real truth) Anyways I'm just trying to live each day forward and entertain myself in various ways.
This pretty much puts me in a position where I envy the people who have a proper belief, but yet I also see them as somewhat misguided. This is especially the case for me with really fundamental christians who are so sure of their belief. Yet what true evidence do they have of it's correctness?
Perhaps this just reflects my own lack of faith and shows that I have the need to put down the people who have the capability of actually almost blindly believing in something. Maybe I just envy their peace of mind and can't stand the fact that they're so sure of how things are (or atleast seem to be). Maybe my questioning of their faith is an attempt to show myself that even the usual fundamental christian is actually not sure of how things really are. I can just be happy that I've not managed to crush someone's faith yet and I hope I never really will, because the situation I am in currently, just feels like hell from time to time and honestly I wouldn't wish that anyone would actually be plagued by a lack of faith.
Anyways this is a post from an agnostic, who lives a life without meaning, who lacks the capability of believing and who would actually wish that he would be able to believe and have a meaningful life. :bow:
Soulforged
08-27-2005, 03:21
I see what you're saying, but please acknowledge the following:
Don't use this one. It might have washed the first time when there was some dispute about things, but let's look at the cold hard fact here:
George W Bush (Rep): 59,841,499 votes (51%)
John Kerry (Dem): 56,382,976 votes (48%)
Ralph Nader (Ind): 406,880 votes (1%)
You chose this guy. He is your representative to the world, like it or not - that's democracy for you. .
No incorrect. That's not democracy the republican representative system works far outside of what democracy is supposed to be. You're just alluding to the formality, but that doesn't make true an statement like:"He is your representative to the world, like it or not - that's democracy for you." If i don't like it then you must try to change it. Change all the model. The perfect democracy is the only one, and we must achieve it as quickly as rationally possible.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-27-2005, 03:38
Ichi-san:
My use of "harsh" was in reference to your very first sentence. The one you re-quoted was, I think, a good start to your take on the discussion.
you lump them together as belief systems, reeducing science from what it is (a system of understanding) to an unsubstantiated group of theories. Again, maybe I am being harsh, but this constant attempt to undermine the difference between reality and belief is one of the reasons we infidels must constantly respond to the religious, thus inciting the persecution complex. You may not have meant to lump science in with other myths, but IMO you did a great job of it.
So, from your view (feel free to correct me), science = reality whereas religion/faith = belief. Therefore, if I characterize science as a "belief system," I am implicitly arguing that science a well-told story akin to the mythic story of Ragnarok. Since this flies in the face of a demonstrable fact such as the effect of gravity within Terra's gravitational field - a fact determined via scientific measurement and method - my characterization of science in any such parallel is demonstrably insipid and implicitly undercuts my entire argument.
I do not, however, draw the parallel on that level. A belief system, as I use the term, is an integral set of values/guiding principles/underlying "givens" that one uses to interpret the data perceived through the senses or generated via cognitive activity. Both "science" and "religion" have their values, principles and "givens," but they do not cancel one another out. For me, my religious faith, as well as rational logic/science are BOTH belief systems in my mental tool kit.
Xactly, as I had hoped to get you to think about the premise. IMO Christians and other religious fundamentalists spent a lot of time attacking the beliefs of non-faithful; this starts a cycle of response and reaction, which leads to the fundamentalists feeling attacked
While you have a point that the tag-line contained an implicitly inflammatory component (the reference to Christianity), those who read past the first two sentences, such as yourself, recognized that the premise was not so simplistic. In fact, your questioning of my premise, forcing me to clarify my thoughts on the issue, was useful to me in rounding out my own thinking.
For me the real question is when is it appropriate for one man to interfere in the life of another? Since there are times when it is appropriate (eg to prevent the murder of a child) and other times when it isnt (eg to prevent the overcooking of a steak) I'm interested in where the thresholds are. So it may be appropriate to 'attack' anoter persons actons or beliefs.
At any rate Papewaio said it best. Please don't count me among those who hate or attack Christianity, but as one who wants to explore rationally.
Good question. I, for one, tend to favor the route of non-interference -- but your example is poignant.
Thanks for the challenging discussion -- that kind of conflict is healthy.
Seamus
Nice
Good luck in your quest to understand it mate
ichi :bow:
Al Khalifah
08-27-2005, 11:51
No incorrect. That's not democracy the republican representative system works far outside of what democracy is supposed to be. You're just alluding to the formality, but that doesn't make true an statement like:"He is your representative to the world, like it or not - that's democracy for you." If i don't like it then you must try to change it. Change all the model. The perfect democracy is the only one, and we must achieve it as quickly as rationally possible.
But this is exactly my point. The structuring of the Church is attacked along with its ability to change to reflect modern times and yet so is the American electoral system. One is the power structure of the Christian faith, the other is the power structure of democracy.
Don't pick up an individual part or sentance of the argument and try to point innacuracies in it, you have to examine the whole. At the moment you're just agreeing with me.
I thought this was interesting in light of our discussions
Among influential American evangelicals, a sense of persecution persists
by Rachel Zoll
August 26, 2005
To outsiders, conservative Christians seem at the peak of their influence.
Books by evangelical pastors Rick Warren and Joel Osteen are multimillion best sellers, megachurches are building satellite congregations to meet demand, conservatives control Congress and, most importantly, religious activists helped put a Bible-believer in the White House.
Yet, many evangelicals still consider themselves a persecuted majority, hounded by "secular fundamentalists" intent on driving religion from public life.
Opponents find this view baffling. Bill Leonard, dean of Wake Forest University Divinity School in North Carolina and a critic of the religious right, says evangelicals consider themselves oppressed only because some Americans disagree with them.
Share your thoughts on this story on the ChicagoDefender.com message board.
"They want to be culture dominant," Leonard said.
But many evangelical leaders say conservative Protestants and Roman Catholics continue to be maligned by some of the most influential institutions in the country _ the media, public schools, universities and Hollywood _ and they argue that societal demands for tolerance are extended to every group but them.
"There is an attempt by the secularists to take Jesus Christ and to take God out of every aspect of our society," said the Rev. Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, in a recent interview with The Associated Press.
This worldview was on display this month at the "Justice Sunday: II" event, which enlisted Christians in the fight for more sympathetic federal judges.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, the advocacy group that helped organize the gathering in a Nashville church, contended that limits the U.S. Supreme Court has placed on religion in public schools have meant "that our children don't have a right to pray."
William Donohue, head of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, told the crowd he was "tired of being told" that if faith informs your thinking "you're a second-class citizen."
In an interview, Donohue said conservative leaders are not paranoid, as critics contend, nor are they cynically attempting to mobilize their followers. He said his anti-defamation group logs dozens of cases each month in which Christians are compared to the Taliban or otherwise denigrated for their beliefs. Many of the slurs are in films and on TV, he said.
"We are basically in a reactive mode," Donohue said. "I don't create the offenses. I react to them and the offenses just seem not to stop coming."
Spikes can come when leaders linked with the movement are in the news, such as Pat Robertson, who suggested Monday that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez should be assassinated. Robertson was widely criticized.
John Green, an expert on religion and politics at the University of Akron, said evangelicals who feel slandered are responding partly to the added attention from their role in the presidential race.
"Their very success has brought extra criticism that feeds this sense of being persecuted," Green said. "Before, they felt a lack of respect. Now, they feel some hostility."
And despite their growing political clout, evangelicals have not achieved many of the policy changes they consider key, Green said, such as outlawing abortion. They worry that politicians who benefit from Christian support will not stand with them on these major issues.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist recently angered conservatives when he broke from the Bush administration to support expanding embryonic stem cell research. Frist was a speaker at the first "Justice Sunday" in April, but was not invited to this month's rally in his home state of Tennessee because of his position on the issue.
Evangelicals perceive themselves as especially powerless in American society, which continues to tolerate behavior traditionalists consider immoral, such as homosexuality.
Eddie Gibbs, professor of church growth at Fuller Theological Seminary, a top evangelical school in Pasadena, Calif., said loss of influence in the broader culture is behind the frustration that persists no matter how many lawmakers Christian activists help elect.
"The idea that you are at the center of society, you're a foundational institution, there's been a move away from that," said Gibbs, who thinks evangelicals are misunderstood but not persecuted. "I think the church is struggling to regain that, which in my personal view, ain't gonna happen."
The sense of being outsiders has historical roots as well. For much of the 20th century, liberal-leaning Protestants were considered the mainstream of American Christianity, while biblical traditionalists were generally marginalized and often mocked.
Starting around the 1960s, as mainline Protestant denominations started losing members, conservative churches were growing, yet evangelicals still felt shut out. A new emphasis on personal freedoms was pushing organized religion to the sidelines of public life.
U.S. Supreme Court decisions supporting abortion-rights and prohibiting public school officials from organizing or leading prayers and devotional Bible reading were also part of this troubling shift for evangelicals.
Christian law firms such as the Alliance Defense Fund say their caseload of religious freedom violations in public schools alone remains steady to this day. Among their recent lawsuits: a New Jersey second-grader barred from singing "Awesome God" at a school talent show.
Behind the conflict about religion in public life is a debate within Christianity itself over how the Bible should be interpreted and which view should be considered the norm. Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson, head of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, warned recently that Christianity is experiencing a "global identity crisis."
Gibbs said conservative Christians need to accept that they live in a nation that is becoming ever more diverse, and that no single Christian group will have a "privileged voice" in society.
"You've got to find ways of being heard within that context," Gibbs said. "But we shouldn't get angry or try to reclaim the past."
If your existance is pointless, why does it continue? Something that has no purpose has no reason to exist. It could even be argued that it has no right to exist.Because the Sun exists.
Without the Sun, the Earth would be frozen and there would be no "life". There would be no energy to stave off entropy to continue that "life".
The closest we have as a real "god" is the Sun.
Al Khalifah
08-28-2005, 00:10
And many early religions revolved around Sun worship.
AntiochusIII
08-28-2005, 00:17
I thought this was interesting in light of our discussionsExcellent article, ichi. Pretty much sums up the situation. :bow: It makes sense. "Privileged voice" is my favourite part.
Byzantine Prince
08-28-2005, 00:17
It's true that the sun is the only source of energy life on earth have. It could be argued that in the near future however we can live without it, or create substude that is just as good. It's not impossible.
The only thing that is a complete mystery is why and how life was first formed. It boggles the mind and we'll never categorically. No one can go back in time, if such a thing as time even exists, and so we'll never know.
There are only two possibilities. Either God exists and we live after death within his light, or he doesn't and we simply dissapear. Either way I'm happy, even if I go to hell, I'll still be happy.
It's true that the sun is the only source of energy life on earth have. It could be argued that in the near future however we can live without it, or create substude that is just as good. It's not impossible.
Oh no. The Earth always leak energy into space via entropy. Who's going to replace that lost energy aside from the Sun?
On good days I consider myself to be contributing to the entropy of the universe. On bad days, I realize it's just gas and wonder if I really did eat whatever that was.
On good days I consider myself to be contributing to the entropy of the universe. On bad days, I realize it's just gas and wonder if I really did eat whatever that was.
Its beans my friend - you have to stop eating in some of the better restraunts in town. Eat more roughage - drink less beer. ~:cheers:
bmolsson
08-28-2005, 04:56
Christianity is a religion that encourage attacks. It refuse to accept anyone that doesn't fit the moral preached for. It has only itself to blame.
Its beans my friend - you have to stop eating in some of the better restraunts in town. Eat more roughage - drink less beer. ~:cheers:
I stopped drinking alcohol a few years ago. Lost interest in it, I guess. I don't smoke. I don't do drugs. I used to do all of the above to great excess in my youth.
And I think it's the cheese actually. I'm not a big fan of most beans, except black beans and only when they're done well in a nice spicy Szechuan recipe, like black bean chicken.
And speaking of religions, just to keep my post nominally on topic (well, Ok, it's really a stretch but...) It might be the meat. I'm not up to the whole Vegan (see? I managed to bring a religion into it anyway!) thing. I like my steaks medium rare and still bleeding a little. If it's all that upsetting to the Vegans, then when I die I'll will to them the average 5 pounds of undigested red meat still in my intestines so they can give it a decent burial. Say a prayer for it, light a scented aroma-therapy candle and wave a crystal over it or whatever it is the Vegans do to revere the meat-thing. ~D
Paul Peru
08-28-2005, 07:01
It's not immature to ponder the nature of existance. Some of the world's greatest thinkers have spent their entire lives trying to find hummanity's raison d'etre. It's also central to this debate. So perhaps you should do likewise, but add the word shut.
If everything doesn't matter, then this existance of Christianity shouldn't matter to non-Christians, therefore they shouldn't attack it, its principles and its followers.
Thank you for telling me to (perhaps) shut up ~;)
Of course it's not immature to ponder!
But sometimes it's even more mature to come to a conclusion.
People's need for a well defined "raison d'être" or similar is, of course, a main reason why religion is still going strong, even though there is enough information avaiable to discredit each and every one of them thoroughly, and science does not need much help explaining nature any more. Through evolution-like mechanisms, the surviving religions today are those who get less in the way of science. A good religion today ought to transcend proof of any claim, predict nothing etc. In short it must define a world that works just like it would without the existence of gods/spirits/fairies, or it will be proven wrong, and I then proceed to slash it with Occam's razor. (some smaller religions still manage to keep their followers after ...say setting several wrong dates for the
end of the world ~:confused: )
How come anything exists in the first place? Well, you wouldn't be asking that question if it didn't. As I said, introducing "God" just adds a new layer before you end up with the same question.
What's the meaning of life? If I don't get to go to Heaven anyway, why bother getting up in the morning?
As I said, nothing matters "in the end", but that's millions of years from now. Do you like having a good time? Better than having an awful time? Do you prefer getting a hug to getting kicked in the face?
There's billions of people out there, each one an individual with feelings, hopes, needs. There are even animals, and trees! Show some kindness. Help someone. Help someone help someone. Write a good book. Write a good song. Sing a good song well. Make the world a better place in some small way. What goes around, goes around to a great extent, and sometimes it comes around as well.
It works for me.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.