 |
| |
|
|
Logical Realist
|
|
California
Jan 2002
time: 21:17
|
|
I decided to change threads as the last one dealt more with homophobes and I'd rather keep each thread focused on its topic:
Like DM says we diagree on a lot of things. One being whether Christians as a group can be judged. DM think we must judge them on an individual basis but I disagree.
On this basis:
1) Generlaizations can be accurate. I think history shows that mine is.
2) Generalizations can be efficient. People don't have enough time and rescources to always judge people individually.
For example the Nazis of WW2. The US didn't have enough time to judge each Nazi and each possible "Interpretation" of Mein Kampf before we had to decide whether Nazis as a group were bad.
Likewise rationalists today do not have all the resources to judge each Christian individually before making criticisms and taking actions. Those who state that this gives rationalists no basis for criticism commit the perfectionist fallacy. No criticism is ever perfect or so fine tuned as to take into account every possible exception in a world of 6 billion plus human beings. To say that this makes all criticism as a whole unwarranted though is a pretty weak argument.
3) If a group of people by definition go aganist certain positive values I hold, I may judge that group. For example if I dislike racists on principle, anyone who is by definition a racist is disliked to a certain degree. I don't like faith,supernaturalism or irrationalism, hence to a degree Christians as a group are judged on those principles.
Now for my critics:
David Floyd: quote:
The atheist philosophy, or whatever word you want to use, promotes the belief that there is no God. |
Atheism means "without" belief in a God. Not "there is no God", though I'd adop the latter in reference to Christianity. This is derived from breaking the word down, a-meaning without. Theism-belief in God. Atheism is thus, without or lack of belief in God.
It promotes nothing. It promotes a certain viewpoint no more then A-elfism or non-belief in faries promotes a certain viewpoint.
Atheists can adhere to a great many,often conflicting viewpoints. There are existentialists,marxists,rationalists,relativists,
objectivist and buddhist atheists. Each with their own set of conflicting and differing views.
In that way atheists have no more in common then A-elfists have something in common. To hold all atheists accountable for what a certain group of atheists do is like holding a group of people who don't believe in faries accountable for what other non-believers in faries did(which is almost the whole world) even though the groups have little if anything in common.
That is why it is so futile to generalize on the basis of a negative, usually.
Now atheists in the US do tend to be pro-science and reason. And will usually unite against theists(obviously) but this does not entail any commonalities among eachother, yet again with other nonbelievers in other nations.
To form a valid generalization you should focus on a positive belief or trait. Since that sort of belef entails far more commonalities.
quote:
And you can say that Christians have gone on Crusades, bombed abortion clinics, whatever, but I'd say 1)that people who do such things aren't really Christians, and 2)for every wrong committed by a Christian I could easily name another committed by an atheist. Let's not bring Mao or Stalin or Pol Pot into this, because using extremist examples like them to bash atheists would be just as "illogically unrealistic" (ie stupid as hell) as your examples of extremist Christians. |
1) That's a simple commitment of the "No true scotsman" fallacy.
2) Can you? You still are genralizing on the basis of a negative, which is far too vague and unrelated a trait. Stalin and Mao were a specific kind of atheist with a specific kind of ideology: Marxism. Now you can perhaps criticize Marxism,(certainly Maoism and Stalinism) on the basis of such examples, But to criticize atheists as a whole is ridiculous.
quote:
I think it's reasonable to say that someone who goes on a killing spree either is not a Christian in the Biblical sense, or has serious psychological problems. |
Why not? If this was extremely rare, I could understand it. But it's not. And the religious motivations for many acts like these are obvious. In the Bible it allows people to murder,rape and such, God even commanded it sometime. Also it allows for self-defense and the protection of inocence, if fetuses are seen as "innocent" babies about to be murdered then one has a duty to protect them, in the religious pro-life viewpont.(Not to say that Christianity is necessarily pro-life as I doubt Jesus said anything about fetuses).
The Bible also gave the Pope authority to do as he deemed in accordance with the Lord's will. Hence the Crusades were justified in that sense according to Xianity.
quote:
That was Old Testament Law, applicable only to the Israelites, because they lived in a theocracy with God as the sole king (well, until Saul, David, and Solomon anyway). |
Where in the New Testament does it condemn or take back OT law? A lot of people say it does, but I am yet to find a single shred of evidence to support that assertion.
quote:
DM, can you reconcile modern Christianity, which I would define as post-Jesus, emphasis on the NT books written by Paul and various Disciples, with the Old Testament?
If not, I would maintain that the Old Testament was written for a differnet people living under a different law in a different set of circumstances. |
That is an obvious case of switching the Burdn of Proof. I think it is up to you to show that the NT somehow makes the OT outdated.
Sirotnikov:
quote:
B) You're way too orthodox about religions. You learnt about the basic rules of a certain religion and then think that every person of that religion is the same and blindly accepts every such right. |
Keep in mind this: The Bible is supposed to be(and the Torah) the word of God. You aren't supposed to pick and choose what scriptures you obey.
Also that when I criticize a piece of literature and belief I don't have enough to time to think of any possible variation of "interpretation": some Skin-head for example might interpret Mein Kampf in a totally symbolic way. But such an interpretation is unfounded and therefore irrelavent, as are most revisionist interpretations of Holy Books.
The literal interpretation is often best to guy by,unless there is reason not too. This is because without it set as a standard...literally anything goes. In that case I could interpret the Torah to be not better, but worse then its literal interpretation would warrant.
quote:
If you fight a person's views you fight his views. Not a generalization of them that you happen to know. |
You seem to define Christianity here and other religions with any possible exception that may appear. That is ridiculous, if given a special viewI will focus on that. But I can also at the same time generalize if I find reason to do so, and criticize a generally held belief system.
Just like a certain philsophy, I can criticize existentialism or Marxist econimic theory as a whole based on its most common views. If a another view comes up I work with that, but until it does I will criticize the standard viewpoint for that belief system. Also remember here I'm focusing on group effect, in which case individual exception become irrelevant.
Kaak:quote:
Most CHRISTIANS do not follow the old testament. |
Actually most do to an extent. Think of th whole Ten Commandmens issue. Like I said before there is no evidence that NT dictums make OT laws outdated.
It all comes down to whether a religious body can ever be judged as a group. I think they can because people who tend to believe the same thing tend to act in the same manner, that's the nature of cultural memes.
Many say "nay" on the basis of there possibly being variation, but these variations have been few in number and seem to not provide eough force to cancel out the very negative effects. Where were the nice Christians during the Crusades or Witchtrials?
Fundamentalists will always have numbers and influence within religious bodies because the fundamentalist interpretation requires the fewest assumptions, and is the most obvious. It is also the best at providing the much sought after good vs. evil viewpoint which is part of the whole supernaturalist mentality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Logical Realist
|
|
California
Jan 2002
time: 21:17
|
|
Fellow atheist Yanster: quote:
Go to Google and search for "violence religion". You get 866,000 hits. Put in "violence atheism" -- you get 20,200. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kaak
|
|
this was the most perfect threadjacking i think i have ever seen...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Logical Realist
Sirotnikov: |
Hi 
quote:
Keep in mind this: The Bible is supposed to be(and the Torah) the word of God. You aren't supposed to pick and choose what scriptures you obey. |
Keep in mind this: you aren't arguing with bible fanatics here.
When you argue with me, you argue against my views.
Now you are convincing me that I'm a bad religios person since I don't interpert the Torah in the same way orthodox people do?
quote:
Also that when I criticize a piece of literature and belief I don't have enough to time to think of any possible variation of "interpretation": some Skin-head for example might interpret Mein Kampf in a totally symbolic way. But such an interpretation is unfounded and therefore irrelavent, as are most revisionist interpretations of Holy Books. |
I disagree.
Mein Kampf was written for a certain purpose in mind, and that is rationalising the nazi conquest wars and war on jews.
The Bible was written by many different authors for hundreds of years. It contains many different perspectives and many different ideas.
Some of it is laws, some is poetry, some is "history", some is stories.
And you are wrong not to think of possible interpretations.
While one person may see the right to carry arms as a lisence to kill, another will see it as a lisence to defend himself if the need be.
quote:
The literal interpretation is often best to guy by,unless there is reason not too. |
How about this:
It's a freaking literature piece!
Except for some of the laws, it was never meant to be taken literally.
That's the freaking problem of orthodox people, that they insist taking everything literally.
quote:
This is because without it set as a standard...literally anything goes. |
I disagree.
I think that there are limits of logic with in which one can interpert a piece. And also now there are limits of state law. So even if I believe the bible allows me to murder a person because he stole my cow, or whatever, I can't do that since the law says I can't.
The bible should be left for personal life issues. While we can extract laws on which we can agree (ie no killing, no stealing) laws such as 'no eating pork' are personal and therefore shouldn't be made laws.
quote:
In that case I could interpret the Torah to be not better, but worse then its literal interpretation would warrant. |
As long as you do it for your personal things, and decide that not only can't you eat pork, but you can't eat meat at all, you're welcome.
But if you decide it's ok to slaughter non-believers, this begins to hurt people so I wouldn't agree to that.
quote:
You seem to define Christianity here and other religions with any possible exception that may appear. That is ridiculous, if given a special view I will focus on that. But I can also at the same time generalize if I find reason to do so, and criticize a generally held belief system. |
Then say you're fighting a genralization, and I will make room for those who believe in it to argue with you.
quote:
Just like a certain philsophy, I can criticize existentialism or Marxist econimic theory as a whole based on its most common views. If a another view comes up I work with that, but until it does I will criticize the standard viewpoint for that belief system. |
Sure you can.
But it would be annoying if I just say that some social laws are right, and you would start arguing how Marx was wrong in his communist ideal, since I don't believe in his ideal.
quote:
Also remember here I'm focusing on group effect, in which case individual exception become irrelevant. |
But today religion is very much a personal bussiness.
At least in the christian and jewish circles I know.
What you are talking about is organized religion, and I agree that it is dangerous and often gave the organziers opportunities to abuse their power, and they usually did.
quote:
Kaak:
Actually most do to an extent. Think of th whole Ten Commandmens issue. Like I said before there is no evidence that NT dictums make OT laws outdated. |
My point again.
If he thinks it is then for him it is.
You can argue with his views or you can argue with some general views.
Don't come criticizing him he doesn't agree with those general views you're used to argue against, though.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kaak
|
|
LR- the basic problem you have here is this. Your premisis is bad. Any logical person would realize this.
quote:
Generlaizations can be accurate. I think history shows that mine is. |
Huge mistake. Christians are a very diverse group of people with very diverse beliefs.
Simple logic problem for you.
assumptions:
Catholics are Christians
Baptists are Christians
Catholics revere the virgin mary.
Baptists do not revere the virgin mary.
therefore baptists and catholics have differing beliefs about the virgin mary.
It is good that you paid attention in your OT class, but perhaps you should take religions of the world too. And there is no burden of proof to show that the NT makes the OT outdated. It is a generally excepted fact that christians do not follow the OT in any literal sense. You attend a baptist university. If you think so, they you are blind.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-02-2002 14:16
|