The all new, totally accepted, bigotry thread - "Blame a Christian"

[Mr. Dictator]

A simple addition of the ages in the genealogies roughly give a number close to 600 years from present. You have to be blind not to see that

Which means next to nothing, in realityland.

 

[Borachio]

If God is all there realy is then there is no third or second party. In fact then there is no problem at all.

I wonder if you mean this the way I would like you to mean it. (I find it difficult to express what this is)

I am pretty sure that the hypothesis is that Christians ruined that love for the rest of those in their sphere of influence. .

How?

Its not only a Christians who have had quite pathetic contribution in spiritual field its valid for the rest of the mankind as well. But then again somebody like Christ or some other pure and mature soul can "buy" us some more time...
Another thing you have to consider that there are forces who work in opposition to any spiritual development. Its not an easy task.

This, I think, is mostly true.


Socrates? Bah! Xanthippe.

 

[Ajidica]

A simple addition of the ages in the genealogies roughly give a number close to 600 years from present. You have to be blind not to see that

So we should put bind faith in a small group of bronze-age mystics rather than using our God-given intellect and reason to look at our world through the scientific method?

 

[Traitorfish]

Iron ages mystics, technically. Most of the genealogies in the Bible weren't made up recorded until hundreds or, in many instances, thousands of years after the individuals in question are supposed to have died. Abraham doesn't really appear in the literary record until the Babylonian exile, for example, more than a thousand years after he is said to have died.

 

[_random_]

Out of interest, is this something that you've ever undertaken personally? I'm told that there have been numerous different results ranging from six to twelve thousand years old, depending on how the text is interpreted, so it would be interesting to know if there's any reason why you nail your colours to this particular mast.

The 4004 BC goes back to Bishop James Usher, who made a Biblical chronology in accords with the contemporary consensus on the earths's age among scholars and scientists. Biblical records aren't compoets or consistent enough to result in a single accurate date.Read more here.

 

[Formaldehyde]

And so I find myself asking for a third time, do you actually have any criticism of the philosophical content of the article, rather than reproachful complaints about the tone in which it was written?

I see no philosophical content because it was just a whine about a "little idea" of "modern atheism" and the "small minds" who perpetuate it. Perhaps you can point out the actual philosophical content in that article, because neither I nor the person I quoted earlier could seem to find it?

In fact, many of the comments at the end of the article suggest the same lack of actual philosophical content. Here is an excellent example:

I think that the main strawman in this piece is in identifying New Atheism as an intellectual movement. It isn’t. It’s a political and social movement. This is not a criticism of it. The anti-slavery movement or suffragette movement weren’t really intellectual movements either.

It is hard for middle-class people living in the developed world outside the United States to understand why it’s an important social movement. You have to understand that for all the rhetoric of freedom and equality, the United States is a deeply prejudiced nation, and always has been. (You may recall that the US didn’t have universal suffrage until 1965, for example.)

So while they may not be the most disadvantaged group, Atheists in the United States do need a civil rights movement, and theists should offer them any support (moral or otherwise) that we can.

rjosephhoffmann's response to some of the similar criticism by quoting Robert Frost shows what he appears to think the real issue is:

Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,
That wants it down!” I could say “Elves” to him,
But it’s not elves exactly, and I’d rather
He said it for himself.

rjosephhoffmann seems to think the purpose of atheism is to somehow counter theism philosophically. To show it should be abandoned, not because it requires faith in the supernatural, but because atheism has a more sound philosophical basis. That atheists are trying to "build a wall" around theism instead of merely rejecting it for having no logical basis. I would counter that the "little mind" is just the opposite. That atheism and agnosticism don't really need to be rationalized at all. But if he and other "philosophers" really wish to do so, go right ahead. The rest of us will continue to use science as the basis for our understanding of the world instead of mysticism and sophistry.

Those who believe in a religion should be "offended" by this completely imaginary "wall" of atheism any more than they should be offended by science. If they are, it certainly isn't atheism or science which is to blame.

 

[Agent327]

Indeed.

I'm told that there have been numerous different results ranging from six to twelve thousand years old, depending on how the text is interpreted, so it would be interesting to know if there's any reason why you nail your colours to this particular mast.

So you´d have to be slightly visually handicapped to say:

A simple addition of the ages in the genealogies roughly give a number close to 600 years from present. You have to be blind not to see that

The ages mentioned there can´t be taken literal, meaning you can´t ´add up´ anything. This is precisely the kind of mathematical nonsense I was implying.

 

[Algeroth]

Richard Dawkins certainly doesn't have his academic credentials when it comes to religion. But the tables are completely turned when it comes to science, especially evolution.

Yes, because Dawkins haz all the evolution.

 

[Borachio]

Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.

I expect we all know this.

from Latin religi, religin-, perhaps from religre, to tie fast; see rely.

Perhaps to bind together?

So we should put bind faith in a small group of bronze-age mystics rather than using our God-given intellect and reason to look at our world through the scientific method?

Actually mysticism has a long history. There has been some good, recent, though of course highly speculative, research into stone-age mysticism. In the fertile crescent after the last ice age.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yes, because Dawkins haz all the evolution.

Well, unlike many who criticize evolution, evolutionary biology is kind of his job.

 

[Algeroth]

Well, unlike many who criticize evolution, evolutionary biology is kind of his job.

So, he shouldn't criticize religion, till philosophy and history became kind of his job? Seems rather restrictive, but it has a chance to get rid of the awkwardness he constantly produces.

 

[Traitorfish]

I see no philosophical content because it was just a whine about a "little idea" of "modern atheism" and the "small minds" who perpetuate it. Perhaps you can point out the actual philosophical content in that article, because neither I nor the person I quoted earlier could seem to find it?

I'm referring to the discussion of a contrast between an atheism which approaches the non-existence of God as something with profound implications for our understanding of the human condition, as in the case of Sartre, and an atheism which treats the non-existence of God is as a simple statement of physical reality, as in the case of Dawkins and his associates. If you would allow yourself to stop tripping over every unkind inflection, then it should not be that hard to discern. He makes it rather explicit.

rjosephhoffmann seems to think the purpose of atheism is to somehow counter theism philosophically. To show it should be abandoned, not because it requires faith in the supernatural, but because atheism has a more sound philosophical basis. That atheists are trying to "build a wall" around theism instead of merely rejecting it for having no logical basis. I would counter that the "little mind" is just the opposite. That atheism and agnosticism don't really need to be rationalized at all. But if he and other "philosophers" really wish to do so, go right ahead. The rest of us will continue to use science as the basis for our understanding of the world instead of mysticism and sophistry.

At the risk of sounding facetious, could you explain to me the distinction between science and God, in your understanding?

(Edit: To try minimise my confusion, I'm particularly thinking of the functionality of the concepts, that is, the role they fulfil in a given world-view, rather than a simple list of static characteristics of the "potatoes are X, Y and Z" variety.)

 

[Flying Pig]

So, he shouldn't criticize religion, till philosophy and history became kind of his job? Seems rather restrictive, but it has a chance to get rid of the awkwardness he constantly produces.

No, but the point is that when he speaks about matters of fact concerning evolutionary biology, you need a damn good reason to say that he's wrong, because his job is to know and to teach people about evolutionary biology! In the same way, I don't think he'd debate the meaning of the Bible with the Archbishop of Canterbury; his arguments are about engaging religion on his own playing field, where he can speak with authority.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So, he shouldn't criticize religion, till philosophy and history became kind of his job? Seems rather restrictive, but it has a chance to get rid of the awkwardness he constantly produces.

Your use of "So" puzzles me. It's as if it's a logical conclusion to take. The quote you reacted to:

Richard Dawkins certainly doesn't have his academic credentials when it comes to religion. But the tables are completely turned when it comes to science, especially evolution.

Which merely states which credentials the man has. He has every right to criticize religion, but since it's not his area of expertise we should expect him to be less credible in those areas than evolutionary biology. He has been shown to make an assumption or two which didn't hold up to close scrutiny. I'm not saying his criticism is void of credibility. He has made many valid points with regard to it.

Maybe I'm interpreting your comment: "Yes, because Dawkins haz all the evolution" wrongly. But him having that education makes him rather knowledgeable in the field.

 

[warpus]

Behold trees. Standing upright with arms stretched heavenward in praise and worship to the Almighty. So would we all stand if God revealed Himself directly, as we would have no power to resist Him.

But God grants us free will to choose. To make a choice involves consideration. I pray you will consider God and I trust Him to save you if you do.

Rembering this, that for all things there is a season, and as the winter comes withering the leaves and leaving a tree's limbs as bare ruined choir lofts, so also comes the day when men shall no longer have the hope of eternal joy facing instead the fate of a fallen tree rotting in cold dead isolation.

Or fueling the fires of a reaper's furnace.

Behold BACON. Sizzling gracefully with little drops of bacon fat erupting heavenward in praise and worship to the not so mighty. So would we all sizzle if we were blessed to be strips of bacon ourselves, as we'd have no power to resist the heat of the pan.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think the reason why you no longer see many atheists worrying about "the profound implications for our understanding of the human condition" which a godless society is ostensibly supposed to cause is simply because this is no longer the early 20th Century. We have now learned through experience that atheists and agnostics aren't the amoral or immoral objects of ridicule and vilification which some Christians try to make them out to be. That societies dominated by atheists and agnostics don't become cesspools of debauchery and vileness. That, if anything, atheists and agnostics tend to show they are more consistently moral than their religious counterparts.

Regarding the difference between science and god is concerned, it is as vast as the difference between night and day or apples and oranges. They really have nothing to do with each other. The former is concerned with providing a rational and objective framework to understand the world around us which can continue to develop over time. The latter brushes all that aside and attempts to provide a religious basis instead. That the mysteries of the universe are merely the creation of a supernatural being who was apparently created himself by some other infinite progression of supernatural beings.

I think philosophy is far more similar to religion than it is to science. Perhaps that is why rjosephhoffmann is really so upset. He doesn't like all the 15 minutes of fame which people like Richard Dawkins are now getting by merely being public about their atheistic views and have become unofficial spokespeople. In many ways, it is unfortunate that one must typically write a populist book and appear on O'Reilly where he will try to ridicule you before your name gets into the public spotlight. That is the cross that the rjosephhoffmanns, who spent so many years getting doctors of theology and later lost their faith, must bear.

 

[Formaldehyde]

So, he shouldn't criticize religion, till philosophy and history became kind of his job? Seems rather restrictive, but it has a chance to get rid of the awkwardness he constantly produces.

Why should legitimate scientists be restricted from voicing their opinions about their views when people like Bill "the tides come in, the tides go out" O'Reilly has his own TV pulpit nearly every night of the week?

rjosephhoffmann certainly didn't have any problem expressing philosophical and even scientific views with no actual credentials in those fields.

When I have actually listened to Richard Dawkins, I am constantly struck about how little awkwardness he produces himself. That seems to occur far more frequently with those whom he is discussing matters. Take his interview with Bill O'Reilly I posted earlier, for example. I used to believe the same thing, but now I don't. We need far more of them to counter the incessant propaganda generated by the other side. Someone has to appear on the O'Reilly show and patiently explain that we now know exactly what forces cause the tides.

 

[Borachio]

Excellent thread! I can't follow it all.

Behold BACON. Sizzling gracefully with little drops of bacon fat erupting heavenward in praise and worship to the not so mighty. So would we all sizzle if we were blessed to be strips of bacon ourselves, as we'd have no power to resist the heat of the pan.

Diogenes, you know, would of course eat the bacon raw. Or do you mean "France is bacon"?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mysticism is with us yet. And you don't have far to look to find it. Its reputation is very mixed.

Conservative Christians can probably tell you better than I which are the better ones in its tradition. I would point to John of the Cross. But there are a great many others, which I have largely forgotten. More modern are people like Joseph Chilton Pearce. Though I don't believe he is mainstream Christian.

Other traditions have them in abundance. The Sufis deserve a special mention.

There are even one or two C20th secular mystics.

It is though very tricksy stuff.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think the reason why you no longer see many atheists worrying about "the profound implications for our understanding of the human condition" which a godless society is ostensibly supposed to cause is simply because this is no longer the early 20th Century. We have now learned through experience that atheists and agnostics aren't the amoral or immoral objects of ridicule and vilification which some Christians try to make them out to be. That societies dominated by atheists and agnostics don't become cesspools of debauchery and vileness. That, if anything, atheists and agnostics tend to show they are more consistently moral than their religious counterparts.

Grand, but that has nothing to do with Hoffman's article. Do you think that Sartre, the humanist-Marxist, regarded humans as hopelessly "amoral" without God? Do you think that he concluded his investigation into angst by proffered the creaking bones of the Catholic Church as a metaphysical security blanket?

Perhaps you would do better to address what Hoffman actually said, rather than whatever straw-Christian you're addressing here.

Regarding the difference between science and god is concerned, it is as vast as the difference between night and day or apples and oranges. They really have nothing to do with each other. The former is concerned with providing a rational and objective framework to understand the world around us which can continue to develop over time. The latter brushes all that aside and attempts to provide a religious basis instead. That the mysteries of the universe are merely the creation of a supernatural being who was apparently created himself by some other infinite progression of supernatural beings.

What about, for example, the conception of God discussed by Descartes, which was understood as representing a supreme universal logic, and playing the role of an epistemological guarantor for rational inquiry into the external universe? Does that clash as fiercely as you describe with the mission of "science"? Keeping in mind that Descartes was himself a mathematician and an anatomist- or, in other words, a scientist.

It's really no good to keep harping away about a conception of God that no serious philosopher or theologian has actually entertained since the Hellenistic period. You'll score points against the fundies, and you're quite free to occupy yourself in the endeavour, but Dawkins et al. are not exactly content to draw a line there. It's no good criticising people for believing X when their actual beliefs have only a genealogical relation to X.

I think philosophy is far more similar to religion than it is to science.

Could you elaborate? Preferably with reference to some rough definitions of "philosophy", "religion" and "science"; they are not self-evident.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Grand, but that has nothing to do with Hoffman's article. Do you think that Sartre, the humanist-Marxist, regarded humans as hopelessly "amoral" without God? Do you think that he concluded his investigation into angst by proffered the creaking bones of the Catholic Church as a metaphysical security blanket?

Not at all. And he did much to lay the groundwork for those who became atheists and agnostics later. But once again, this isn't the early 20th Century. Those objections by Christians which Satre was addressing proved to be groundless.

What about, for example, the conception of God discussed by Descartes, which was understood as representing a supreme universal logic, and playing the role of an epistemological guarantor for rational inquiry into the external universe? Does that clash as fiercely as you describe with the mission of "science"? Keeping in mind that Descartes was himself a mathematician and an anatomist- or, in other words, a scientist.

Again, Descartes was instrumental in creating the groundwork which is the basis for modern day atheism and agnosticism by encouraging rationalism. But more than anything else he was a natural philospher, even though he did much to also further the scientific method. Those days are long gone. Science has now basically divorced itself completely from philosophy, and rightfully so.

It's really no good to keep harping away about a conception of God that no serious philosopher or theologian has actually entertained since the Hellenistic period. You'll score points against the fundies, and you're quite free to occupy yourself in the endeavour, but Dawkins et al. are not exactly content to draw a line there. It's no good criticising people for believing X when their actual beliefs have only a genealogical relation to X.

As Dawkins explained in the O'Reilly video, he has no issues with those who wish to believe whatever they wish. The people who no longer believe that atheism and agnosticism are some sort of evil, and that science is their instrument for propagandizing their children are not the objects of his concern. His only real objections occur when they try to force himself and others to believe the same things as they do. Those who will not even allow evolution to be taught in schools are the group which he is so opposed, not those who wish to have faith in a supreme being because it personally helps them cope with life.

Could you elaborate? Preferably with reference to some rough definitions of "philosophy", "religion" and "science"; they are not self-evident.

I would hope they certainly should be self-evident.

Science is now completely divorced from the other two. That is why those who have widely divergent religious beliefs can be scientists just as long as they accept the scientific method.

Philosophy and religion are somewhat similar because they address the same basic subject matter. However, the former uses rational arguments as its only basis and the latter requires faith.