Calling all Atheists and Agnostics

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/26/2008 10:57:42 PM · #104

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
Can you not equally understand that your point of view espouses that we are wasting our lives in service to a non-existent entity.

No, because this is not really the case. Few question the values your religion espouses, but merely question a truly supernatural method of mandatory enforcement.

Most religious laws are in close conformity with the civil laws required to run an orderly society once humans moved beyond the hunter-gatherer form of clan-based culture.

I'm sure the sagest of (wo)men worked out what those rules must be, but required the threat of divine retribution to give them the authority to impose those rules on the populace as a whole. As modern scientists have found, to just say "we certifiably-intelligent folks have figured out the best way to do things" does not prove a persuasive argument, while the threat of eternal damnation or "mushroom clouds as smoking guns" gets us to stand barefoot in line at the airport or altar ...

Most of us are in agreement with the idea that if society is to work we shouldn't murder, steal, lie, or any of the other Mosaic malefactions, but simply don't require belief in the God of Abraham as justification; an objective cost-benefit analysis of our current system of civil law which -- except in its respect for individual freedom limited only by negative consequences of others and society -- closely follows Biblical precepts, versus a lawless Mad Max landscape of cutthroat competition, it's not hard to see which way the majority of us should vote.

Back in a time when religious belief was (apparently) universal, for Moses to have come down from the mountain and say "Look, I've thought about it for a long time, and here's how I think we should run things" just wasn't going to fly, and to just say "I heard God speak to me" would have made him a candidate for anti-schizophrenic therapy. The Burning Bush -- an imaginable and ethereal image -- might well have been a brilliant PR touch to enable the flock to visualize themselves in Moses' place as he described the scene.

Thank you for responding. You are right in that I think we do all agree on the best way to run an orderly society(ie no murder,stealing etc). That in itself is common ground. It focuses the both sides on the humanity of us both. However the God that Christians serve,if we Love Him the way we should, requires(not in the sense of a mandate) so much more of us. Surely you do not feel you need to love your neighbor as yourself especially if he has been nothing but a jerk to you (something I have experienced). Surely you do not feel the need to do that which is contrary to your own wishes and wants so long as it harms no one and breaks no laws. Speaking from my own experience I often wanted to leave my wife and her problems behind me (alcoholic) and get on with my life. It was not and is not what God wanted from me although it would have led to a more orderly and pleasant life for both me and my children. It was however not what God wanted me to do. Honestly I did not want to hear it but I did. Now I pose this example not so that I can affirm my relationship with God but simply as an example of how my life in service to God and His will for me as a Christian goes well beyond what would result in an orderly society. Therefore if there is no God then I have wasted my life trying to do what He wants in direct disagreement with my own wants and wishes. This is just one example of how the scope of serving God goes beyond simply achieving an orderly society as a whole. There are many more of course. So from my perspective for someone to say that I am foolish or ignoring the truth of evolution is every bit as offensive as we Christians saying that if you don't change your viewpoint then you will go to Hell. We both are really telling the other that they are not getting it. Your life of reason is worthless on one side and my life of service is worthless on the other.

edit: I also don't presuppose that all Christians love their neighbor as themselves or never look on another to lust or (most definitely) refrain from judging others but that is our goal and if a person is truly a Christian and not just in name then that is what they are seeking to achieve in their lives and they struggle towards it. It is their journey towards that goal that is being disparaged by an atheist viewpoint every bit as much as you feel that a Christian point of view disparages your journey toward intellectual enlightenment through science (and philosophy). Our commonalities are that we both want an orderly society based on our common values and we both want the things that scientific dicovery brings (i.e technology, pharmaceuticals, better living conditions). We just don't agree on (granted it's a pretty big disagreement) each others world view. We then should respect those differences as civilized people and concentrate on our commonalities with respect for one another.

Message edited by author 2008-04-26 22:59:33.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/27/2008 12:53:55 AM · #105

Originally posted by dponlyme:

We then should respect those differences as civilized people and concentrate on our commonalities with respect for one another.

It is possible to recognize altruism as a positive societal value without requiring a religious rationale.

I've worked two part-time jobs for over 20 years. One of them is at a non-profit drug-treatment program, where I try to help people facing a variety of health and social problems. I probably make about 70% of the going rate for my profession, but that's balanced with a schedule which largely accomodates my other job and my son's schedule.

The other job is with a printing company with about 15 employees started in the late 1970's by a couple of gentlemen from Pakistan, where a few years ago I tried to figure out who worked there:

Owner: Pakistani (Muslim)
Bookkeeper: Filipina-American (unknown)
Printer: Mexican-American (unknown)
Printer: Venezuelan-American (Buddhist)
Printer: Filipino-American (unknown)
Printer: Laotian-American (unknown)
Deliveries: Japanese-American (Jazz musician)
Sales Rep: American (unknown)
Printer's Aide: African-American (Muslim)
Pre-press: Iranian (unknown)
Pre-press: American (Jewish/agnostic)
Pre-press: Vietnamese-American (Catholic)

We've recently partially-merged with a company run by a family of Turkish-Americans of Armenian descent, who are Eastern Orthodox Christians ...

We all pretty much get along just fine.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

04/27/2008 04:40:23 AM · #106

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
We then should respect those differences as civilized people and concentrate on our commonalities with respect for one another.

It is possible to recognize altruism as a positive societal value without requiring a religious rationale.

I've worked two part-time jobs for over 20 years. One of them is at a non-profit drug-treatment program, where I try to help people facing a variety of health and social problems. I probably make about 70% of the going rate for my profession, but that's balanced with a schedule which largely accomodates my other job and my son's schedule.

The other job is with a printing company with about 15 employees started in the late 1970's by a couple of gentlemen from Pakistan, where a few years ago I tried to figure out who worked there:

Owner: Pakistani (Muslim)
Bookkeeper: Filipina-American (unknown)
Printer: Mexican-American (unknown)
Printer: Venezuelan-American (Buddhist)
Printer: Filipino-American (unknown)
Printer: Laotian-American (unknown)
Deliveries: Japanese-American (Jazz musician)
Sales Rep: American (unknown)
Printer's Aide: African-American (Muslim)
Pre-press: Iranian (unknown)
Pre-press: American (Jewish/agnostic)
Pre-press: Vietnamese-American (Catholic)

We've recently partially-merged with a company run by a family of Turkish-Americans of Armenian descent, who are Eastern Orthodox Christians ...

We all pretty much get along just fine.

Sounds like you are good man and seeing as how you can get along in 3d with a variety of people from different backgrounds, cultures, and I'm sure beliefs and world views then we can get along too with respect for one another.

Apple iPhone 5

04/27/2008 09:45:14 AM · #107

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Deliveries: Japanese-American (Jazz musician)

I didn't know Jazz was a religion... :-)

04/27/2008 10:27:31 AM · #108

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Can you not equally understand that your point of view espouses that we are wasting our lives in service to a non-existent entity. Both things can be seen as offensive in the context of tolerance and respect. My suggestion is that we come to the knowledge that our viewpoints necessarily collide and to acknowledge this and move on.

My point of view does not "espouse" any such thing. That is an inference that you seem to be drawing - i.e., "An atheists doesn't believe in God, so an atheist must also believe that those who do believe in God are wasting their lives in service to a non-existent entity." One certainly doesn't follow from the other. Indeed a person's faith can (not necessarily "does") act as a great comfort and motivator. Faith can be a source of compassion, humility, and love for others. It can motivate people to change their own lives for the better, and at its best can serve as an inspiration to attack the injustices of society.When faith acts in this way it can serve as a positive force in society. I would argue, however, that this type of faith is the exception, rather than the norm. Note also that this type of faith need not be Christian, and Christian faith may not even be the best religious tradition to inspire faith of this type.

As I've said endlessly, personal faith and observance is not the problem. The problem occurs when faith is used to justify societal norms and impose codes of conduct. If you want to live or think in a certain way because your faith demands it, fine. The minute you want the rest of us to live or think in that way because your faith demands it, you are out of line. "Faith" in the form of blind, unconsidered adherence to a particular flavor of belief or practice is simply irrationality. There should be no compulsion in a modern society for anyone to feel the need to kowtow to this type of faith, and social norms certainly should not be based on this type of faith. If you want people to live and think a certain way in a modern society -- societies that have necessarily become extremely heterogenous on almost all demographic levels -- your persuasion must be based on evidence that to adopt such conduct or thought is beneficial to the society as a whole. Proclamations based only on belief and reference to medieval (at best) texts do not constitute evidence.

Further, I have to disagree with the General at bit when he says that the values of religious belief (not just Christianity) are not in question. Certain societal basics aren't in dispute -- don't murder, steal, cheat, lie, etc. -- but such social norms exist in all cultures, independent of religious belief, so can't authentically be ascribed to religion generally and certainly not to any one religion in particular. When you actually get to the heart of moral considerations -- who counts for full value in society, how do you handle problems of inequity and injustice, should conduct that does not cause harm to others be sanctionable -- agreement breaks down quickly, and modern sensibilities are often diametrically opposed to traditional religious practice and belief.

Your version of "respect" is that you should be allowed to tell us all we're going to hell because of what we believe or what we do, but we shouldn't be able to challenge your assertions of belief, demand evidence, or point out those points where your belief stands in direct opposition to well established proof (e.g., the reality of evolution). This isn't "respect" this is deference, and I'm sorry your belief doesn't deserve any more deference than any other non-evidence based claim.

04/27/2008 01:23:23 PM · #109

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
Can you not equally understand that your point of view espouses that we are wasting our lives in service to a non-existent entity. Both things can be seen as offensive in the context of tolerance and respect. My suggestion is that we come to the knowledge that our viewpoints necessarily collide and to acknowledge this and move on.

My point of view does not "espouse" any such thing. That is an inference that you seem to be drawing - i.e., "An atheists doesn't believe in God, so an atheist must also believe that those who do believe in God are wasting their lives in service to a non-existent entity." One certainly doesn't follow from the other. Indeed a person's faith can (not necessarily "does") act as a great comfort and motivator. Faith can be a source of compassion, humility, and love for others. It can motivate people to change their own lives for the better, and at its best can serve as an inspiration to attack the injustices of society.When faith acts in this way it can serve as a positive force in society. I would argue, however, that this type of faith is the exception, rather than the norm. Note also that this type of faith need not be Christian, and Christian faith may not even be the best religious tradition to inspire faith of this type.

As I've said endlessly, personal faith and observance is not the problem. The problem occurs when faith is used to justify societal norms and impose codes of conduct. If you want to live or think in a certain way because your faith demands it, fine. The minute you want the rest of us to live or think in that way because your faith demands it, you are out of line. "Faith" in the form of blind, unconsidered adherence to a particular flavor of belief or practice is simply irrationality. There should be no compulsion in a modern society for anyone to feel the need to kowtow to this type of faith, and social norms certainly should not be based on this type of faith. If you want people to live and think a certain way in a modern society -- societies that have necessarily become extremely heterogenous on almost all demographic levels -- your persuasion must be based on evidence that to adopt such conduct or thought is beneficial to the society as a whole. Proclamations based only on belief and reference to medieval (at best) texts do not constitute evidence.

Further, I have to disagree with the General at bit when he says that the values of religious belief (not just Christianity) are not in question. Certain societal basics aren't in dispute -- don't murder, steal, cheat, lie, etc. -- but such social norms exist in all cultures, independent of religious belief, so can't authentically be ascribed to religion generally and certainly not to any one religion in particular. When you actually get to the heart of moral considerations -- who counts for full value in society, how do you handle problems of inequity and injustice, should conduct that does not cause harm to others be sanctionable -- agreement breaks down quickly, and modern sensibilities are often diametrically opposed to traditional religious practice and belief.

Your version of "respect" is that you should be allowed to tell us all we're going to hell because of what we believe or what we do, but we shouldn't be able to challenge your assertions of belief, demand evidence, or point out those points where your belief stands in direct opposition to well established proof (e.g., the reality of evolution). This isn't "respect" this is deference, and I'm sorry your belief doesn't deserve any more deference than any other non-evidence based claim.

I am heartened to hear that you feel religious faith has had and can have a positive effect on those who have it and society in general although granted we both agree it doesn't necessarily always.

Olympus 7-14mm f/4.0 Zuiko Digital Zoom

04/28/2008 10:03:54 AM · #110

Originally posted by dponlyme:

I am heartened to hear that you feel religious faith has had and can have a positive effect on those who have it and society in general although granted we both agree it doesn't necessarily always.

I'm glad you are heartened, but it would be a more accurate representation of my view to say that religious faith is not necessarily negative on a personal level and does not always have a negative effect on society in general. That said, I think the evidence is clear that religious belief and organized religion has been generally corrosive to societal progress, especially in the modern age.

one2one

Olympus E-5

04/28/2008 10:36:19 AM · #111

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
Think of it. Do you not consider a Christian every bit as lost as the Christian believes you to be? I think that is a true statement. If each person gives respect to all others then all of us can get along without fear of personal attacks and we can keep the DPC community a strong and diverse community.

Actually, we don't. We think you are wrong and misguided, but we don't believe that your being wrong damns you to hell and torment for all eternity. See how that makes a difference? Do you also see how telling people that they are "lost" and going to hell might not be the best way to practice the philosophy of "each person gives respect to all others"?

Originally posted by dponlyme:
Bottom line: I would ask that everyone respect everyone else's point of view or beliefs and to not take offense when those views or beliefs are expressed.

Respect is a two-way street. And as far as my responsibility or desire to "respect" the beliefs of those who make claims without, or in in opposition to, evidence . . .

�We must respect the other man�s religion, but only to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart.� -- H.L. Mencken

I understand that it is offensive to you that the Christian faith espouses that Hell is the eventual eternal place for people who do not accept Jesus as their savior. I can certainly understand why you would take great offense at it from a personal standpoint. Can you not equally understand that your point of view espouses that we are wasting our lives in service to a non-existent entity. Both things can be seen as offensive in the context of tolerance and respect. My suggestion is that we come to the knowledge that our viewpoints necessarily collide and to acknowledge this and move on. Accept that it is our viewpoint regarding eternity and that we should accept that it is your viewpoint regarding the finiteness of existence. Our viewpoint makes no sense to you based on the available evidence and yours makes no sense to us based on our religious experience. The validity of each being in question as the correct one not by ourselves as both atheist and Christian are quite sure of their position but being in question as a result of the different viewpoints existing. I harbor no grudge that atheists believe as they do though offensively since I am damned to wasting my finite life and I would want no grudge by you that Christians believe as they do though offensively since you are damned to eternal hell unless you change your viewpoint. If we look at it objectively are we both not really trying to help the other to come to the better viewpoint? If you agree then aren't we really both trying to do a good turn for the other? If this is the case then can we not agree that we are struggling through this life trying to do good for our fellow human being? If you agree with that then can we not then show respect to one another instead of taking offense. That is what I seek. DP

edit: I would also point out and want to make it clear that I am not asking for you to respect the beliefs of the person but the person themselves. That is tolerance. Much the same way you may not agree with a particular scientists conclusions or theories yet still respect them as a member of the scientific community. Here we are dealing with the human race. You may not agree with the Christian conclusions (or any religious system) but you can still respect us as members of the human race. Christians should do the same. I think we are both guilty of lacking both tolerance and respect for one another. We can fix that with communication and finding common ground. That common ground is our humanity. As I have said before: We are all in the same boat.

So then, agreeing to disagree will solve our differences. I don't think so. I'm not one to do that and I feel it goes against any progress humanity can achieve together as a people. It doesn't sit well with me that you teach your children into believing one thing and one thing only. I will not respect people who do that. Call me biased, it's your call.

You can talk until you're blue in the face about what you believe but you can't dispute fact with religious beliefs because religious beliefs do not include any facts what so ever.

As for tolerance and religion.....please.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

04/28/2008 12:16:05 PM · #112

Originally posted by Jac:

So then, agreeing to disagree will solve our differences. I don't think so.

Kind of like having licence to commit all kinds of bad behaviour because you'll "be forgiven", or, you're an "imperfect human". Reminds me of the episode in one of the other threads, where one of our favourite characters went off on another member, and in the space of a few moments excused himself with the statement that he was just another imperfect sinner. Whatever.

04/28/2008 05:08:53 PM · #113

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
I am heartened to hear that you feel religious faith has had and can have a positive effect on those who have it and society in general although granted we both agree it doesn't necessarily always.

I'm glad you are heartened, but it would be a more accurate representation of my view to say that religious faith is not necessarily negative on a personal level and does not always have a negative effect on society in general. That said, I think the evidence is clear that religious belief and organized religion has been generally corrosive to societal progress, especially in the modern age.

I am still heartened because it is imo a small percentage of those who identify themselves as Christian who actually get it and aren't just going with the flow of their upbringing and think they are good Christians merely for attending Church regularly and throwing their cash in the pot and tossing up a prayer when they are having a hard time. It is the ones who act in submission to the Holy Spirit who get it and those are the very ones you speak of as seeing the good results in (personally)imo. So many people identify as Christians who just don't get it and that is one of the reasons atheists and myself see so much negative in organized Christianity in particular and any religion in General I would think.

04/28/2008 05:17:27 PM · #114

Originally posted by Jac:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
Think of it. Do you not consider a Christian every bit as lost as the Christian believes you to be? I think that is a true statement. If each person gives respect to all others then all of us can get along without fear of personal attacks and we can keep the DPC community a strong and diverse community.

Actually, we don't. We think you are wrong and misguided, but we don't believe that your being wrong damns you to hell and torment for all eternity. See how that makes a difference? Do you also see how telling people that they are "lost" and going to hell might not be the best way to practice the philosophy of "each person gives respect to all others"?

Originally posted by dponlyme:
Bottom line: I would ask that everyone respect everyone else's point of view or beliefs and to not take offense when those views or beliefs are expressed.

Respect is a two-way street. And as far as my responsibility or desire to "respect" the beliefs of those who make claims without, or in in opposition to, evidence . . .

�We must respect the other man�s religion, but only to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart.� -- H.L. Mencken

I understand that it is offensive to you that the Christian faith espouses that Hell is the eventual eternal place for people who do not accept Jesus as their savior. I can certainly understand why you would take great offense at it from a personal standpoint. Can you not equally understand that your point of view espouses that we are wasting our lives in service to a non-existent entity. Both things can be seen as offensive in the context of tolerance and respect. My suggestion is that we come to the knowledge that our viewpoints necessarily collide and to acknowledge this and move on. Accept that it is our viewpoint regarding eternity and that we should accept that it is your viewpoint regarding the finiteness of existence. Our viewpoint makes no sense to you based on the available evidence and yours makes no sense to us based on our religious experience. The validity of each being in question as the correct one not by ourselves as both atheist and Christian are quite sure of their position but being in question as a result of the different viewpoints existing. I harbor no grudge that atheists believe as they do though offensively since I am damned to wasting my finite life and I would want no grudge by you that Christians believe as they do though offensively since you are damned to eternal hell unless you change your viewpoint. If we look at it objectively are we both not really trying to help the other to come to the better viewpoint? If you agree then aren't we really both trying to do a good turn for the other? If this is the case then can we not agree that we are struggling through this life trying to do good for our fellow human being? If you agree with that then can we not then show respect to one another instead of taking offense. That is what I seek. DP

edit: I would also point out and want to make it clear that I am not asking for you to respect the beliefs of the person but the person themselves. That is tolerance. Much the same way you may not agree with a particular scientists conclusions or theories yet still respect them as a member of the scientific community. Here we are dealing with the human race. You may not agree with the Christian conclusions (or any religious system) but you can still respect us as members of the human race. Christians should do the same. I think we are both guilty of lacking both tolerance and respect for one another. We can fix that with communication and finding common ground. That common ground is our humanity. As I have said before: We are all in the same boat.

So then, agreeing to disagree will solve our differences. I don't think so. I'm not one to do that and I feel it goes against any progress humanity can achieve together as a people. It doesn't sit well with me that you teach your children into believing one thing and one thing only. I will not respect people who do that. Call me biased, it's your call.

You can talk until you're blue in the face about what you believe but you can't dispute fact with religious beliefs because religious beliefs do not include any facts what so ever.

As for tolerance and religion.....please.

As neither of us is going to change our position or world view as a result of any dialog do you not think that we can be civil to one another despite this? Respect one another? Agreeing to disagree will not solve our differences but then arguing and disrespecting one another will not either. I think that we can see that from what has transpired already. What then is the alternative? I suggest focusing on things we can agree on and both working towards that in as much as is possible. Perhaps our conversation could be on feeding the poor and helping drug addicted persons to reform their lives as the General is involved in. In other words let's not agree to disagree as such but agree to agree on what is possible to be agreed upon.

04/28/2008 05:29:29 PM · #115

Originally posted by dponlyme:

It is the ones who act in submission to the Holy Spirit who get it and those are the very ones you speak of as seeing the good results in (personally)imo. So many people identify as Christians who just don't get it and that is one of the reasons atheists and myself see so much negative in organized Christianity in particular and any religion in General I would think.

Given our interactions, I would suspect that the ones you think "get it" would not be the ones that I would identify as being positive influences within the society.

04/28/2008 11:34:02 PM · #116

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
It is the ones who act in submission to the Holy Spirit who get it and those are the very ones you speak of as seeing the good results in (personally)imo. So many people identify as Christians who just don't get it and that is one of the reasons atheists and myself see so much negative in organized Christianity in particular and any religion in General I would think.

Given our interactions, I would suspect that the ones you think "get it" would not be the ones that I would identify as being positive influences within the society.

Could you explain yourself further? I'm not quite sure why you would say this since I thought that the problem with organized religion wasn't necessarily the religion itself . I thought that what you were saying is that it is not the individual that is the problem but the organizations of those who are religious that are then influencing societal norms and thus harming or retarding growth and improvement of the human condition. Which types of Christians (I ask specifically about Christians because that is my concern) do you feel would be a positive influence on society? Which organizations of the Christian religion have had positive effects on society as a whole?

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

04/29/2008 10:46:56 AM · #117

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
It is the ones who act in submission to the Holy Spirit who get it and those are the very ones you speak of as seeing the good results in (personally)imo. So many people identify as Christians who just don't get it and that is one of the reasons atheists and myself see so much negative in organized Christianity in particular and any religion in General I would think.

Given our interactions, I would suspect that the ones you think "get it" would not be the ones that I would identify as being positive influences within the society.

Could you explain yourself further? I'm not quite sure why you would say this since I thought that the problem with organized religion wasn't necessarily the religion itself . I thought that what you were saying is that it is not the individual that is the problem but the organizations of those who are religious that are then influencing societal norms and thus harming or retarding growth and improvement of the human condition. Which types of Christians (I ask specifically about Christians because that is my concern) do you feel would be a positive influence on society? Which organizations of the Christian religion have had positive effects on society as a whole?

From a viewpoint favoring scientific inquiry and analysis, religious belief is itself very much the problem. This is so because to be religious in this day and age requires the willful suspension of rationality to one extent or the other. As I've argued in the science and theology thread - rational, scientific inquiry is not compatible with religious fantasy. Moderate Christians get by through ignoring huge swaths of their own core belief systems and holy texts. Fundamentalist Christians get by through deliberate, wholesale rejection of any and all evidence that doesn't jibe with their adopted worldview. While the fundamentalist approach is definitely worse and more acute, both states of belief are corrosive to the use of science, reason, and rationality in the modern world.

All that said, I know many Christians that find comfort and support in their personal religious beliefs and practices. They understand, however, that their religious experience is a personal one that isn't necessarily what others want or need. They have enough "Christian" humility to understand that to think they have all the answers or some sort of perfect understanding of even their own religious tradition is arrogant and silly. They feel no need to shove their beliefs on others and do not use their belief as a shield against new knowledge or contrary evidence. Many of them believe in spite of doubts.

As for Christian organizations that are beneficial to society, I can't really give you any good modern examples. The black Christian church during the time of Martin Luther King, Jr. was instrumental in addressing the racial injustices of the day, but the modern black Christian church is now fairly unified (with some exceptions) in maintaining societal injustices with regard to homosexual equality under the law. There may be some non-church Christian organizations that are working for progress and social justice these days, but they certainly aren't the majority or the norm. Christian faith, organized or not, stands consistently (if not uniformly) against social progress in the modern world.

Louis

Nikon D800

04/29/2008 11:18:46 AM · #118

An interesting Alonzo Fyfe essay on a talk given by Daniel Dennett at the Salk Institute defending the "indelicacy" of the language of new atheists (a common complaint many have, even here, especially regarding Dawkins). Part I, Part II.

Edit: Part II also touches on Dennett's recommendation that religious studies be a required part of the national school curriculum, where the basic facts of all the world's religions must be taught.

Message edited by author 2008-04-29 11:20:46.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/29/2008 11:30:26 AM · #119

Originally posted by Louis:

Edit: Part II also touches on Dennett's recommendation that religious studies be a required part of the national school curriculum, where the basic facts of all the world's religions must be taught.

I find myself continually surprised that it isn't part of a national school curriculum. Sort of like not teaching history, or not teaching geography, or not having philosophy classes.

Olympus 7-14mm f/4.0 Zuiko Digital Zoom

04/29/2008 11:53:32 AM · #120

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Louis:
Edit: Part II also touches on Dennett's recommendation that religious studies be a required part of the national school curriculum, where the basic facts of all the world's religions must be taught.

I find myself continually surprised that it isn't part of a national school curriculum. Sort of like not teaching history, or not teaching geography, or not having philosophy classes.

Agreed. I have this same reaction. It's ridiculous that you have to make it to college before you receive any actual comparative religious education.

one2one

Olympus E-5

04/29/2008 11:58:25 AM · #121

Good post. I read part one and he strikes a note with me about where I am in this debate of theologies we all love to defend.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

04/29/2008 12:13:36 PM · #122

Originally posted by Gordon:

Religious education is compulsory in the UK. I learned the basics of most world religions through it. However, it is of limited use outside of a context.

I benefitted most in my understanding of Christianity and its development through studying the reformation (English and European History 16th Century) which requires a detailed understanding of the different philosophies and ways of thinking - you cannot understand the motivations of the time without understanding the widespread belief systems. Also, through English Literature - you cannot understand Milton's Paradise Lost without a good understanding of the philosophy behind it.

Message edited by author 2008-04-29 19:20:37.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

04/29/2008 12:38:00 PM · #123

Originally posted by dponlyme:

I would have thought that this kind of thinking should offend most Christians on the "other" thread for the same reasons as similar thinking has offended the atheists.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

04/29/2008 05:13:26 PM · #124

This is child abuse of the highest order. This man does not deserve his own child. But despite the depravity of the situation in this video and all that it implies, the most sickening proclamation he makes is to say, outright, that he does not love his child more than he loves his god.