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

[Borachio]

Just opened new thread for those of you who think you can do better than Christianity. Good luck.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Same paragraph also claims that Darwin didn't see himself as an atheist, so apparently he's an agnostic Christian.

Or just a plain agnostic? Atheist means you don't believe in a God, agnostic means you don't know, so if you don't have any opinion you'd be agnostic. Or even agnostic theist. But there's not really such thing as an agnostic Christian, since Chrisitanity implies following Christ, and Agnostic implies you don't even know if there's a God or not, the two do not mesh.

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

Can I assume you meant to type 6,000? In any case, if you add them all up like that, that is indeed how it is, however many ancient Hebrew chronologies skipped unimportant members of the family, so the Earth could potentially be a bit older than 6,000 and the Biblical account still be true.

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

Sartre addressed who now in the what?

I think that you might still not quite understand that Hoffman was getting at.

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.

How do you imagine this divorce to have occurred, and why do you think that it is a good thing? Again with reference to coherent definitions of "science" and "philosophy"; an answer wouldn't be much good without them.

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. 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.

Have you read The God Delusion, at all? In the book, Dawkins explicitly steps beyond that position, which is roughly equivalent to the concept of "Non-overlapping magisteria" as described by Gould, and in fact criticises that position as anti-scientific. He may not wish to forcefully impose atheism or irreligiosity upon them, but it's a simple mistruth to say that he's concerned with no more than a defence of secularism.

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.

Again, could you please define the terms? Earnest as I'm sure your hope is, I do not know what you mean by the them, and I don't want to confuse the matter by simply assuming.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Can I assume you meant to type 6,000? In any case, if you add them all up like that, that is indeed how it is, however many ancient Hebrew chronologies skipped unimportant members of the family, so the Earth could potentially be a bit older than 6,000 and the Biblical account still be true.

Except it totally wouldn't be true. It'd be a factoid, if it at least seemed true.

 

[Leoreth]

Or just a plain agnostic? Atheist means you don't believe in a God, agnostic means you don't know, so if you don't have any opinion you'd be agnostic. Or even agnostic theist. But there's not really such thing as an agnostic Christian, since Chrisitanity implies following Christ, and Agnostic implies you don't even know if there's a God or not, the two do not mesh.

It would be nice if you properly quoted me, so I can see that you're replying to me.

Anyway, agnostic does not mean "you don't know" or that you don't have an opinion. Agnosticism is the position that you cannot conclusively know whether God exists. You can still adhere to a religion without this kind of certainty, or you cannot (I consider myself an agnostic atheist, for example). Since Darwin seems to explicitly deny that he's an atheist, and was a Christian before he "became" agnostic (the article implies he lost certainty of God's existence when he grew older), I think it's reasonable to assume he was an agnostic Christian.

If you want to quibble about this by making up personal definitions of Christianity (as so often ), please go ahead, but the point of this discussion was how Darwin viewed himself, and the article you linked to doesn't support "not Christian".

 

[Ajidica]

however many ancient Hebrew chronologies skipped unimportant members of the family,

If I tried something like that with any of my professors ("I just skipped talking about Talleyrand and Castlereagh in the Congress of Vienna because they were weren't that important even though my thesis is about about Conservatism all across Europe.") they would first laugh and me, and then drop my F to a F------.
If I can't get away with that, then why should be Bible get away with that? If God is too lazy to order some Iron Age mystics to keep writing then is He really God?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think that you might still not quite understand that Hoffman was getting at..

I understand completely what he was getting at. Richard Dawkins and most atheists and agnostics who are so outspoken are certainly no philosophers. But I don't see any signs from those two articles that rjosephhoffmann is either. He is merely pointing out the obvious in a very obnoxious manner.

Have you read The God Delusion, at all? In the book, Dawkins explicitly steps beyond that position, which is roughly equivalent to the concept of "Non-overlapping magisteria" as described by Gould, and in fact criticises that position as anti-scientific. He may not wish to forcefully impose atheism or irreligiosity upon them, but it's a simple mistruth to say that he's concerned with no more than a defence of secularism.

No, I have not. And I see no real point in doing so. I find most populist books by scientists to be so much rubbish.

But here is what wiki states are the 4 basic premises:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

Dawkins writes that The God Delusion contains four "consciousness-raising" messages:

Atheists can be happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled.

Natural selection and similar scientific theories are superior to a "God hypothesis"—the illusion of intelligent design—in explaining the living world and the cosmos.

Children should not be labelled by their parents' religion. Terms like "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" should make people cringe.

Atheists should be proud, not apologetic, because atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind.[4]

I certainly can't find anything which is so reprehensible about these basic tenets. Nor do I object in any way to this description of his "offensive" against certain pervasive practices:

The God Delusion is not just a defence of atheism, but also goes on the offensive against religion. Dawkins sees religion as subverting science, fostering fanaticism, encouraging bigotry against homosexuals, and influencing society in other negative ways.[25] He is most outraged about the teaching of religion in schools, which he considers to be an indoctrination process. He equates the religious teaching of children by parents and teachers in faith schools to a form of mental abuse. Dawkins considers the labels "Muslim child" or a "Catholic child" equally misapplied as the descriptions "Marxist child" or a "Tory child", as he wonders how a young child can be considered developed enough to have such independent views on the cosmos and humanity's place within it.

While I disagree with him about the right of parents to indoctrinate their children no matter how reprehensible I personally think that is, I think it is clear that Dawkins is no philosopher with formal training in that discipline. But who really cares? I think that Dawkins has done far more to highlight the real issues that currently plague our society than any atheist philosopher of recent memory, including rjosephhoffmann if he actually is one.

 

[warpus]

Or just a plain agnostic? Atheist means you don't believe in a God, agnostic means you don't know, so if you don't have any opinion you'd be agnostic. Or even agnostic theist.

If you don't believe you are an atheist, meaning that if you do not hold an opinion you are one as well (since you do not believe).

Anyway..

 

[Flying Pig]

But here is what wiki states are the 4 basic premises:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

I certainly can't find anything which is so reprehensible about these basic tenets. Nor do I object in any way to this description of his "offensive" against certain pervasive practices:

Perhaps the idea that there are 'no religious children' raised hackles among religious parents?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Why should they even care? Is a 5-year-old guilty of sin for stealing a cookie? Why can't children make up their own minds what to believe once they actually have the knowledge to properly do so? Why do they feel the need to indoctrinate them as they were indoctrinated themselves?

My mother was an agnostic or perhaps even an atheist, but all of her religious relatives essentially forced her to make sure that my brother and I were indoctrinated as well by getting her to promise to do so.

 

[Borachio]

Why should they even care? Is a 5-year-old guilty of sin for stealing a cookie? Why can't children make up their own minds what to believe once they actually have the knowledge to properly do so? Why do they feel the need to indoctrinate them as they were indoctrinated themselves?

My mother was an agnostic or perhaps even an atheist, but all of her religious relatives essentially forced her to make sure that my brother and I were indoctrinated as well by getting her to promise to do so.

You cannot stop children making up their own minds. I and my siblings were brought up in a very conventional (well fairly conventional) High Anglican household. Some of my earliest memories were about being read to about Jesus, and looking at the pictures. I remember asking to be baptised when I was about three, because my siblings had been so "dunked". I remember being baptised. I went to church every Sunday morning and Sunday school in the afternoons. I was confirmed at 10. etc etc
I myself first had my doubts when I was about 7 on being told that animals didn't go to heaven, thinking that if it wasn't good enough for them then it probably wasn't good enough for me. My siblings and I all drifted away from Christianity in our early teens. And apart from one very brief dalliance with it later (I'm being awfully honest) I really haven't had anything to do with it. Though I have continued to think about it. Probably wasting a lot of valuable time.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That is certainly true for many of them. But I imagine that the number who be quite a bit fewer if they weren't indoctrinated as children. Just look at how quickly atheism and agnosticism have spread in Western Europe compared to the US. The percentage of the population who believe in a god seems to have much to do with it, and I think this is why it is disturbing to so many Christians.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

This thread seems to be the most on-topic thread i've seen in OT, it's about anti-Christian bigotry, and people are staying on the subject of how stupid Christians are!

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

rugby! I used to love watching the 5/6 nations - when I had a TV.

Grrrrrr . Wrong sport . LEAGUE is in capitals for a reason . But I digress .
I like your new thread by the way

 

[Arakhor]

This thread seems to be the most on-topic thread i've seen in OT, it's about anti-Christian bigotry, and people are staying on the subject of how stupid Christians are!

Only because that's what you're looking for, which is really easy to do when you conflate any sort of vaguely religious criticism as "anti-Christian bigotry".

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

This thread seems to be the most on-topic thread i've seen in OT, it's about anti-Christian bigotry, and people are staying on the subject of how stupid Christians are!

I gotta remember how you define "anti-Christian bigotry". It seems to be "anything negative said about anyone anywhere who might claim to be Christian, except Barack Obama because he's obviously a Muslim."

 

[JollyRoger]

This thread seems to be the most on-topic thread i've seen in OT, it's about anti-Christian bigotry, and people are staying on the subject of how stupid Christians are!

And providing examples.

 

[Dachs]

And providing examples.

And he slides the rapier in.

 

[Traitorfish]

I understand completely what he was getting at. Richard Dawkins and most atheists and agnostics who are so outspoken are certainly no philosophers. But I don't see any signs from those two articles that rjosephhoffmann is either. He is merely pointing out the obvious in a very obnoxious manner.

In what sense is it obvious? You quoted Nietzsche in defence of Dawkins and against Hoffman, when it was to philosophers like Nietzsche who Hoffman was comparing Dawkins and finding him wanting, so it is apparently not quite as obvious as all that.

No, I have not. And I see no real point in doing so. I find most populist books by scientists to be so much rubbish.

But here is what wiki states are the 4 basic premises:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

I certainly can't find anything which is so reprehensible about these basic tenets. Nor do I object in any way to this description of his "offensive" against certain pervasive practices:

While I disagree with him about the right of parents to indoctrinate their children no matter how reprehensible I personally think that is, I think it is clear that Dawkins is no philosopher with formal training in that discipline. But who really cares? I think that Dawkins has done far more to highlight the real issues that currently plague our society than any atheist philosopher of recent memory, including rjosephhoffmann if he actually is one.

I don't recall saying anything about "offence" or "reprehensible". I frankly have no idea what you think that has to do with anything. I'm simply observing that Dawkins makes on a number of philosophical arguments in the text, and I don't really see why he should be exempt from the background reading that wouldb be expected of any first year philosophy student.

Of course, you could make some argument in regards to the philosophy/science distinction you claimed earlier, but you seem to have neglected to respond to that part of my post. Care to revisit it, or...?

 

[Borachio]

Wrong sport . LEAGUE is in capitals for a reason . But I digress .
I like your new thread by the way

Yes I know. But still, do you never watch Union? I know the flavour is completely different with very different rules. But they are close cousins, aren't they?

I was always struck, in the days when League was professional and Union all amateur, how very different in fitness the players were.

I rather thought this thread had drifted a bit. But what do I know?

I think the Christians take it very well. And didn't they start the thread?

Do you think a Muslim would do this? Would you dare criticise Islam in this way?