Religion-Bashing

[karlhenning]

So then — what? One can have no moral or ethical standards without recourse to some kind of cosmic enforcer? Come on, Karl. You know better than that.

Does your silence on the question mean that you agree that a critic of the Pope is not morally obliged to be fair in his criticism? ; )

[Joe Barron]

Well, Karl, you open up many interesting and important points, but I would only say that I don't find Jesus' commandments all that "terrible." I find most of the ethical issues he dealt with were pretty low-grade (he just gave up on political oppression), and some of the commands, like making no distinction between, say, wanting to commit adultery and actually doing it, somewhat questionable. Every religion subscribes to some variant of the golden rule. There's no real innovation here.  In short, for the son of God, he's a bit of a disappointment.

And we don't simply judge Christians for failing to live up to an ideal: we judge Christians for failing to live up to the ideal while they're busy judging the rest of us  for failing to live up to the ideal. The Inquisitors in the Age of Faith cast more doubt on the ideal than nonbelievers, because they believe in the ideal more firmly than we do. The torturers of the past can't be forgiven for lacking the modern, "humane" sensibility, because in the Christian version of things, the ideal was there from the beginning. There is no room for improvement, because, if God's word is eternal, the standard doesn't change We've had nothing to learn in the past 500 years. But, of course, the standard does change. Modern, liberal Christians don't want to believe that God is as awful as he was portrayed  in the Age of Faith, and as some modern fundamentalists still think he is. The question is, why not? What is it about the modern world that makes us want to believe in a kinder, gentler deity? I would lay the credit in large measure to the atheist critique, which has said all along that God isn't everything he's cracked up to be. You need us, Karl. Without us, your increasingly humane ideal would have been a lot harder to develop. 

[drogulus]

In this spirit, it is worth remembering that for every O'Hair there is an Asimov, for every Dawkins an Ingmar Bergman, for every Hitchens a Bill Gates, for every Bill Maher an Arundhati Roy.

Although I suppose atheist Pierre Boulez is known for his "cold" interpretations...

    Is it "permitted" to point out that Dawkins has always maintained his great respect and admiration for religious people of his acquaintance? Atheist hardasses like Dawkins and Hitchens are admired greatly and have considerable influence among thoughtful believers (of which there are many). I'm impressed by the degree that the "New Atheists" have found their mark. The submissive "atheist but..." position is defeatist. We will not be liked any better if we don't stand up for ourselves.

[karlhenning]

Well, Karl, you open up many interesting and important points, but I would only say that I don't find Jesus' commandments all that "terrible."

So, no personal difficulty loving your neighbors and your enemies? I admre you, Joe, unreservedly.  Those were the commands we were talking about, and in terms of striving to apply them in all things, most Christians find them tough going.  That is the terror of which I spoke;  the ease of failing to live up to those.

I know, you changed the subject in order to push along to the scornful "for a son of God he's a disappointment."  Thank you for justifying the thread's title.

Again, how shall I chide you for failing to love your enemy, for the ease with which you pour derision on those who think differently, but especially Christians in general and Catholics in particular?  The command needn't mean anything to you. Your quip about the Divine Enforcer notwithstanding, you are illustating my point with alacrity.

[karlhenning]

I note continued non-answer to this. But of course, you are not obliged to answer.

[karlhenning]

Of course the larger point is this very matter of kindness, of how one behaves to one's neighbor, particularly if one's neighbor thinks rather differently.

So let's consider that survey, which shows that atheists know more about religion than Christians.  Most people of faith don't consider the knowledge the important thing. Does the atheist's knowledge make him a kind, charitable person?  Some atheists I know are very kind people indeed, but that is not a function of their knowledge.  And I trust that many of us have known very kind people, whose knowledge perhaps was not all that extensive.

Please observe that I say nothing against knowledge; heck, even I have been known to use some, in unguarded moments. But as a rule, the point of religion is how one behaves, which obviously is not any specific function of the knowledge whereof one stands possessed.

[Joe Barron]

So, no personal difficulty loving your neighbors and your enemies? I admre you, Joe, unreservedly.  Those were the commands we were talking about, and in terms of striving to apply them in all things, most Christians find them tough going.  That is the terror of which I spoke;  the ease of failing to live up to those.

But come on, Karl: This is all petty interpersonal stuff. We all know we should try to get along, because it makes our lives more comfortable  and less violent. Problem is, you won't find any advice in the New Testament  on exactly how to go about it, except for a few obvious parables. You give yourself much too much credit for struggling with issues that everyone, believer or not, has to deal with every day. Do you really need Jesus to tell you shouldn't rob someone at gunpoint or beat up your wife? Did the Hebrews think adultery and killing were all right before Moses came down from Sinai with the commandments under his arm? Most people want to be good. The only difference between Christians and the rest of us is that Christians expect to be rewarded for it.

[drogulus]

     Joe, puhleeze don't blame liberal Christianity on us.

     My problem with a kinder, gently deity is that making it even more like what you want (or what you want) is not the needed improvement from a philosophical standpoint. A nasty god may be unappetizing but a nicer version isn't more true. My quarrel is with a certain strand of atheism that thinks good falsehoods are preferable to bad ones. I disagree, even though I think Christians that don't burn me at the stake are better than those who do, I don't see how that would make their ideas any truer. I do value good treatment over bad, but separately from the issue of what nonsensical beliefs are held, even though the nature of these nonsensical beliefs is implicated as the reason for the bad treatment. Politically we require that people behave with minimal decency without regard to their horrible beliefs. That's the correct way to go, I think. If we wait for people to become cognitively excellent to behave well we might have to wait a long time.

[Joe Barron]

  Most people of faith don't consider the knowledge the important thing. Does the atheist's knowledge make him a kind, charitable person?

I disagree. Christianity is not just a system of ethics. It is primarily a system of belief, which has specific things to say about the nature of Christ, God, creation and the afterlife. Take all that away, and you're left with a kind of reform Judaism or Unitarianism, both of which have their shares of kind, charitable people. And if you're going to subscribe to a dogma, it would help to  know what the dogmas are.

[karlhenning]

But come on, Karl: This is all petty interpersonal stuff. We all know we should try to get along, because it makes our lives more comfortable  and less violent. Problem is, you won't find any advice in the New Testament  on exactly how to go about it, except for a few obvious parables. You give yourself much too much credit for struggling with issues  . . . .

I'm sorry, Joe, we were talking generally, I believed. Why this ad hominem? To deflect the discussion, right?

Thank you for conceding that you wish to derail the discussion with personal remark.  I can see where it is more convenient.

It is the small acts between people which are the atoms of which the world is formed, Joe. It is not petty.

The only difference between Christians and the rest of us is that Christians expect to be rewarded for it.

Thanks for another simplistic, scornful caricature, Joe. Such a pleasure to discuss these things with you. Thank you for illustrating my point.

[Joe Barron]

     Joe, puhleeze don't blame liberal Christianity on us.

Yeah, but you know what I mean. Theology is, primarily a defensive maneuver, a response to criticism.

[karlhenning]

Treating the other fellow with respect: it's all so . . . unimportant, isn't it?

[Joe Barron]

Treating the other fellow with respect: it's all so . . . unimportant, isn't it?

Come on. You know I  love you, guy.

[drogulus]

Yeah, but you know what I mean. Theology is, primarily a defensive maneuver, a response to criticism.

      You don't know how happy it makes me to be understood!

      Of course you're right. It's not to convince believers, it's to convince believers that unbelievers can be answered. When believers do get a whiff of what these guys say they recognize it for the crypto-atheism it is. Who was it that said that god was so supercalifrabjous that he didn't need to exist? Yeah, Baby! And Karen Armstrong actually said that god didn't exist 'cause it was "existence itself"! I'm in awe!

[DavidRoss]

War
disease
death
destruction
hunger
filth
poverty
torture
crime
corruption
and the Ice Capades
... results like these do not belong on the resume of a Supreme Being.

This looks like the resume of human beings acting according to the dictates of short-sighted selfishness.  You're right: it has nothing whatsoever to do with God.

[snyprrr]

I'm wondering if you're all talking about the new survey (...survey says!) that says that (American) atheists and so forth know more Bible than Christians?

There's a "rock n roll" church around here (there's a few, as a matter of fact,... not like Pensacola, but,...) where a lot of 12 steppers go for religion,... because,... well, gosh, they're just not judgmental there.

I've had a second career getting kicked out of churches (by the collar) when I'd go up top the pastor afterwards and, "Well, gosh pastor, you know, you said A, B, and C, and gosh, well, look right here in the book it says the opposite of what you just said,..."

and then comes the "I have a Degree in Divinity, and,..." and, they just lost me at this degree in divinity (from some cemetar,...I mean, semen-ary). For the most part, it seems these guys have just had their testicles chopped off, but, in America these days, that's not uncommon (have you noticed the younger generation of men speaking in teste-less tones?).

I went to another run of the mill Methodist church for over a year and didn't hear the word sin once. Once again, it sounded like a lot of 12 step feel good blah.



...and,...and,...what's up with all the lesbian "pastors"? Every church has a woman at the head now,...more often than not solid like a linebacker and with the typical over 50 dyke cut.

oh, and don't worry about churches believing that Authority comes from,... well, gosh, where does Authority in Churchianity, oops, I'm mean Christianity, come from???

It certainly can't come from the Book.

You know who it comes from? It comes from the endless Bible Committees that have been set up by the unbelieving world (The Jesus Seminar) to tell us silly, stupid, know nothings what to believe.

My mom goes to church because it makes her feel good. She by no means can declare that Jesus literally, physically ROSE FROM THE DEAD (what else are you supposed to believe?). She really can't seem to be bothered with Doctrine, as long as she can drive, and help, the little old ladies of the congregation and community.

"I"m a good person," always seems to win out in any one individual's assessment of themselves. Yup, that's what everyone thinks of themselves, pretty much,...no?



What's really sad is that the Frozen Chosen (Churchianity in America Today) has been so totally co-oped by Mossad that it's getting about time to do something about this total twisting of Scripture by the likes of John Hagee (I thought gluttony was a sin??). That so called Christians believe in anyone who has a congregation  of over 40 souls is beyond me.

Let's not confuse First Century Belief in a Risen Saviour  with what passes for faith here in Babylon Amerikkka.

Perhaps America IS in the Scripture, in Jeremiah, where it is said that "the hindermost of nations shall be a desolation."



When I stand in line at the stores, and see the human wreckage that passes itself for civilization, it truly makes me have to check myself.  brrrrrr

I am by no means related to Bonzo!

[Bulldog]

I am making an observation of the people I have had experience with, not a blanket statement.

Is that permitted?

I trust it does not personally insult you, Scarps, if I point out that I have known a great many atheists of unpardonably nasty character.

Karl:

Give a little thought to how many atheists you might have met in your life who said nothing about religion.  I'm confident that most atheists not only don't talk about religion; they don't think about it at all.

[Brian]

Chances are that many of the Catholics cared; though of course they are a minority in England, so perhaps we should not consider their opinion.

And now, you see, "This guy thinks he's important." There's some uncharitable transference going on there, would you not agree?  The man is the spiritual representative of a great many people.  My impression is that, actually, he is possessed of a humility unusual for that small class of human beings who represent such large groups of people (heads of state, CEOs of Fortune 500 companies).

And I have spared this thread the specific nasty remarks he made, or, friend Brian, you would not so blithely speculate that pretty much all of the UK thought the same.

It's quite true that as I have no idea what the fellow said, I have no idea if the UK agreed. The general reaction was not positive, however, except for a spread in Guardian interviewing various Catholics who were blessed by him at his stops. That did make for an engaging read.

I'm afraid most Britons did not infer "humility" from the sum of money paid to sponsor his visit, or the failure to revise Canon Law to require bishops to report rapist-priests to the police.

Actually my point is much more practical, Joe.  So many atheists whom I have seen in action, are fair.

When it suits them.

Where many Christians I have known embrace the strength of a moral stand, even when quite inconvenient to them personally.

As with the argument that atheists aren't kind, this is so wrong but so unprovable that all I can say which will register clearly is, that it makes me very sad to read.

    Is it "permitted" to point out that Dawkins has always maintained his great respect and admiration for religious people of his acquaintance?

Certainly; he is after all the spiritual leader of "Atheists for Jesus"!

Again, how shall I chide you for failing to love your enemy, for the ease with which you pour derision on those who think differently, but especially Christians in general and Catholics in particular?  The command needn't mean anything to you. Your quip about the Divine Enforcer notwithstanding, you are illustating my point with alacrity.[/font]

To one who does not believe Jesus is the son of God, it is certainly true that "love your enemy" is not a command. However, it is an idea, or you could call it a suggestion, or a moral to the story, or any manner of other things. And for the most part, we unbelievers really like the idea, and many of us do try to live with it in mind. We are probably no more or less successful than anyone else at attaining the goal, but it is worth pointing out that the most successful lovers of their enemies have been of diverse faiths: the Christian Martin Luther King, the Christian Nelson Mandela, the Christian and Muslim women who banded together to end Liberia's Civil War, the Hindu Mohandas Gandhi.

Karl:

Give a little thought to how many atheists you might have met in your life who said nothing about religion.  I'm confident that most atheists not only don't talk about religion; they don't think about it at all.

This. If you had known me from real life rather than the Internet, Karl, you would never have known I was an atheist. I attended Rice University for three years, and, discounting the "secular students" organization, only five of my fellow students ever found out, two because they asked directly, one because I was encouraging her doubts (sorry!), one who simply guessed, and one because he had invited me to youth-group-sponsored Wednesday night dinners at his Episcopal Church and I was offering to pay for my meal as compensation for my not really belonging (he insisted I not pay, and I ended up going for the company of friends for most of my time as a student).

[Florestan]

Athiests rule, Catholics drool
Who would suspect, for example, that Cosmas and Damian are the patron saints of doctors, pharmacists and hairdressers? Transubstantiation, anyone? Pop quiz: Explain the distinction between the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth.

I am Christian yet I can answer the first question with yes and the other two with the correct answer.

But this is completely immaterial. Christians are not required to have knowledge about their faith, but simply faith. Christianity is not an intellectualist gnosis.

[Guido]

I'm sorry, Joe, we were talking generally, I believed. Why this ad hominem? To deflect the discussion, right?

Thank you for conceding that you wish to derail the discussion with personal remark.  I can see where it is more convenient.

It is the small acts between people which are the atoms of which the world is formed, Joe. It is not petty.



Thanks for another simplistic, scornful caricature, Joe. Such a pleasure to discuss these things with you. Thank you for illustrating my point.

Karl I think you're doing exactly what you accuse Joe of doing - you're focusing on other things to deflect the good points he is making, so that you don't need to address them. I don't think he was being insulting, and the passive aggressive sarcasm is actually quite rude. Why dismiss someone who is actually trying to engage with what you're saying?