| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/08/2012 10:14:14 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
a reasonable man can conclude that the New Atheist is a different creature. Even DPC Rant reveals evidence to support this assertion. The atheist of your generation was disappointed there was no God (but felt rationally compelled to disbelieve in him), the atheist of my generation revels in his death and actively seeks to stamp out the burning coals of adherence. I've never included you in this group, but I hope you understand that I feel justified in my responses. |
Reasonable according to whom?????
Where do you get this idea that atheists are just standing around cheering that there is no God? You seem, again, to forget that unlike you, they spend little, or absolutely zero time thinking about it.
And why you think, that like religious zealots, they are trying to impose their beliefs on you.
THEY JUST DON'T CARE!!!
|
|
|
|
04/08/2012 10:51:56 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
a reasonable man can conclude that the New Atheist is a different creature. Even DPC Rant reveals evidence to support this assertion. The atheist of your generation was disappointed there was no God (but felt rationally compelled to disbelieve in him), the atheist of my generation revels in his death and actively seeks to stamp out the burning coals of adherence. I've never included you in this group, but I hope you understand that I feel justified in my responses. |
Reasonable according to whom?????
Where do you get this idea that atheists are just standing around cheering that there is no God? You seem, again, to forget that unlike you, they spend little, or absolutely zero time thinking about it.
And why you think, that like religious zealots, they are trying to impose their beliefs on you.
THEY JUST DON'T CARE!!! |
Tell that to Shannon, who's demonstrating new lows of mockery of Christian beliefs in the last few posts, as Christians prepare to celebrate their most holy day. It's people like Shannon Doc's talking about, the vocal atheists.
And, Ray? Doc's correct that not all that long ago it was characteristic of atheist writings to at least profess a modicum of regret that the longed-for God didn't exist. It's not so much that the atheists themselves "sincerely" regretted His absence; it's more like being polite while you refuted someone else's beliefs. The strident mockery of people like Dawkins (at the high end) and Shannon (at the low end) is a relatively new phenomenon.
Finally, Doc's referring SPECIFICALLY to Western thought and Civilization (as, indeed, was the referenced article) when he says it's hard to imagine what things would be like without the Christian influence, and he's quite correct in that. Heck, you might as well try to imagine where the middle East would be at without the influence of the Prophet. When some of you get to talking as if there's something WRONG with acknowledging the profound effects Christianity has had on Western thought and morals, I just have to shake my head in amazement. You can't just rewrite history to bring into alignment with modern thought.
As it happens, I've been re-reading Orwell and Huxley for some teaching I'm doing, and the parallels here are really getting to me.
Meanwhile, to those who care, Happy Easter!
R.
Message edited by author 2012-04-08 10:53:11.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2012 12:12:55 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Tell that to Shannon, who's demonstrating new lows of mockery of Christian beliefs in the last few posts, as Christians prepare to celebrate their most holy day. It's people like Shannon Doc's talking about, the vocal atheists. |
Et tu Bear? As Jeb hinted, I actually wasn't thinking about Christian beliefs at all, but making light of the Easter Bunny, chocolate and other non-religious trappings of the day that long pre-date Christianity. If you talked about Jack-o-lanterns and luminaries being fire hazards, should we automatically assume you're slamming a belief that spirits rise from the grave on Halloween, or would you really even be considering that? I thought I was keeping it totally clean thereΓΆ€“ I even wished Jason a Happy Easter for crying out loud! Whether Christian, Pagan or whatever, we're celebrating life in some form by promoting tooth decay. Am I the only one who thinks that's funny? I wasn't even being sarcastic and now the freakin' EASTER BUNNY is too sacred for humor?!? Holeee cowww... gays are beaten to death and women are supposed to carry a rapist's child, but mentioning candy is persecution. This is an utter disgrace. |
|
|
|
04/08/2012 12:22:57 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Doc's referring SPECIFICALLY to Western thought and Civilization (as, indeed, was the referenced article) when he says it's hard to imagine what things would be like without the Christian influence, and he's quite correct in that. |
Probably similar to the difference between the Anglicans and the Cherokee, or if you're referring to the exclusion of Christian doctrines once introduced, it would be like going from Puritan life to Constitutional liberty (it's really not hard to imagine what has already occurred). |
|
|
|
04/08/2012 01:07:21 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Tell that to Shannon, who's demonstrating new lows of mockery of Christian beliefs in the last few posts, as Christians prepare to celebrate their most holy day. It's people like Shannon Doc's talking about, the vocal atheists. |
Et tu Bear? As Jeb hinted, I actually wasn't thinking about Christian beliefs at all, but making light of the Easter Bunny, chocolate and other non-religious trappings of the day that long pre-date Christianity. |
Et tu, Shannon? I wasn't referring to the Easter Bunny at all. You can make fun of him all you want's far as I'm concerned, it doesn't bother me.
No, I was referring to this, and similar statements:
Originally posted by scalvert:
DrAchoo... Champion of the Bad Bits. Defender of Inequality, Injustice and Moral Absurdity. I'm picturing Darth Vader in a burkha. |
That's below the belt and you danged well know it.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2012 01:31:39 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And, Ray? Doc's correct that not all that long ago it was characteristic of atheist writings to at least profess a modicum of regret that the longed-for God didn't exist. It's not so much that the atheists themselves "sincerely" regretted His absence; it's more like being polite while you refuted someone else's beliefs. |
... and pray tell what is wrong with being polite, particularly when engaging in a discourse such as this. I find this approach much better to that which certain Christian's took when dealing with peoples such as the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
... When some of you get to talking as if there's something WRONG with acknowledging the profound effects Christianity has had on Western thought and morals, I just have to shake my head in amazement. You can't just rewrite history to bring into alignment with modern thought. |
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging the effects of Christianity on western thoughts and morals, but we must as a society acknowledge that that the impact on societal behaviour is not the exclusive domain of any one specific group.
A quick review of the original article referenced here should provide a very clear indication that the author was suggesting when he stated: "They could not have been conceived without Christian thought about the intrinsic dignity of each human person."... Surely that is something that all should be able to disagree with, without being accused of being anti-Christian. Christianity most certainly has beneficial aspects to it, but it cannot lay claim to all that is morally decent.
A very Happy Easter to you my friend.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/08/2012 01:48:05 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging the effects of Christianity on western thoughts and morals, but we must as a society acknowledge that that the impact on societal behaviour is not the exclusive domain of any one specific group.
A quick review of the original article referenced here should provide a very clear indication that the author was suggesting when he stated: "They could not have been conceived without Christian thought about the intrinsic dignity of each human person."... Surely that is something that all should be able to disagree with, without being accused of being anti-Christian. Christianity most certainly has beneficial aspects to it, but it cannot lay claim to all that is morally decent.
A very Happy Easter to you my friend.
Ray |
You're taking the quote out of context a little bit, Ray:
Originally posted by Telegraph Article:
It is believed that universal doctrines of human rights, enforced by the United Nations and by international courts, can settle all the moral stuff necessary to the running of society. All the rest is seen as superstition and bigotry. Despite a bit of bleating from Catholics, God was left out of the Constitution of the European Union. He had a lucky escape, one might think, but nevertheless it is significant that those planning Utopia for our continent felt they could dispense with Him.
At least two things are missed in this God-is-dead political order. One is that it ignores the basis of so many of the ideas it advocates. These ideas are not the result of intellectual virgin births in modern times. They have parentage. They could not have been conceived without Christian thought about the intrinsic dignity of each human person. |
His point, however awkwardly it may have been stated, is that the Christian faith DID provide the moral underpinning that informs these human-rights declarations. Without SOME sort of developing moral fabric we couldn't have gotten there. In Western Europe, that's Christianity. COULD it have been something else. Certainly! WAS it? Assuredly not. There are codes, developed by humans, that underlie human-rights issues. IN our particular segment of society, these codes developed out of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
I'm working hard to state this as neutrally as possible. These are just historical facts.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2012 02:05:20 PM · #58 |
...and I am off to see if I can get all of my summer gas powered equipment to start.
Have a wonderful day,
Ray |
|
|
|
04/08/2012 02:18:36 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No, I was referring to this, and similar statements:
Originally posted by scalvert:
DrAchoo... Champion of the Bad Bits. Defender of Inequality, Injustice and Moral Absurdity. I'm picturing Darth Vader in a burkha. |
That's below the belt and you danged well know it. |
I quite disagree. I wouldn't have bothered with a post if he claimed the "bad bits" were somehow misinterpreted or not really bad (per usual), but to actually stand up for bad things is supervillain material. If I claimed to defend all of science, even the "bad bits" of Tuskegee, Nazi genetics or human radiation tests, I would fully expect a full orchestral Imperial March to accompany my post as I twist my handlebar mustache and practice an evil laugh. I HIGHLY doubt that Jason would seriously defend things like priest abuse, indulgences or calls to slaughter babies, and I wasn't being serious either. It's silly all around. |
|
|
|
04/08/2012 02:22:24 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
His point, however awkwardly it may have been stated, is that the Christian faith DID provide the moral underpinning that informs these human-rights declarations. Without SOME sort of developing moral fabric we couldn't have gotten there. In Western Europe, that's Christianity. COULD it have been something else. Certainly! WAS it? Assuredly not. There are codes, developed by humans, that underlie human-rights issues. IN our particular segment of society, these codes developed out of the Judeo-Christian tradition. |
You could make the exact same argument for Greek and Roman influences or even the Age of Enlightenment. |
|
|
|
04/08/2012 02:26:18 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by mike_311:
i just wish they'd all keep it to themselves. |
Unless they feel defensive, most atheists do not feel the need to convert, enlighten or bring others into line with their beliefs. This is one of the biggest differences between theists and atheists. |
LOL! someone tell Richard Dawkins |
|
|
|
04/08/2012 02:44:11 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Unless they feel defensive, most atheists do not feel the need to convert, enlighten or bring others into line with their beliefs. This is one of the biggest differences between theists and atheists. |
LOL! someone tell Richard Dawkins |
Dawkins is to religion what James Randi is to the supernatural in general. While Randi is noteworthy for actively debunking claims of dowsing or spoon bending, the overwhelming majority of people who don't believe in that stuff simply don't think about it or care in the slightest if you do (unless of course spoon benders propose legislation to ban others from eating soup with that utensil). |
|
|
|
04/09/2012 01:24:36 AM · #63 |
I'll totally cop to it. I wage a constant battle with people of faith, but I didn't start it. That's the legitimizing distinction, for me. I was just, as they say, "born this way", into a world populated by people who "don't agree" with the "choices" in my "life"... or blame the devil for my existence (like a lunatic).
A dude can only take so much grief before picking sides. Thankfully my lack of a faith tradition made this a natural and painless process, with very little personal drama. As far as I'm concerned, faith's reaping what it has sewn.
And it is a battle. Seeing either side as anything other than an opposing force is naive, and pretty much unsafe. I believe we're dealing with mutually incompatible worldviews professed by each camp, a middle ground is somewhat illusory, and that either reason (not faith) will determine the ultimate balance or this world will be forever mired in irrational strife. By definition.
The key difference these days is that atheists don't get ostracized, tortured, and murdered nearly as much because of smart, rational choices made by our forebears ~200 years ago (etc.), building on hard lessons learned about the problems inherent in organized religion, so for the first time in recent history our voices can finally be heard above the ongoing cacophony of contentious and contradictory faiths. Sorry if that upsets you, but come on, the good old USA is about as homogenous as it gets. I bet people in Beirut think bickering over what to call a tree that happens to currently be deployed at Xmas is kind of petty.
But you know, I'm biased. Chalk it up to post-justification if it helps you sleep better at night. Or, you know... join us? What do you have to lose? Your immortal soul? |
|
|
|
04/09/2012 02:06:39 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You're taking the quote out of context a little bit, Ray: |
Originally posted by Telegraph Article:
They could not have been conceived without Christian thought about the intrinsic dignity of each human person. |
Thing is......it's not really out of context in the true spirit of the basic goodness of humanity. That there is intrinsic worth and dignity in each human person is certainly *NOT* solely a Christian concept. That's the point....
Message edited by author 2012-04-09 14:06:53.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2012 02:45:51 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Unless they feel defensive, most atheists do not feel the need to convert, enlighten or bring others into line with their beliefs. This is one of the biggest differences between theists and atheists. |
LOL! someone tell Richard Dawkins |
Of course there are always authors and professors out professing and flogging books, but I do not see groups of people in matching t-shirts with large signs and bullhorns out at popular tourist destinations in major cites promoting secular humanism. When two people walk up to ring my doorbell with pamphlets in hand, I can be sure they will not be sharing the good news of atheism.
In some religious traditions (most notably among Evangelical Christians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventist) there is a call for prosthelytizing in an attempt to convert other to their faith. Secular Humanist may believe your beliefs are wrong, but they do not picket in front of churches, interrupt military funerals, or threaten those who disagree with them with eternal hellfire, in order to convert others to their viewpoint.
Message edited by author 2012-04-09 14:47:09. |
|
|
|
04/09/2012 02:54:40 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Secular Humanist may believe your beliefs are wrong, but they do not picket in front of churches, interrupt military funerals, or threaten those who disagree with them with eternal hellfire, in order to convert others to their viewpoint. |
or fly planes into buildings, start wars, genocide... picketing and empty threats are just a minor annoyance. |
|
|
|
04/09/2012 03:05:31 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
When two people walk up to ring my doorbell with pamphlets in hand, I can be sure they will not be sharing the good news of atheism. |
ROFL! |
|
|
|
04/09/2012 04:01:38 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Secular Humanist may believe your beliefs are wrong, but they do not picket in front of churches, interrupt military funerals, or threaten those who disagree with them with eternal hellfire, in order to convert others to their viewpoint. |
or fly planes into buildings, start wars, genocide... |
Or bomb abortion clinics and shoot doctors.
Message edited by author 2012-04-09 16:02:20. |
|
|
|
04/09/2012 04:41:38 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You're taking the quote out of context a little bit, Ray: |
Originally posted by Telegraph Article:
They could not have been conceived without Christian thought about the intrinsic dignity of each human person. |
Thing is......it's not really out of context in the true spirit of the basic goodness of humanity. That there is intrinsic worth and dignity in each human person is certainly *NOT* solely a Christian concept. That's the point.... |
You're doing it too. You removed the context from the quotation. That's NOT the point the author was making, though he didn't do a very good job of it. You cannot separate the moral fabric of Western Civilization from its two centuries of Christian influence, and any attempt to do so is merely historical revisionism. This is just a fact. In the Middle East, substitute "Islam" to the same statement.
I don't see the author making the argument that ONLY Christian thought recognizes "the intrinsic dignity.. etc"; no, he's trying to make the point that you can't throw out two thousand years of history and influence, both good and bad, because you don't believe in the religion.
Have ANY of you read 1984, by chance? If so, this'll sound familiar as all get-out. Why are y'all so determined to act as if Christianity (or any other religion) never mattered? I can understand the argument that religion no longer matters (though I don't agree), but you can't just say it never existed.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2012 05:09:38 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You're doing it too. You removed the context from the quotation. That's NOT the point the author was making, though he didn't do a very good job of it. You cannot separate the moral fabric of Western Civilization from its two centuries of Christian influence, and any attempt to do so is merely historical revisionism.
I don't see the author making the argument that ONLY Christian thought recognizes "the intrinsic dignity.. etc"; no, he's trying to make the point that you can't throw out two thousand years of history and influence, both good and bad, because you don't believe in the religion. |
Let us look at this from a different perspective. You are indeed right in your assertion that Christianity was and continues to be of monumental significance when analyzing the progress of society.
Having said this, we simply cannot overlook the fact that Christianity borrowed many of its festivities, practices and mores from the myriad of peoples they encountered during the centuries.
Therein lies the difference between what the author is suggesting and the perception that some of us have in this venue. Cause and effect are not the sole domain of religion.
In closing, the author seems to suggest that failing to recognize Christ in the political arena will lead to the ultimate demise of society ... and that is most certainly something that is debatable, regardless of one's religious inclinations.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
... Why are y'all so determined to act as if Christianity (or any other religion) never mattered? I can understand the argument that religion no longer matters (though I don't agree), but you can't just say it never existed. |
...and no one is suggesting it does not matter. It most certainly does to the believers. To some however, it should not be at the forefront of political discourse.
Lastly, I can assure you that I am not in the least proclaiming that religion never existed. I would however argue that religion has taken credit for things that they ultimately borrowed from others, if only to make peace with those very groups they were trying to convert.
Unlike the good Doc, I am not prepared to give this article a great deal of weight.
Ray
|
|
|
|
04/09/2012 08:09:35 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I can understand the argument that religion no longer matters (though I don't agree), but you can't just say it never existed.
R. |
Well this is Rant so naturally if religion is being associated with something deemed good then some atheists will try to downplay religion's influence. However when the shoe is on the other foot, that is the influence is deemed bad, then some theists *cough*Jason*cough* will also downplay religion's influence. |
|
|
|
04/09/2012 08:23:42 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Unless they feel defensive, most atheists do not feel the need to convert, enlighten or bring others into line with their beliefs. This is one of the biggest differences between theists and atheists. |
LOL! someone tell Richard Dawkins |
Of course there are always authors and professors out professing and flogging books, ...but they do not picket in front of churches, interrupt military funerals, or threaten those who disagree with them with eternal hellfire, in order to convert others to their viewpoint. |
Come now, if you dismiss the fringe on one side you have to dismiss the fringe on the other. It's only fair. And if you want a flavor of atheist proselytizing, is suggest you visit the blogosphere. I see many articles on Zite's philosophy and spirituality section from websites like richarddawkins.net, whyevolutionistrue, and freethoughtblogs.com that carry all the zeal and fervor of a holy roller. |
|
|
|
04/09/2012 08:30:15 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I can understand the argument that religion no longer matters (though I don't agree), but you can't just say it never existed.
R. |
Well this is Rant so naturally if religion is being associated with something deemed good then some atheists will try to downplay religion's influence. However when the shoe is on the other foot, that is the influence is deemed bad, then some theists *cough*Jason*cough* will also downplay religion's influence. |
I feel compelled to at times to try to provide balance to the picture. I believe religion has provided both good and bad in the world (and have a bias to think the good outweighs the bad). If someone only talks about the bad of religion I am forced to only talk about the good so the casual observer walks away that both exist.
I also chaffe at arguments which do the following:
1) mischaracterize. (eg. being against abortion is all about hating women)
2) speak from ignorance (eg. the breadth, scope, and purpose of the crusades)
3) are purely relativistic (eg. being pro-gay marriage is better than being against it)
Edit: I add this a number of hours later. I will fully admit that instances like the dude with the $30,000 watch (and attempted coverup) are painful. It's an obvious epic fail on the WWJD front.
Message edited by author 2012-04-10 00:28:53. |
|
|
|
04/10/2012 05:28:16 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Unless they feel defensive, most atheists do not feel the need to convert, enlighten or bring others into line with their beliefs. This is one of the biggest differences between theists and atheists. |
LOL! someone tell Richard Dawkins |
Of course there are always authors and professors out professing and flogging books, ...but they do not picket in front of churches, interrupt military funerals, or threaten those who disagree with them with eternal hellfire, in order to convert others to their viewpoint. |
Come now, if you dismiss the fringe on one side you have to dismiss the fringe on the other. It's only fair. And if you want a flavor of atheist proselytizing, is suggest you visit the blogosphere. I see many articles on Zite's philosophy and spirituality section from websites like richarddawkins.net, whyevolutionistrue, and freethoughtblogs.com that carry all the zeal and fervor of a holy roller. |
...Would you have us believe sthat atheists engage in the sort of activities you make reference to. Other than the occasional billboard there are other examples you can point to.
I have no doubt that there are websites where atheists assemble and exchange views, but that is an undertaking that one has to initiated of their own volition... something that is demonstrably different that having religion at the forefront of political debate.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/10/2012 05:32:49 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I also chaffe at arguments which do the following... |
Found this:
1. chaffe
See this is a rather complex matter. There is to the extent of my knowledge there are three definitions for chaffe.
1. There is the literal term for chaffe which is a rash induced my skin rubbing skin generally in the area of the crotch and or buttocks.
You can get creams for that :O)
Gotta run... duty calls. Have a great day.
Ray
|
|
