The Christian Bashing thred.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

To say, as Niall did - that society wouldn't exist without religion is foolish. It definitely wouldn't be the *same* but it would still, most likely, exist.

As to Christian bashing - well, really it's the same as American bashing in many ways, which I'm sure many people can see (not least of which is that most of the loathed Americans are hardline Christians).

I of course, long for a society in which I can insult Muslim, Jew, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian and miscellaneous equally but sadly with the PC blunderbuss in the hands of those in power (and the St. Andrews Student Association) that just can't happen because, obviously recognising fault in a belief system which isn't your own is either racism or inciting religious hatred.

Anyway, when Edward I removed the approximately 5,000 Jews from England - it was his most popular act as king. I'd say by the time the Nazis came to power that anti-Semitism was really as much about the historic anti-Jewish sentiment as it was about scapegoating and as exnihilo points out, precious little to do with the actual religion itself.

Still - organised religion is a bad thing, it's only in personal faith that there is any real merit.

ag·nos·tic Audio pronunciation of "agnostic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

[flarewearer]

I would be a lot more comfortable with the concept of orgnaised religion if those that seek to use it for their own empowerment didn't bend and twist it into some unrecogniseable excuse for killing and terrorism. This goes for Christians, Hindus, Muslims and all the other crackpots across the world.
Who gave anybody the right to kill in the name of (their) God? Surely only God him / herself has the power to act in their own name. Anyone who seeks to use the name or "word" of their god to incite hatred, killing, violence and general pestilence deserves nothing more than to be judged by their God and thrown into some fiery pit of eternal damnation. If God wants something done, he / she shall do it themself.

[hr]..Abstract concepts are notoriously difficult to bomb...

[Greebo]

[s]LonelyPilgrim wrote on 12:35, 24th Dec 2004:
If you are saying "I don't know" then you aren't espousing an atheist viewpoint. You are an agnostic. An atheist is one who believes that there is no God/gods/creator/divine-whatchamacallit. I don't mind agnostics. Heck, I don't mind atheists, as long as they don't go out of their way to belittle me or my beliefs.



Your definition of atheism is wrong, I'm afraid.
Saying 'It is impossible to know one way or the other' is agnosticism
Saying 'I lack belief' is atheism.

It is possible to be an agnostic athiest, the agnosticism deals with knowledge, the atheism deals with belief (or lack thereof).
Strong atheists say 'There is no God' or 'I believe there is no God' but they are a relative minority of atheists.

It is equally possible to be an agnostic theist, by saying 'I know that God cannot be proved using logical/scientific means, but I still believe there to be a God'

[exnihilo]

As I said on another thread - people are too sensitive about too much and forget in that wafting their precious little rights about so much they might be getting in the way of other people's. There's a difference between disagreeing with someone and condemning them.

If someone wants to laugh at, insult, mock, or generally deride me, my beliefs, my religion, my socks, then go for it - I'm all for it and I'd support your right to do so. Just try to do it with intelligence, oh, and don't urge people to kill me, that's all I ask.

...

Greebo, an agnostic theist is a contradiction in terms, when T H Huxley coined the term agnostic it was specifically to describe a rational form of thought, a specfic rejection of theology/mysticism and a refusal to aknowledge a God without proof. To say I believe in that which cannot be explained is to take a theist position, certainly not to take an agnostic one.

[Greebo]

[s]exnihilo wrote on 18:01, 24th Dec 2004:
Greebo, an agnostic theist is a contradiction in terms, when T H Huxley coined the term agnostic it was specifically to describe a rational form of thought, a specfic rejection of theology/mysticism and a refusal to aknowledge a God without proof. To say I believe in that which cannot be explained is to take a theist position, certainly not to take an agnostic one.


I'm sorry, I still fail to see how it's a contradiction in terms.

As far as I'm aware the current definition of agnostic is one who says it is impossible to know either way whether or not God exists.

Thus it is possible to be an agnostic theist (can't prove either way but still believes) or agnostic atheist (can't prove either way but lacks belief).


To use an analogy, I could tell you that I feel particularly ill today. Now really it's impossible for you to know either way how I'm feeling unless you're me, experiencing what I'm experiencing. That's the agnostic bit.
But I could be looking particularly green, curled up in bed, sweating and shivering and throwing up all over the place. In that case you might think you had pretty good grounds for believing me and giving me lots of sympathy and grapes and suchlikes.
Or you might not believe me, if I look fine and dandy (i.e. lack belief that I am ill).
That's the (a)theist bit.

[LonelyPilgrim]

[s]fainpathe wrote on 13:23, 24th Dec 2004:
[s]LonelyPilgrim wrote on 10:24, 24th Dec 2004:[i]

When was the last time you saw a Jew and a Christian, or a Hindu and Christian arguing over their beliefs?


i like how you didn't mention Muslims here...or could that be because that would tear apart your arguement?
[/i]

Actually, I was going to mention Islam, but then thought that bringing up the Islam/Christian antagonism would just be too cliche. Besides, I've never seem a Muslim and a Christian have a vehement argument over which faith is correct before. Car bombs, yes. Arguments, no.

Since the question I was answering was essentially, "Why do Christians try to defend their faith with the ontological argument for theism, when that is not Christian specific?" that assumes that we are talking within the context of discussion.

So, no, the Muslim/Christian issue does not blow my argument apart, because the point still stands that most of the time when a Christian has to defend his/her faith in a discussion, it is against atheists or agnostics rather than against persons of other religious beliefs.

Example: exnihilo and myself are essentially arguing on the same side in this debate, despite holding divergent views on the exact nature of our beliefs. You don't see us attacking each other, and for my part you won't see such a thing.

Edited to add a paragraph

[LonelyPilgrim]

[s]Rob Hearn wrote on 00:44, 24th Dec 2004:
God is no more plausible than astrology, and ghosts, and santa, and prior to the moral questions it strikes me that those who believe in god and engage in all the ritual and pomp are making fools of themselves before a growing audience of rational athiests.


This is the sentence that drew me into this debate. As I said before, I do not care what anyone believes whether that be Christianity, Islam, atheism, or the mystical power of the dancing pink elephants. What bothers me is patronizing statements such as the above. If the rational atheist community is so tired of being preached at on street corners, why then turn around and essentially do the same to us? It's hypocritical.

Feel free to not believe if you so choose. I don't care. However, you will be getting a fight out of me if you insist on holding the view that lack of belief somehow makes you wiser or morally superior than those of us that choose to believe.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

If one wants to be rational, then presumably one would sit on the fence - knowing that both the proving and disproving of the existence of God is of course unprovable. Hence, if one wants to argue with reason and not faith or rhetoric, it must surely be that we cannot know?

Although of course, that said it's not possible for lowly mortals like us to know much.

[Gubbins]

[s]exnihilo wrote on 09:04, 24th Dec 2004:
Excuse me, Gubbins? The Holocaust was caused by religion? Whose? Certainly not that of the Nazis, they eschewed religion - are you saying that the Holocaust was the Jews fault for going and being all Jewish at people?

Perhaps the problems "caused" by religion are more accurately the problems caused by human stupidity, which doesn't confine itself to any one area of human life.


Did I say the Holocaust was caused by religion... if I did, I didn´t mean it. I meant that the Nazis persecuted people because of religion - the Jews religion, admittedly. Still, an intolerence through absence of religion is as bad as intolerence because of it.

Problems are undoubtedly caused through religion, if not by religion; the Holocaust could perhaps be an example of this. People will use it as a vent for their hate of difference, for their hate of other people. Human stupidity doesn´t confine itself to one area of human life, but some outlets seem more susceptible and more easily rallied than others. It is not religion that drives this, it is the people who are religious.

In the spirit of Christmas (Merry Christmas everyone), I should probably acknowledge that religion has given us a plinth for a basis of morals and a way to live our life, and has probably done a great many things besides.

[jennyo]

[s]exnihilo wrote on 09:24, 24th Dec 2004:
Many of the greatest minds in the world believe in a Creator, many of them [i]converted to a religion after long consideration.

[/i]
It just seems strange to me that one could convert to a religion after careful consideration. Faith seems to be something that you have or don't have, with no logical reasoning behind it -- not something that you can objectively decide to be a good idea.

My whole problem with religion and faith can be summed up by this statement by a girl I met last summer. A bunch of us had been discussing the possibility of life on other planets, but she refused to talk about it, saying: "I believe in God and that's enough for me".

I think that says it all, really.


[hr]
I love my country too much to be a nationalist. -Albert Camus

[LonelyPilgrim]

Er... so you are letting your entire view of religion being bushwacked because of the view of one girl you met last summer that life doesn't exist on other planets?

I for one am a Christian who fully welcomes the idea that there could be life somewhere else in this cosmos. Actually, as a Christian, I sincerely hope there is, otherwise God would be a bit wasteful what with the infinite universe and all.

Furthermore, I'd go so far as to say that any believer who believes only through faith, and not also through the support of consideration and what evidence there is, is a believer who is afraid of what he or she might find if too many questions are asked. Anyone who truly believes needs faith, but also needs to be confident enough if their belief to hold it up to scrutiny and careful critical evaluation. Otherwise, how much real faith do they have?

[David Bean]

I should have thought that someone who says that they believe in God but don't believe that His existence can (necessarily) be proven is no athiest, but merely one who believes in their religion from faith alone, which is the position that most modern Christians, certainly, take. It's mine, anyway, and that of most other Christians I know. Obviously it depends upon what burden of proof one is prepared to accept; some people believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and it says that God exists, ergo God must exist, and whilst I find that argument to be circular at best others believe that it represents a coherent proof.

Also, Exnihilo is right that the persecution of the Jews had to do not with religion, but with race - remember that 'the Jews' as a race is distinct from 'the Jews' as a religious body. The Nazis persecuted ethic Jews regardless of what religion they practiced, and whilst I don't know of any specific cases, I should imagine that their behaviour towards Gentiles who had converted to religious Judaism (as I'm sure some must have) was far more lenient.

Has anyone else read Prof. Haldane's "An Intelligent Person's Guide to Religion"? I finished it not long ago, and I found that his contemporary twists on the traditional philosophical proofs of the existence of God were quite compelling.

Edit: On reading the Pilgrim's comment above, I realise that what I meant to say was that whilst I believe primarily on the strength of faith, hence 'necessarily', I still think that there is a compelling philosophical case too, as Prof. Haldane showed.

[hr]"Fiat justicia ruat coelum (let justice be done though the heavens may fall)" - Judge James Horton (family motto)

[exnihilo]

Mr Bean, you beat me to it. I was going to simply say that two things have appeared since I last posted that needed to be dealt with.

1 ) The Jews as a people, and Jews as a religious group are two distinct things. The former were persecuted by the Nazis. I repeat, for the last time, that religion had nothing to do with it. I grant that finding ethnic Jews is most easily done by looking in a synagogue, but that's a side issue. Those who had converted would likely have done so for pusposes of marriage and would therefore be 'contaminated' by association with Jews - their treatment would actually have been as bad or worse.

2 ) There seems a wide spread misconception here that faith and religion are the same thing. They quite simply are not. Religion is adherence to a religious doctrine or institution and the acceptance of at least some body of dogma and usually ritual. Faith is free of those tramels. If one took a poll in the street and asked people their religion, I expect most would be athiest or "probably Christian", whereas if one went round asking what people believed in you'd get a lot of "not God, but something" type answers. That is still faith. Conversion does not mean that one had no faith to start with, but that by joining a religion one is buying into a ready made, codified form of that faith. The alternative being to get a gang of followers together and found a new religion (or get shot by the FBI) or to keep yourself entirely to yourself and believe in crystals.

[JAK]

Is this supposed to be a Christian bashing 'thred' or a Christianity bashing 'thred'? I've seen lots more against Christianity and religions so far than Christians themselves.

The pedant in me needs a clarification.

[flarewearer]

[s]exnihilo wrote on 08:59, 25th Dec 2004:
Mr Bean,


people calling david bean mr bean never fails to crack me up

[hr]
..Abstract concepts are notoriously difficult to bomb...

[novium]

What really annoys me is when people basically say, "we can bash you as much as we want because some ignorant bigots said X"

Because some ignorant bigot said something is NO excuse to bash everyone else.

[novium]

[s]LonelyPilgrim wrote on 09:22, 24th Dec 2004:
It simply annoys the living hell out of me when athiests come along and claim that they are somehow rationally superior when their own worldview and belief system is just as incapable of providing a comprehensive answer to the great mysteries of life when actually put to the test.



Well said.
Really, true-blue athiests are just as arrogant as any other group of True Believers.

I absolutely HATE it when people shove their beliefs in my face and tell me I am stupid/going to hell/all of the above for disagreeing.

i don't see a dime's worth of difference between religious fundie extremists and athiest fundie extremists.

I don't have any problem with people having their beliefs, or sharing their beliefs, or explaining their beliefs.

[novium]

[s]Greebo wrote on 12:09, 24th Dec 2004:
[s]LonelyPilgrim wrote on 09:22, 24th Dec 2004:[i]
You see, atheism is no less a 'religion' than religion is, in that it makes certain unprovable assumptions about reality. I'm not saying that religion is capable of answering questions about why the universe is the way it is or where it came from to any higher scientific or rational degree.

It simply annoys the living hell out of me when athiests come along and claim that they are somehow rationally superior when their own worldview and belief system is just as incapable of providing a comprehensive answer to the great mysteries of life when actually put to the test.


Surely it's more rational to say 'I don't know' when you don't know than to assume a form of creator that can't be proven or unproven?

And atheism, at a base level, ain't a religion, it means lacking in belief, nothing more. (Yes I know we've been over this a thousand times but it's always worth correcting people who mis-represent one's viewpoint, in my opinion)
[/i]

Surely a simple lack of belief is agnosticism, where as the firm belief that there is nothing else out there is atheism?

[novium]

[s]Prophet Tenebrae wrote on 23:43, 24th Dec 2004:
If one wants to be rational, then presumably one would sit on the fence - knowing that both the proving and disproving of the existence of God is of course unprovable. Hence, if one wants to argue with reason and not faith or rhetoric, it must surely be that we cannot know?

Although of course, that said it's not possible for lowly mortals like us to know much.



I think you are right, the *most* rational thing is sitting on the fence.

[exnihilo]

I do love the way so many people can manage to say "I respect your beliefs and your faith" and make it sound like "but you're still a credulous moron, and I know because I took Philosophy 1001".

Yes, there are fundamentalists out there, yes there are bloody idiots too who follow anything they are told slavishly. Equally well there are intelligent, educated, questioning people who hold one faith or another but whose brains still somehow function.

Can we, please, stop tarring everyone who believes with the same brush. Just for five minutes? Better yet, can we stop saying we're not and then going ahead and doing it anyway?