Christianity is barking mad!

[Angela]

If Satan wants you to sin so badly, why doesn't he REWARD you for bad behavior? If he wants to lure you over to the side of sin, why doesn't he set it up so that you get pudding and foot massages if you murder and pillage? Instead he tempts you and then burns you. If it were up to Satan, I'm pretty sure he'd offer the pudding.

No, Hell is God's realm.

[DiscoDan]

Originally Posted by Radical

I don't know. I’m not interested in ascertaining answers to hypothetical problems which have no relevance to the validity of Christianity.

To the contrary - it is situations like these which turn many to convert to Christianity to begin with.

Perhaps I should clarify why I put forth my question. You seem to attack the question of Christianity's validity from the scientific standpoint of "Can we definitively prove this to be true?" However, to me, this question is irrelevant to the discussion. From a strictly utilitarian point of view, regardless of whether or not the beliefs of Christianity can be proved, would it not be more beneficial to ask, "Are such beliefs useful?" If the answer to this question is yes in any situation, what is the purpose of trying to convert people to atheism? Are you trying decrease people's available utility?

[Radical]

Originally Posted by DiscoDan

To the contrary - it is situations like these which turn many to convert to Christianity to begin with.

Perhaps I should clarify why I put forth my question. You seem to attack the question of Christianity's validity from the scientific standpoint of "Can we definitively prove this to be true?" However, to me, this question is irrelevant to the discussion. From a strictly utilitarian point of view, regardless of whether or not the beliefs of Christianity can be proved, would it not be more beneficial to ask, "Are such beliefs useful?" If the answer to this question is yes in any situation, what is the purpose of trying to convert people to atheism? Are you trying decrease people's available utility?

I don't have a problem with people deluding themselves if they so desire. Yet when people begin wars in the name of religion, bomb my country, or propagate their falsehoods to innocent children, that's when I have a problem.

[DiscoDan]

Originally Posted by Radical

I don't have a problem with people deluding themselves if they so desire. Yet when people begin wars in the name of religion, bomb my country, or propagate their falsehoods to innocent children, that's when I have a problem.

So am I correct in assuming that you do not have a problem with people believing in God or gods, so long as they do not use said belief to act in violence?

How do you feel about Christian sects that relentlessly promote nonviolence (and metaphorical meaning of scripture), and yet still believe in a personal God? Would you consider it dangerous to raise children to believe in such sects?

[tropicality]

Originally Posted by DiscoDan

So am I correct in assuming that you do not have a problem with people believing in God or gods, so long as they do not use said belief to act in violence?

How do you feel about Christian sects that relentlessly promote nonviolence (and metaphorical meaning of scripture), and yet still believe in a personal God? Would you consider it dangerous to raise children to believe in such sects?

I know you are not directing this question directly at me but I cannot help but stick my fingers in this one. Even though there are sects as you speak of, they are turning a blind eye to what is really in the bible and what the mainstream of christianity exposes us to. Those that grow up in one of these sects you refer to will undoubtedly pass by the real christianity, creating confusion and madness and a feeling of being lost, like they have been lied to, I know because I have seen it happen and it nearly happened to me.

These sects are merely turning a 'blind eye' which in itself is a form of denial, which as you probably know, is not very healthy, both mentally and spiritually.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by DiscoDan

So am I correct in assuming that you do not have a problem with people believing in God or gods, so long as they do not use said belief to act in violence?

How do you feel about Christian sects that relentlessly promote nonviolence (and metaphorical meaning of scripture), and yet still believe in a personal God? Would you consider it dangerous to raise children to believe in such sects?

As long as the children are made aware of science and taught to think for themselves, and are not under the pretence that Christianity is anything more than fiction, then I see no harm. Perhaps we could erect churches espousing literature from The Lord of the Rings? But what a waste of time and money don't you think?

[DiscoDan]

Originally Posted by tropicality

I know you are not directing this question directly at me but I cannot help but stick my fingers in this one. Even though there are sects as you speak of, they are turning a blind eye to what is really in the bible and what the mainstream of christianity exposes us to. Those that grow up in one of these sects you refer to will undoubtedly pass by the real christianity, creating confusion and madness and a feeling of being lost, like they have been lied to, I know because I have seen it happen and it nearly happened to me.

These sects are merely turning a 'blind eye' which in itself is a form of denial, which as you probably know, is not very healthy, both mentally and spiritually.

Your statements confuse me. How are we to distinguish sects of "real" Christianity from sects that aren't "real"? Why are certain sects allowed to choose which scriptures to believe, whereas others are not? If you look into the history of the Bible as it exists today, you will find many books were rewritten or simply excluded in order to "unify" the belief early in the history of the religion. Despite the fact that "mainstream" Christianity today does not follow the beliefs that were excluded (eg. reincarnation), some smaller sects do. Are these sects not to be called "Christianity" simply because they aren't mainstream?

[DiscoDan]

Originally Posted by Radical

As long as the children are made aware of science and taught to think for themselves, and are not under the pretence that Christianity is anything more than fiction, then I see no harm. Perhaps we could erect churches espousing literature from The Lord of The Rings? But what a waste of time and money don't you think?

I understand that atheism is generally considered to be the "religion of the educated", so perhaps it is my low level of education that prevents me from understanding your statement. How exactly would a church espousing literature from the Lord of the Rings provide society with the same level of utility as a church believing in a personal god, but advocating relentless nonviolence?

[Radical]

Originally Posted by DiscoDan

I understand that atheism is generally considered to be the "religion of the educated", so perhaps it is my low level of education that prevents me from understanding your statement. How exactly would a church espousing literature from the Lord of the Rings provide society with the same level of utility as a church believing in a personal god, but advocating relentless nonviolence?

It is an error to associate the belief of non-violence (or in fact any modern moralistic value) with a particular religious sect. Unless these churches adamantly profess their institution to be a work of fiction, then I see no utility - only confusion.

[Adam]

This is a moderator reminder. Do not engage in personal attacks. While I recognize that many of these arguments are the same ones that I have made in the past when I was bitter towards a few different religions (not just Christianity), I also recognize that the same arguments are in bad taste.

My official stance is that people are free to believe however they choose to believe. This warning is directed at both sides of this debate. You can point out why you hold a certain opinion, but do not say that others must hold your opinion, or question people's intelligence or motives for deciding to hold the opinion that they do.

This is not directed at any one person, so if you have not made any personal attacks and do not plan to do so, you can safely ignore this.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by DiscoDan

I understand that atheism is generally considered to be the "religion of the educated", so perhaps it is my low level of education that prevents me from understanding your statement. How exactly would a church espousing literature from the Lord of the Rings provide society with the same level of utility as a church believing in a personal god, but advocating relentless nonviolence?

Pardon me for putting in my 2 cents, Radical, to this question addressed to you. "Lord of the Rings" and "The Holy Bible" are both works of fiction, made up by people. To base a discipline of worship on either is equivalent -- there are moral guidelines that could be discerned from LoR, just as there are in ThB. Therefore, you could say they would both be useful -- for social order, moral imperative, friendly gathering, comfort -- whatever. If a LoR follower came to you proselytizing about how you are required to recognize his mighty power or be doomed to burn in hell forever, you would rightly consider him to be delusional. Christian god -- same thing!

[DiscoDan]

Originally Posted by Radical

It is an error to associate the belief of non-violence (or in fact any modern moralistic value) with a particular religious sect. Unless these churches adamantly profess their institution to be a work of fiction, then I see no utility - only confusion.

I do not attempt to imply a cause-and-effect relationship between belief in a personal god and belief in non-violence. However, I fail to see why believing in a personal god (even to the point of declaring existence of said god to be absolutely true) detracts from any religion's value, so long as the god of this religion does not advocate killing in his name.

Let's go back to the case of the suicidal man. However, let's modify the situation so that, instead of god sentencing the man to eternity in hell if he commits suicide, the god in this religion is said to profess his absolute faith in this man's worth, no matter what the circumstance. Would it not be better for this man to be absolutely sure in the existence of this god, rather than take the sceptic approach and disbelieve?

[DiscoDan]

Originally Posted by Angela

Pardon me for putting in my 2 cents, Radical, to this question addressed to you. "Lord of the Rings" and "The Holy Bible" are both works of fiction, made up by people. To base a discipline of worship on either is equivalent -- there are moral guidelines that could be discerned from LoR, just as there are in ThB. Therefore, you could say they would both be useful -- for social order, moral imperative, friendly gathering, comfort -- whatever. If a LoR follower came to you proselytizing about how you are required to recognize his mighty power or be doomed to burn in hell forever, you would rightly consider him to be delusional. Christian god -- same thing!

I never questioned the validity of a religion devoted to the study and practice of ideas in the Lord of the Rings, so long as belief in it provides positive utility for society.

Let me turn this question around on you. Let's say you are a believer in this Lord of the Rings church, and your belief in it brings you happiness, which, in turn, inspires happiness in those around you. You do not attempt to convert others to this church, as you understand your faith in it has no underlying scientific basis other than the fact that it brings you happiness, and that others' belief in it would not necessarily bring them the same happiness. Now say a sceptic enters the picture, and begins to question your worth based on one belief that you understand is quite silly, and yet still brings you happiness. He starts proselytizing about how your beliefs are a detriment to society, and that you are only hurting society by believing what you do. What purpose does this serve, other than to appease the ego of said sceptic? How is he adding anything of value to this person's life?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by DiscoDan

Let's go back to the case of the suicidal man. However, let's modify the situation so that, instead of god sentencing the man to eternity in hell if he commits suicide, the god in this religion is said to profess his absolute faith in this man's worth, no matter what the circumstance. Would it not be better for this man to be absolutely sure in the existence of this god, rather than take the sceptic approach and disbelieve?

What religion do you know of that is ruled over by a personal or interventionist god who professes his absolute faith in a man's worth, no matter the circumstance? I'm afraid that is the antithesis of (personal or interventionist-style) religion, which works to control by inspiring fear of punishment by the god. It's a moot point.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by DiscoDan

I do not attempt to imply a cause-and-effect relationship between belief in a personal god and belief in non-violence. However, I fail to see why believing in a personal god (even to the point of declaring existence of said god to be absolutely true) detracts from any religion's value, so long as the god of this religion does not advocate killing in his name.

It doesn't detract from any religion's value, in the same way that believing in Hobbits doesn't detract from The Lord of the Rings value.

Originally Posted by DiscoDan

Let's go back to the case of the suicidal man. However, let's modify the situation so that, instead of god sentencing the man to eternity in hell if he commits suicide, the god in this religion is said to profess his absolute faith in this man's worth, no matter what the circumstance. Would it not be better for this man to be absolutely sure in the existence of this god, rather than take the sceptic approach and disbelieve?

I'm really not interested in theorizing about the psychological benefits of a certain belief.

[DiscoDan]

Originally Posted by Radical

I'm really not interested in theorizing about the psychological benefits of a certain belief.

Then we have nothing to debate about: I cannot scientifically prove to you the existence of any gods; I can only show that there exist cases in which belief in said gods provides positive benefit to society.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Radical

I'm really not interested in theorizing about the psychological benefits of a certain belief.

You clearly are interested, otherwise you would not have have been theorizing about the psychological effects of certain incongruencies in Christian doctrine.

I think you owe the guy an answer, Radical. You started this debate, now you have to live with the consequences.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by DiscoDan

Then we have nothing to debate about: I cannot scientifically prove to you the existence of any gods; I can only show that there exist cases in which belief in said gods provides positive benefit to society.

My experience is that false beliefs create confusion, your experience may be different? I am interested in ascertaining the truth, not harbouring beliefs to rectify my mental problems. And when people declare war or bomb my country in the name of religion, it doesn't really matter whether some sects are espousing distortions, that doesn't stop the fundamentalists!

[DiscoDan]

Originally Posted by Radical

And when people declare war or bomb my country in the name of religion, it doesn't really matter whether some sects are espousing distortions, that doesn't stop the fundamentalists!

This was not quite what we were discussing, but I'll bite. How would go about stopping religious fundamentalists from using violence to promote their ideas? Have you had any success so far using your current methods in preventing violence?

[Radical]

Originally Posted by DiscoDan

This was not quite what we were discussing, but I'll bite. How would go about stopping religious fundamentalists from using violence to promote their ideas? Have you had any success so far using your current methods in preventing violence?

I would go about stopping fundamentalism by educating children properly instead of immersing them in religious doctrines from an early age. I believe religion should not be associated with schools, e.g. no Catholic schools etc. I also believe religion has no place in politics. I envisage a future society without religon, where humanity is united by scientific progression, instead of quarrelling over archaic doctrines and invading countries on the basis that "God told me to."

[Radical]

Here are some quotes by Richard Dawkins:

This explains the general logic of a religious fundamentalist.

Fundamentalists know they are right because they have read the truth in a holy book and they know, in advance, that nothing will budge them from their belief. The truth of the holy book is an axiom, not the end product of a process of reasoning. The book is true, and if the evidence seems to contradict it, it is the evidence that must be thrown out, not the book.

This explains the difference in logic between a scientist and a religious fundamentalist.

Books about evolution are believed not because they are holy. They are believed because they present overwhelming quantities of mutually buttressed evidence. When a science book is wrong, somebody eventually discovers the mistake and it is corrected in subsequent books. That conspicuously doesn't happen with holy books.

This explains why a belief in science is not fundamentalist.

Philosophers, especially amateurs with a little philosophical learning, and even more especially those infected with 'cultural relativism', may raise a tiresome red herring at this point: a scientist's belief in evidence is itself a matter of fundamentalist faith. I have dealt with this elsewhere and will only briefly repeat myself here. All of us believe in evidence in our own lives, whatever we may profess with our amateur philosophical hats on. If I am accused of murder, and prosecuting counsel sternly asks me whether it is true that I was in Chicago on the night of the crime, I cannot get away with a philosophical evasion: 'It depends what you mean by "true".' Maybe scientists are fundamentalists when it comes to defining in some abstract way what is meant by 'truth'. But so is everybody else. I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere. We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it. No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that.

This explains why non-fundamentalist religion is bad.

Fundamentalist religion is hell-bent on ruining the scientific education of countless thousands of innocent, well-meaning, eager young minds. Non-fundamentalist, 'sensible' religion may not be doing that. But it is making the world safe for fundamentalism by teaching children, from their earliest years, that unquestioning faith is a virtue.

[maverickstruth]

Originally Posted by Radical

I would go about stopping fundamentalism by educating children properly instead of immersing them in religious doctrines from an early age. I believe religion should not be associated with schools, e.g. no Catholic schools etc. I also believe religion has no place in politics. I envisage a future society without religon, where humanity is united by scientific progression, instead of quarrelling over archaic doctrines and invading countries on the basis that "God told me to."

What about taking the opposite approach... teach children about world religions, not from a position of advocating any religion, but simply from the point of view of "trying to foster understanding." It's all well and good to envision a world without religion, but at this point, and for the foreseeable future, religion will still be playing a part in our world, and in our society. Even if one thinks that religion is outdated and ought to be gotten rid of, there are those who disagree. And every day, we come into contact with people for whom religion is a vital and important part of their world.

How better to know how to deal with those people for whom religion is very important than to try to understand where they're coming from... If we don't teach children anything about religion (or worse, tell them that it is inherently evil -- come on, that can breed as much hatred as religious fundamentalism), then we're kind of just creating a vacuum of ignorance, aren't we? And as we've seen time and time again, ignorance leads to all kinds of problems.

Personally, I'd rather foster and promote understanding others' worldviews by teaching students about where other people are coming from than just leave them to watch the news and hear that "Muslims are evil terrorists" (just an example, and an extreme one, but I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from).

[Adam]

So, Radical... What I got from that is that you think that your way of thinking is the only good way to think, because all other ways of thinking help out terrorists. Am I right?

In case you forgot, here is your train of logic:

Fundamentalist = Terrorist.

And when people declare war or bomb my country in the name of religion, it doesn't really matter whether some sects are espousing distortions, that doesn't stop the fundamentalists!

Any religion = Supports Fundamentalists.

This explains why non-fundamentalist religion is bad.

So, science is our best, last hope for peace? Is that why you hate all religion so much, because a small minority of people might use it to justify an act of hatred?

Wouldn't the same group of people also use science to justify their atrocious acts? I can think of a time period where researchers where doing amazingly vile experiments in the name of science... the Holocaust.

Limiting people's possible choices for beliefs will do nothing to bring peace; it can only increase their sense of captivity.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by Adam

Wouldn't the same group of people also use science to justify their atrocious acts? I can think of a time period where researchers where doing amazingly vile experiments in the name of science... the Holocaust.

Limiting people's possible choices for beliefs will do nothing to bring peace; it can only increase their sense of captivity.

You are distressingly mistaken. First of all the Holocaust was the result of Hitler's Nazi regime, and was certainly not undertaken in the name of rational - logical science. He may have used scientists to conduct vile experiments, but I'm not saying there are no immoral scientists. It was perhaps their personal choice to conduct those experiments (although I doubt they had much choice in the matter), although critically, they cannot claim guidance from a divine 'god of science' who told them to conduct vile experiments - unless they're delusional.

However, there are literally millions of anecdotes detailing the horrifying acts of extreme violence committed in the name of religion. I need not go in to them here.

Finally, science far from limits people's choices, it instead opens them up to a fascinating world of discovery and truth. Whereas religious absolutism limits people's choices to the dogmatic words of scripture. For example, some religions regard homosexuality as unholy and punishable by death. And Catholics regard contraception as sinful, and instead preach some unreliable rhythm method. How is that not limiting?

[Adam]

I didn't say that the researchers were responsible for the holocaust, just that there were plenty of atheistic scientists in the Nazi party who used the concentration camps as a laboratory.

Religion at least attempts to address moral bounds directly, rather than classify them and leave them in a jar. I am not saying that every religion teaches good morals, but the vast majority of them do a very good job of teaching people how to be tolerant and respectful, despite media attention to the contrary. In fact, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made great strides in teaching tolerance and peaceful resolution for conflicts, more so than any other person with a doctorate.

A very devout Christian made some of the greatest and most profound advances in physics... Perhaps you've heard of this patent clerk who wrote down the basic rules of time and space. The reason why he could not accept quantum theory is summed up in one of his more famous quotes, "God does not play dice." Albert Einstein truly believed that the universe was created by laws set in motion by a divine intelligence, and also proved that science and religion where not mutually exclusive.

I'll concede that some forms of religion are limiting, even evil. That does not mean that all religions should be removed. Would you cut off your entire leg to remove an infected toe?

None of the major world religions, including Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, Taoism, etc., are evil. Every one of these religions have individuals who serve themselves and cause others to suffer because of it. Perhaps you are familiar with the Crown of Thorns starfish, which due to changing environmental factors, is destroying the natural reefs. What you are proposing sounds like draining the world's oceans in order to control their population. Not only would it be impossible, but if you succeeded, you would destroy much of the beauty of the world.

I agree that education is the key... but not education of exclusion. Educate people to be tolerant. It is a lot easier, and much more effective.

[Megan]

By Radical, Today, 04:37 PM

I don't have a problem with people deluding themselves if they so desire. Yet when people begin wars in the name of religion, bomb my country, or propagate their falsehoods to innocent children, that's when I have a problem.

The Evangelicals and peaceful Muslims seem sort of conflated with the terrorists there. Would you care to look at that again?

I presume England, like the US, allows people their choice of faith, and parents to educate their children according to their faith or lack thereof.

Freedom of religion: bane or blessing? Should science forcefully suppress religion? No, wait, you said below that "science doesn't limit people's choices."

By Radical, Today 09:21 PM

Finally, science far from limits people's choices, it instead opens them up to a fascinating world of discovery and truth. Whereas religious absolutism limits people's choices to the dogmatic words of scripture.

If science doesn't limit people's choices, may we assume that you indeed believe in freedom of religion and parent-reared, rather than elitist scientist state-reared children?

If you just need to get some strong feelings out, no judgment here.

But apart from taking freedom away from people, there is no other recourse, that I can see, but working this out as best we can through dialogue. Rome wasn't built in a day.

I thought Richard Dawkins and Ted Haggard got some strong feelings out to each other, and that was probably cathartic. Would, or should, either of them interfere with the rearing of the other's children?

YouTube - Ted Haggard in "Root of All Evil?"

We can either remove freedom of religion, or dialogue as respectfully as possible.

If anyone saw Wife Swap tonight, there was a rather amazing and heart-warming resolution between an atheist family and an evangelical family.

It can be done, but we have to respect each other's boundaries, I believe.


BTW, SuperNanny is one of your finest exports! Send boatloads of SuperNannys over--we need 'em!

[Megan]

Adam, I think Einstein was more of a Deist, don't you think?

Do you really think Radical wants to take people's freedom away? That would indeed be radical!

I'm betting that he just needs to vent.

What do you say, Radical?

[Radical]

Originally Posted by Adam

None of the major world religions, including Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, Taoism, etc., are evil.

I'm sorry, but you have clearly not read the Bible or the Qu'ran. Taken literally the teachings are obnoxious to say the least, and would certainly be considered evil by modern day moralists. I don't know about Buddhism and Taoism, this thread is about Christianity. And for the purpose of this discussion I am only concerned with religions expressing belief in a supernatural deity/personal God.

[Adam]

Um, actually, it was WifeSwap that had the evangelical and atheistic families working together... Unfortunately, that isn't a British export, although Monty Python more than makes up for anything we could have traded in return.

[Adam]

A religion is not a book, no matter what your pastor may have tried to tell you before you left them.

A religion is the people. Christians are not evil, ergo, Christianity is not evil.

Certain sects of religions can take certain passages out of context as you have, but that does not make the entire religion evil.