ForumGarden

A friend of mine found this and knew I would enjoy.

10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On | Cracked.com

I tend to disagree with the article. As inSo please, please, please, when we get into these atheist vs. Christian arguments, can the atheists stop acting like Christians want to abolish all science and live in grass huts? Just because some Christians reject the science on evolution, doesn't mean they reject all science.

I think they do, actually. Science isn't a list it's a process, and bible literalists - the "some" under discussion - reject the process.

OH no, not really. Even the most dyed-in-wool fundamentalists seem prepared to turn to science when it suits their need.

Though I tend to agree with Bill Maher about that.

If you reject some science, you have to give it ALL up.

And the wording of that point got me, too.

I would say that just become some Christians reject some science, does not mean that All Christians reject All Science.

A somewhat weaker proposition and one I could happily sign up to.

LarsMac;1362326 wrote: some Christians reject some science
Some Christophobes pretend that Christians reject science because they have no better means of opposing Christianity. Those who claim to be Christians but claim to reject science are shills giving fellow Christophobes something to aim at.

Unfortunately, there ARE far too many of those "shills" out there. And they are the more vociferous.

There is a movement among the Fundies to reject any science that might disagree with their "world View" It is these who have pushed some atheists into a position bordering upon militancy.

Why fight it? Have you any idea of the overwhelming proportion of US citizens who are deluded by this claptrap?

Americans still hold faith in divine creation - Washington Times : Only 13 percent of Americans think mankind evolved with no divine intervention. “There has been surprisingly little change over the last 24 years in how Americans respond,” pollster Frank Newport said.

The USA is special. The USA has a God-given mandate to do without being done to, to dictate without agreement, to coerce without consent. Nobody can hold those views and retain their collective sanity. The rest of the world has reached the point where they just pay their sixpences to laugh at the inmates.

There lies the real problem.

There are many who insist that there cannot have been any divine intervention, at all.

Both extremes insist not so much that their view must be right as that the other guys' view MUST be wrong.

Hard to arrange a compromise with that sorta attitude taking the day.

When the truth happens to be on one extreme there's not much that any rational person can do when the word "compromise" comes up, is there. There's the real world and then there's the fantasy land of bog ignorance which - in contrast to your claim that "there are many who insist that there cannot have been any divine intervention" - is claimed by 77% of the entire US population. According to the Washington Times of 2007, anyway. Perhaps you think they have their figures grossly and unscientifically skewed?

Pew Research did an extensive study of religion in the U.S. in 2008 and came up with an even higher percentage. It's an intriguing comprehensive study worth viewing.

Religion in American Culture -- Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

I honestly believe that the vast majority of those who register as religious do so for grouping purposes and not so much because they've bothered to take the time to actually consider the notion of divine anything while the rest are simply excessively delusional (though I guess delusion must play a part to some extent in all at one time or another). One thing's for sure in my mind and that's that Americans are the biggest bunch of capitulators on the subject, though we disguise that fact with euphemisms such as 'compromise'.

The most amusing thing about it all to me is that those who claim to be the most self assured on divinity in fact capitulate the most. They're usually found out eventually, though.

spot;1362357 wrote: When the truth happens to be on one extreme there's not much that any rational person can do when the word "compromise" comes up, is there. There's the real world and then there's the fantasy land of bog ignorance which - in contrast to your claim that "there are many who insist that there cannot have been any divine intervention" - is claimed by 77% of the entire US population. According to the Washington Times of 2007, anyway. Perhaps you think they have their figures grossly and unscientifically skewed?


Firstly, I never limited my statement to residents of the US.

But even so, 39 million people could be considered "many".

But, yes, it seems that you and I could not even reach a compromise, simply because I accept the possibility, even the probability that there is some form of divine influence in the world, while you reject the notion out of hand.

Of course, what can be said for a nation where even the Church leaders have stated that there is probably no God?

LarsMac;1362378 wrote: it seems that you and I could not even reach a compromise, simply because I accept the possibility, even the probability that there is some form of divine influence in the world, while you reject the notion out of hand.


I reject nothing of the sort. The fact that there's a divine influence in the world is central to my understanding of the universe and my faith as a Christian. What I find ridiculous is the human attribution of omnipotence and omniscience to God, along with the consequent meaningless identification as Creator, all of which is blind idolatrous unjustifiable dogmatic belief and contrary to both logic and experience.

I doubt everyone who rejects the notion of any divine hand in life do so "out of hand". I know my rejection only occurred after much deliberation and self examination.

I'd be willing to entertain compromise if there were some viable evidence of the 'divine notion'. But then compromise would not be necessary if the evidence were there, would it.

Belief in a divine entity is that argument: I must be on to something because I've survived this long with the belief. It's an interesting phenomena.

Ahso!;1362360 wrote: Pew Research did an extensive study of religion in the U.S. in 2008 and came up with an even higher percentage. It's an intriguing comprehensive study worth viewing.

Religion in American Culture -- Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

I honestly believe that the vast majority of those who register as religious do so for grouping purposes and not so much because they've bothered to take the time to actually consider the notion of divine anything while the rest are simply excessively delusional (though I guess delusion must play a part to some extent in all at one time or another). One thing's for sure in my mind and that's that Americans are the biggest bunch of capitulators on the subject, though we disguise that fact with euphemisms such as 'compromise'.




You are correct to a point.

Many people simply take on the religious "tag" of their parents and family.

I am "Christian" because that is the religious foundation of my family.

Some of my family claim "Catholic", or "Methodist", "Baptist", or the like.

Some are "Buddhists", a couple of them are Jews, and we now have a couple of "Sunis" in the family.

About the only thing most of us agree on is that there is a God. But then, of course, there are a few "Atheists" in the family.

We all get along fairly peaceably, as long as we keep the conversations at a relatively high level.

Mostly, as the article in the OP suggests, we allow each other our oddities. And we remember that love conquers all.

We are fairly certain that God isn't quite the hard-ass that a lot of the Fundies (Though we do have a few of those) think He is.

Ahso!;1362360 wrote:

The most amusing thing about it all to me is that those who claim to be the most self assured on divinity in fact capitulate the most. They're usually found out eventually, though.
Care to offer an example of what you mean by this?

Ahso!;1362381 wrote: I'd be willing to entertain compromise if there were some viable evidence of the 'divine notion'. But then compromise would not be necessary if the evidence were there, would it.

Belief in a divine entity is that argument: I must be on to something because I've survived this long with the belief. It's an interesting phenomena.


Do you know, practically everyone who commends faith does so from an experimental basis: do this and see what happens, test whether the resultant events have this and this and this aspect. The abuse comes from the mass of believers who say "the reason that happened is X" when in fact the reason it happened is nothing to do with X at all. X usually involves the dogmatic belief of the person claiming to know the answer.

It's surprising how resistant people can be to actually experimenting with faith, given that the results are so apparent. Interpreting a meaningful cause is another matter entirely. Jumping onto the Bible Literalist bandwagon is one way of interpreting it, at the expense of rationality and morality and decency and good taste. But refusing to accept such a vile lie is no reason not to explore the way the universe works.

LarsMac;1362382 wrote:

Care to offer an example of what you mean by this?Sure. Look at anyone who is certain of a creator or god. They can't be certain and that will become evident through their actions, speech or what have you. Pick one: Jim Jones, Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Oral Roberts (jr or sr), Jessica Hahn, Mother Teresa................

I'm certain all religions could be represented in my statement above, but I'm mostly familiar with Christianity.

My point about capitulation is: the harder one believes, the more they've capitulated.

spot;1362383 wrote: Do you know, practically everyone who commends faith does so from an experimental basis: do this and see what happens, test whether the resultant events have this and this and this aspect. The abuse comes from the mass of believers who say "the reason that happened is X" when in fact the reason it happened is nothing to do with X at all. X usually involves the dogmatic belief of the person claiming to know the answer.

It's surprising how resistant people can be to actually experimenting with faith, given that the results are so apparent. Interpreting a meaningful cause is another matter entirely. Jumping onto the Bible Literalist bandwagon is one way of interpreting it, at the expense of rationality and morality and decency and good taste. But refusing to accept such a vile lie is no reason not to explore the way the universe works.Perhaps I'm just not there yet.

Ahso!;1362386 wrote: My point about capitulation is: the harder one believes, the more they've capitulated.


Quite often with other people's hard-earned money and an admiring lissom employee. The temptations of the flesh are manifold.

spot;1362380 wrote: I reject nothing of the sort. The fact that there's a divine influence in the world is central to my understanding of the universe and my faith as a Christian. What I find ridiculous is the human attribution of omnipotence and omniscience to God, along with the consequent meaningless identification as Creator, all of which is blind idolatrous unjustifiable dogmatic belief and contrary to both logic and experience.


Well said!! I reckon we are not as far apart as I had thought. My bad. I confess to making significant assertions based upon previous posts.

The omni-thing is a bit of a touchy point.

Omnipotence and omniscience would be relative things for humans, I think.

Ahso!;1362386 wrote: My point about capitulation is: the harder one believes, the more they've capitulated.


I reckon it depends on why one believes.

LarsMac;1362391 wrote: I reckon it depends on why one believes.I can't think of an exception.

Ahso!;1362393 wrote: I can't think of an exception.


I can.

God actually requires unconditional surrender, not capitulation.

Most of your examples, with (I believe) the exception of Mother Theresa, seemed bent upon using God for their own purposes, rather than allowing themselves to be used by God.

What I mean is: people surrender with little or no fight, and the more they do fight for or about their belief in God the more they capitulate. For them it's a paradox - for me, since I've chosen to accept the lack of evidence as proof, the more amusing it has become. And although it may not appear as such, the less cynical I've become about religion and religious minded individuals. After all, they're only sophisticated monkeys who think more of themselves than they really should.

LarsMac;1362395 wrote: I can.

God actually requires unconditional surrender, not capitulation.

Most of your examples, with (I believe) the exception of Mother Theresa, seemed bent upon using God for their own purposes, rather than allowing themselves to be used by God.Incidentally, trying to convince me of the existence of a nonexistent God is just as self-serving as anything say, Jimmy Swaggart has ever said. Not to worry though - I like you much better. Not that that in and of itself should mean much.

Ahso!;1362403 wrote: Incidentally, trying to convince me of the existence of a nonexistent God is just as self-serving as anything say, Jimmy Swaggart has ever said. Not to worry though - I like you much better. Not that that in and of itself should mean much.


We're back into semantics again. Two people are using the word "God" to mean different things. Is there a self-aware external God out there judging people? Obviously not, such a God is an impossibility, it's a target you set up just to knock it over, nobody in the thread is holding it up as an idea for you to abuse. If that notion of God was ever a living idea within any acceptable form of Christianity in the past then that never-existent God is dead, killed off by horrified ex-worshippers who realized the entire concept was foul and blasphemous. Any remaining Christians you find holding such ideas are moral cripples who should be mercilessly laughed at.

Ahso!;1362403 wrote: Incidentally, trying to convince me of the existence of a nonexistent God is just as self-serving as anything say, Jimmy Swaggart has ever said. Not to worry though - I like you much better. Not that that in and of itself should mean much.


I have no intention of trying to convince you of anything.

For me God is a simple fact, for you, non-existent. As long as we are both comfortable, I am OK with that.

And thanks. Jimmy is not high on my list, either.

I am also comfy with the tag of sophisticated monkey.

IMG

Too bad they can't agree to respect each others beliefs and leave it at that or at least be able to discuss it without the clubs coming out. Your right to freedom of speech owes nothing to christianity. In a secular society you are free to believe any religion you like so long as it does not impact on the rights of others yet in secular societies religion demands for itself the right to special treatment. not to have anyone question the belief system or call it's actions to account and to have sepecial laws making taking god's name in vain a criminal offence punishable in some countries by the death penalty. In the US criticising religion or not at least pretending to be christian seems to be political suicide and the only organisartions that claim the right to be able to discriminate against those who simply want to live their lives freely and in peace are religious. Surely atheists and christians can at least agree all are equal (in the sight if god if you like) and have the same inalienable rights. But some christians think god gives them and only them the right to interpret god's word and all else are wrong. Maybe the main thing both should agree on is that bigotry is a bad thing to tolerate.

gmc;1362520 wrote: freedom of speech owes nothing to christianity
That's a pov that varies with time and space. In the Roman Empire, 2000 years ago, there was not a lot of freedom of speech. Those who blurted out too much found themselves hanging on a cross for three days or so before leaving this world. It had been much the same in previous empires, Babylonia, Assyria, Egypt, and probably those of the even earlier Indus Valley and further east. The dominant polity of 'classical' societies tended to be hierarchical, the beliefs monolithic and coerced.

Along came Christianity, 'the Way', and upset the applecart, at least as far as the Roman Empire was concerned. That empire was probably more unstable, brutal and corrupt than any before it, and the clash between the following of the honest Galilaean and the 'bleed the plebs white' patricians was inevitable. Freedom of speech was specifically prohibited for followers of 'the Way'. The patricians won, and, despite 'barbarian' invasions, tyranny and rigid censorship reigned over Europe for a thousand years. It was mostly filled with old Roman paganism, yet named after Christ; but it would be a foolhardy economist or historian who ventured the notion that, had the carpenter not lived, Europe would have been one whit less totalitarian than it was. True, it is very probable that this man closed off free speech for the Arab world to the present day. It may be that this man made Europe less free than it would have been, but nobody can certainly say that he did. The previous record of 'civilisation', from China to Chile, from the beginnings of history, was far too full of repression for anyone to be confident about that.

It was named after Christ, this rather scruffy outfit called Europe; the absurdity of that title went unnoticed because the record of the Galilaean was suppressed or corrupted. Eventually a scholar bravely gave the game away, and had to flee for his life. But the truth was out, and was not going to go away, particularly as a new economic model, that the world had never known, was slowly forming, particularly in England, where there was more dissent towards the old autocracies of priest and divinely-appointed monarch. The new model required individual enterprise and the exercise of intelligence, which were precisely what the old regime did not encourage. So modern democracy and biblical values of individualism grew up together, despite conflicts, because capitalism and the Bible cannot be reconciled. But they are at least more compatible partners than the systematic contradiction that preceded them.

But that medievalism was named after a mere carpenter elevated into 'Christ' speaks for the democratic impetus of Christianity, that had to be suppressed by force. Modern pluralist societies in the West may not assign their freedoms to the carpenter more than the requirements of capitalism, but they should at least refrain from perpetuating the mythical fabrication that Christianity has opposed those freedoms. Abuse of freedom deserves no freedom.

in secular societies religion demands for itself the right to special treatment.
Some religions do, some do not. Another nuance that people need to learn is that there is not one entity called 'religion'. There is as much polarisation in religion as there is in politics, and in similar ways, too.

some christians think god gives them and only them the right to interpret god's word and all else are wrong.
And one species of them may be right, of course. However, the way to eliminate the species of claimed Christian that cannot be as claimed is to cross off the list any who attempt to coerce society as a whole into any sort of religious or moral habit. Christ was all about 'Take it or leave it,' not straitjackets, nor even nominality.

Maybe the main thing both should agree on is that bigotry is a bad thing to tolerate.
Yes, indeed.

xyz;1362524 wrote: That's a pov that varies with time and space. In the Roman Empire, 2000 years ago, there was not a lot of freedom of speech. Those who blurted out too much found themselves hanging on a cross for three days or so before leaving this world. It had been much the same in previous empires, Babylonia, Assyria, Egypt, and probably those of the even earlier Indus Valley and further east. The dominant polity of 'classical' societies tended to be hierarchical, the beliefs monolithic and coerced.

Along came Christianity, 'the Way', and upset the applecart, at least as far as the Roman Empire was concerned. That empire was probably more unstable, brutal and corrupt than any before it, and the clash between the following of the honest Galilaean and the 'bleed the plebs white' patricians was inevitable. Freedom of speech was specifically prohibited for followers of 'the Way'. The patricians won, and, despite 'barbarian' invasions, tyranny and rigid censorship reigned over Europe for a thousand years. It was mostly filled with old Roman paganism, yet named after Christ; but it would be a foolhardy economist or historian who ventured the notion that, had the carpenter not lived, Europe would have been one whit less totalitarian than it was. True, it is very probable that this man closed off free speech for the Arab world to the present day. It may be that this man made Europe less free than it would have been, but nobody can certainly say that he did. The previous record of 'civilisation', from China to Chile, from the beginnings of history, was far too full of repression for anyone to be confident about that.

It was named after Christ, this rather scruffy outfit called Europe; the absurdity of that title went unnoticed because the record of the Galilaean was suppressed or corrupted. Eventually a scholar bravely gave the game away, and had to flee for his life. But the truth was out, and was not going to go away, particularly as a new economic model, that the world had never known, was slowly forming, particularly in England, where there was more dissent towards the old autocracies of priest and divinely-appointed monarch. The new model required individual enterprise and the exercise of intelligence, which were precisely what the old regime did not encourage. So modern democracy and biblical values of individualism grew up together, despite conflicts, because capitalism and the Bible cannot be reconciled. But they are at least more compatible partners than the systematic contradiction that preceded them.

But that medievalism was named after a mere carpenter elevated into 'Christ' speaks for the democratic impetus of Christianity, that had to be suppressed by force. Modern pluralist societies in the West may not assign their freedoms to the carpenter more than the requirements of capitalism, but they should at least refrain from perpetuating the mythical fabrication that Christianity has opposed those freedoms. Abuse of freedom deserves no freedom.



Some religions do, some do not. Another nuance that people need to learn is that there is not one entity called 'religion'. There is as much polarisation in religion as there is in politics, and in similar ways, too.



And one species of them may be right, of course. However, the way to eliminate the species of claimed Christian that cannot be as claimed is to cross off the list any who attempt to coerce society as a whole into any sort of religious or moral habit. Christ was all about 'Take it or leave it,' not straitjackets, nor even nominality.



Yes, indeed.


Both the greek and roman republics had their battles against tyrants and kings before they bacame free republics and perhaps you should do some reading on how the roman republic went from a republic to being an empire ruled by one man. The concept of the rule of law to which all are answerable is something we take from the romans. You might also find how religion was cynically manipulated and the bible carefully edited to enforce the rule of an elite interesting.

The dominant polity of 'classical' societies tended to be hierarchical, the beliefs monolithic and coerced.


Your own republic owes a great deal to those classical societies (sure I read somewhere washington saw himself as a latter day cincinattus) clearly they were not seen as the herarchical and coercive political models you imagine them to be but an ideal to aspire to. The framers of your constitution were very careful to make sure religion be kept in it's place and not allowed to become the disruptive and oppressive force it was in europe. Ancient societies in europe were not all the autocracies you seem to imagine, elected kings were a common feature, if you want a modern day example of what they were lke have a look at the icelandic example, 85% participation from the electorate and a resounding no to bailing out the banks. it took religion to make regicide a mortal sin leading to eternal damnation.

You can't have freedon of speech when you are not allowed to criticise religion you have to break it's power first. Look at your own attitudes for instance, you would really prefer it if no one could challenge your cherished belief system wouldn't you. You can talk about christianity and you can talk about religion, pity you can't really seperate the two.

Funny thing, religious bogots can deplore bigotry when practiced by others but see nothing wrong with their own behaviour.

gmc writes:

Funny thing, religious bogots can deplore bigotry when practiced by others but see nothing wrong with their own behaviour.
This is human nature, and not limited to religion, but yes, far too often we see this in a religious setting.

LarsMac;1362530 wrote: This is human nature, and not limited to religion, but yes, far too often we see this in a religious setting.
Indeed we do.

LarsMac;1362530 wrote: gmc writes:

This is human nature, and not limited to religion, but yes, far too often we see this in a religious setting.


So does relgion exacerbate that tendency? I would say monotheism does in particular, I've met far more religious bigots than I ever did political ones. On the other hand maybe religion just brings out both the best and worst in people.

gmc;1362538 wrote: So does relgion exacerbate that tendency? I would say monotheism does in particular, I've met far more religious bigots than I ever did political ones.


In the states, political and religious are about equal, though many are one in the same.

I have also seen this kind of behavior in scientists. (hard as that may be to believe.)

On the other hand maybe religion just brings out both the best and worst in people.
Seems so.