Atheists reject 100% of the gods that have ever been posited. Christians reject 99.99% of the gods that have ever been posited, retaining only the 1 god they believe in. Agreeing on 99.99% of anything is almost unheard of. Christians and Atheists should be able to get along. We are more like each other than humans and chimps. With our level of agreement, we could form a coalition government in a parliamentary system.
There isn't even that level of agreement between the various denominational branches of Christianity ???
Also, what's that to say? I care little for such numbers ;D
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 06, 2011, 03:03:37 AM
With our level of agreement, we could form a coalition government in a parliamentary system.
As long as its completely secular, I'm in.
The issue is that 0.01% just so happens to be one of the biggest points of debate we've ever seen on this earth. The fact that people get angry, spiteful, personally insulted and more whenever the fact that many others do not agree on that point comes to surface.
Now were that 0.01% over whether or not bananas were, in fact, the most beautiful fruit, I highly doubt there would be nearly as much of an issue between Christians and Atheists.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 06, 2011, 03:03:37 AM
Atheists reject 100% of the gods that have ever been posited. Christians reject 99.99% of the gods that have ever been posited, retaining only the 1 god they believe in. Agreeing on 99.99% of anything is almost unheard of. Christians and Atheists should be able to get along. We are more like each other than humans and chimps. With our level of agreement, we could form a coalition government in a parliamentary system.
But that 0.01% is absolutly crucial as it could equally be said that Muslims (or any follower of an institutionalised superstition) and atheists are 99.99% in agreement. Now the fact is that the theist brings their dogma to the table and that's the bit that many atheists get fed up with. So if you leave your dogma at home when you come out to play then fine. If not, then be prepared to get asked difficult questions about why somebody who bases their world view on fairy stories is fit to govern.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 06, 2011, 05:15:45 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 06, 2011, 03:03:37 AM
With our level of agreement, we could form a coalition government in a parliamentary system.
As long as its completely secular, I'm in.
In an ideal world I would agree with this. In the UK, where admitting a strong theistic leaning is generally political suicide, it functions adequately at the moment.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 06, 2011, 03:03:37 AM
With our level of agreement, we could form a coalition government in a parliamentary system.
Not really. It's not the myriad things you do agree on that prevent you from forming a coalition - it is that one issue you
disagree on. And I, for one, would not form government with representatives from the Christian People's Party or whatever it is they call themselves.
It comes down to whether or not the issue being disagreed on is considered important by either or both parties. If not, they can work together. If yes, they can try, but may well fail. If vital, there will be no cooperation.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 06, 2011, 03:03:37 AM
With our level of agreement, we could form a coalition government in a parliamentary system.
The problem is that a government needs to be inclusive of everyone in society, not an exclusive group like Christians.
Ecurb Noselrub
This thread appears to be about minimising the importance of your faith in your world view to make you appear more attractive to atheists, that reads as slightly disingenuous to me. You are a pastor and as such I can't imagine that your faith doesn't pervade every aspect of your world view all the time. Thus everything you say and do are informed by your faith. It's that situation that I feel would make it impossible for atheists to form a coalition with you, or anybody like you, as I don't believe you can truly separate your faith from your day-to-day opinions; how could you?
What would you say if asked your opinion on abortion? Would it be informed from a completely dogma free opinion? I would contend that it would be impossible for you to hold an opinion that is not influenced by your Christian world view. That's perfectly acceptable but this does illustrate why a theist carries a whole load of dogma that can't be ignored in a political context.
Ecurb, I like the sentiment, but we are idealogically immiscible.
Possibly a more productive way forward is for you to seek to ally with all other religions. Then you could work together for the common aim of bringing peace to the world. That is god's will, right?
Once you have worked out amongst yourselves what the stumbling blocks might be to this coalition and then mitigated them out to a workable agreement, then approach me and ask if I want to join.
Until then, I'm out.
Scissorlegs raises a good point that while there is still more than one institutionalised superstition (religion) each has to rely on special pleading to assert its preeminence. If all theists and deists could agree on one definition of the supernatural, how that supernatural realm interacts with the natural realm and offer evidence that it does so then I would start to consider the arguments. Until then the arguments of any one person or group are meaningless as more people disagree with any one view than agree with it.
Quote from: KingPhilip on October 06, 2011, 05:31:55 AM
Now were that 0.01% over whether or not bananas were, in fact, the most beautiful fruit, I highly doubt there would be nearly as much of an issue between Christians and Atheists.
F that dude, the peach is way perrtier. ;)
The problem with the way that Ecurb Noselrub put it is that it doesn't matter if you're in agreement that at least 99,99% of the gods ever posited don't exist, I don't see how basing ideology-driven actions on what you don't believe makes any sense. ???
Even atheists aren't a group that are in 100% agreement.
What I don't understand is that Christians have reasons that they use to not believe in 99.99% of the gods and, although these same reasons apply equally to their god of choice, they still decide to believe in their god.
This irrational logic cannot be trusted, and certainly must not be allowed to taint government decisions.
I disagree, I don't think it is just 0.01% difference. Religion, or lack of religion, is a worldview. A worldview can cover a lot of other "issues".
-traditional gender roles
- the age of the planet
- evolution
- the basis of morality
- the role of logic/reason when it comes to an argument/position
-miracles
-faith
-humankind's "purpose"
-what will cause the "end of the world"
-genetic engineering
- euthanasia
-contraceptives/fertility treatments
- sexuality (homosexuality, pre-martial sex, sex education, etc)
The list goes on and on.
Now, I'm not saying that every christian takes the same stance on every one of these issues and every atheist takes a different stance, but these are issues that I would say have fairly strong ties to a worldview based on an atheist or theist position. I would argue that that "one little thing" shapes a whole lot about how we feel about a lot of other, often very politicized, "things".
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 06, 2011, 03:03:37 AM
Atheists reject 100% of the gods that have ever been posited. Christians reject 99.99% of the gods that have ever been posited, retaining only the 1 god they believe in. Agreeing on 99.99% of anything is almost unheard of. Christians and Atheists should be able to get along. We are more like each other than humans and chimps. With our level of agreement, we could form a coalition government in a parliamentary system.
I hope this was a joke! To me it seems 100% proof that politics and religion should be kept well apart.
I'd look at it another way, you believe in your god, I and the other atheists on this forum don't. Therefore in terms of religious beliefs we are poles apart. Political views are something entirely different, and I don't base those on my lack of belief in gods.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 07, 2011, 01:42:06 AM
Political views are something entirely different, and I don't base those on my lack of belief in gods.
Sure, but my political views are based in critical thought, so the two aren't that disparate. What is the percentage of "Tea Partiers" that are theists? Or, better, born again, fundamentalist Christians? I'm guessing the number is in the 90th percentile. :)
Quote from: Tank on October 06, 2011, 08:28:52 AM
I would contend that it would be impossible for you to hold an opinion that is not influenced by your Christian world view. That's perfectly acceptable but this does illustrate why a theist carries a whole load of dogma that can't be ignored in a political context.
Don't you think it possible for a politician, at least an honest and honorable one (OK, I'm living in a dreamland but go with it for a moment), to separate his personal beliefs and preferences from what is right or constitutional to impose on others, to keep the beliefs that guide the choices he makes for himself separate from the choices he makes in the name of the public? For instance, I'm personally opposed to abortion but I wouldn't vote to make or keep it illegal.
Quote from: Tank on October 06, 2011, 08:28:52 AM
This thread appears to be about minimising the importance of your faith in your world view to make you appear more attractive to atheists, that reads as slightly disingenuous to me. You are a pastor and as such I can't imagine that your faith doesn't pervade every aspect of your world view all the time. Thus everything you say and do are informed by your faith. It's that situation that I feel would make it impossible for atheists to form a coalition with you, or anybody like you, as I don't believe you can truly separate your faith from your day-to-day opinions; how could you?
Well, you've made quite a few assumptions without having any personal knowledge to back them up, but I suppose most of us do the same. You've taken certain facts such as "you are a pastor" and assumed that everything in my life is informed by that. The fact that I am a pastor or a Christian has nothing to do with my mandolin playing or the fact that I like Chilean Sea Bass. It is one aspect of my life, and human lives are invariably complex. I'm sure I have inconsistencies in my life, as do you, and things that appear irreconcilable. My point in the OP was, in a very light-hearted way, to emphasize that as humans there is more that unites us than separates us. I disagree with many Christians on many matters, and agree with many atheists on many others. You've lumped me into a single category and made a prejudicial determination about my attitudes on the entirety of life. But that's a pretty standard, human response.
Quote from: Tank on October 06, 2011, 08:28:52 AM
What would you say if asked your opinion on abortion? Would it be informed from a completely dogma free opinion? I would contend that it would be impossible for you to hold an opinion that is not influenced by your Christian world view. That's perfectly acceptable but this does illustrate why a theist carries a whole load of dogma that can't be ignored in a political context.
While I have a high regard for all human life, including such life
in utero, I also think that government should stay out of the private, moral decisions of individuals. So while I may disagree with someone about the advisability of an abortion in a particular case, I accept the constitutional scheme set out in Roe v. Wade and its progeny. In other words, it's none of my business, generally, what a woman does with her pregnancy.
What dogma do I carry that cannot be ignored in a political context?
Quote from: Stevil on October 06, 2011, 07:28:12 PM
What I don't understand is that Christians have reasons that they use to not believe in 99.99% of the gods and, although these same reasons apply equally to their god of choice, they still decide to believe in their god.
This irrational logic cannot be trusted, and certainly must not be allowed to taint government decisions.
You don't know that it's irrational until you have asked a particular Christian why he/she believes in Jesus but not in Zeus. He/she may have a rational reason, or at least one that is not irrational.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 07, 2011, 03:33:10 AM
Quote from: Tank on October 06, 2011, 08:28:52 AM
I would contend that it would be impossible for you to hold an opinion that is not influenced by your Christian world view. That's perfectly acceptable but this does illustrate why a theist carries a whole load of dogma that can't be ignored in a political context.
Don't you think it possible for a politician, at least an honest and honorable one (OK, I'm living in a dreamland but go with it for a moment), to separate his personal beliefs and preferences from what is right or constitutional to impose on others, to keep the beliefs that guide the choices he makes for himself separate from the choices he makes in the name of the public? For instance, I'm personally opposed to abortion but I wouldn't vote to make or keep it illegal.
Exactly. A Christian politician could very well feel strongly about a particular moral issue, but have an equally strong feeling about separation of church & state, or individual liberty, or some other political principle. Sometimes principles collide, and the politician has to strike a balance between the two. There is nothing outrageous about someone being personally against abortion, but coming down in favor of individual liberty when considering public policy.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on October 06, 2011, 09:02:19 AM
Ecurb, I like the sentiment, but we are idealogically immiscible.
Only on the single issue of the existence of one god. It is quite possible that politically we might be aligned on 99 issues while being opposed on one religious issue. My general point is that theists and atheists often miss opportunities to work together because they focus on their differences. Theists are probably worse about this than atheists.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 07, 2011, 04:00:33 AM
You don't know that it's irrational until you have asked a particular Christian why he/she believes in Jesus but not in Zeus. He/she may have a rational reason, or at least one that is not irrational.
For example?
Could you please firstly define what you mean by 'rational' in this case and how it differs, if it does, from 'meaningful'?
I really don't see how any religious philosophy can be rational ???, and I'm not talking about "rational" in the Pascal's Wager sense.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 07, 2011, 03:33:10 AM
Quote from: Tank on October 06, 2011, 08:28:52 AM
I would contend that it would be impossible for you to hold an opinion that is not influenced by your Christian world view. That's perfectly acceptable but this does illustrate why a theist carries a whole load of dogma that can't be ignored in a political context.
Don't you think it possible for a politician, at least an honest and honorable one (OK, I'm living in a dreamland but go with it for a moment), to separate his personal beliefs and preferences from what is right or constitutional to impose on others, to keep the beliefs that guide the choices he makes for himself separate from the choices he makes in the name of the public? For instance, I'm personally opposed to abortion but I wouldn't vote to make or keep it illegal.
I think that some theists can compartmentalise very effectively and in a secular society, like the UK, where overt religious belief can often work against a politician things are generally ok. Tony Blair kept his theistic beliefs very much to himself while he was in politics. However in the USA where a politician will often play the religion card to get elected they can hardly then do an about turn when in office and become wonderfully secular. Particularly the Republicans. Until recently I thought GOP meant 'Gods Own Party' ;D
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 07, 2011, 03:55:46 AM
Quote from: Tank on October 06, 2011, 08:28:52 AM
This thread appears to be about minimising the importance of your faith in your world view to make you appear more attractive to atheists, that reads as slightly disingenuous to me. You are a pastor and as such I can't imagine that your faith doesn't pervade every aspect of your world view all the time. Thus everything you say and do are informed by your faith. It's that situation that I feel would make it impossible for atheists to form a coalition with you, or anybody like you, as I don't believe you can truly separate your faith from your day-to-day opinions; how could you?
Well, you've made quite a few assumptions without having any personal knowledge to back them up, but I suppose most of us do the same. You've taken certain facts such as "you are a pastor" and assumed that everything in my life is informed by that. The fact that I am a pastor or a Christian has nothing to do with my mandolin playing or the fact that I like Chilean Sea Bass. It is one aspect of my life, and human lives are invariably complex. I'm sure I have inconsistencies in my life, as do you, and things that appear irreconcilable. My point in the OP was, in a very light-hearted way, to emphasize that as humans there is more that unites us than separates us. I disagree with many Christians on many matters, and agree with many atheists on many others. You've lumped me into a single category and made a prejudicial determination about my attitudes on the entirety of life. But that's a pretty standard, human response.
Quote from: Tank on October 06, 2011, 08:28:52 AM
What would you say if asked your opinion on abortion? Would it be informed from a completely dogma free opinion? I would contend that it would be impossible for you to hold an opinion that is not influenced by your Christian world view. That's perfectly acceptable but this does illustrate why a theist carries a whole load of dogma that can't be ignored in a political context.
While I have a high regard for all human life, including such life in utero, I also think that government should stay out of the private, moral decisions of individuals. So while I may disagree with someone about the advisability of an abortion in a particular case, I accept the constitutional scheme set out in Roe v. Wade and its progeny. In other words, it's none of my business, generally, what a woman does with her pregnancy.
What dogma do I carry that cannot be ignored in a political context?
Nice response. I appologise for baiting you a little to see how you responded. Your response was rational and measured, unlike one member who told me that with me as a Father my kids would surely go to hell. Yes, I don't know you very well yet, but on the basis of this response I'm really glad you came a joined in.
Living in the UK it's quite difficult to actually have theological discussion in public. After reading The God Delusion in 2006 I didn't believe it was possible that some of the characters that Dawkins described could really exist. So I joined the Richard Dawkins Forum (RDF) and soon found that the type of theists Dawkins describes do inhabit the Internet in a big way. I don't think one can completly extrapolate from the self selecting audience on a forum and the real world, but on forums one does tend to get some serious nut jobs who are so bound up in their faith they have lost almost all ability to see and interact with the real world.
You appear to take a very pragmatic view of your faith and that's fine by me. You can draw an effective dividing line between your world view and that of others. I just wish more people could do that.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 07, 2011, 04:03:51 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 07, 2011, 03:33:10 AM
Quote from: Tank on October 06, 2011, 08:28:52 AM
I would contend that it would be impossible for you to hold an opinion that is not influenced by your Christian world view. That's perfectly acceptable but this does illustrate why a theist carries a whole load of dogma that can't be ignored in a political context.
Don't you think it possible for a politician, at least an honest and honorable one (OK, I'm living in a dreamland but go with it for a moment), to separate his personal beliefs and preferences from what is right or constitutional to impose on others, to keep the beliefs that guide the choices he makes for himself separate from the choices he makes in the name of the public? For instance, I'm personally opposed to abortion but I wouldn't vote to make or keep it illegal.
Exactly. A Christian politician could very well feel strongly about a particular moral issue, but have an equally strong feeling about separation of church & state, or individual liberty, or some other political principle. Sometimes principles collide, and the politician has to strike a balance between the two. There is nothing outrageous about someone being personally against abortion, but coming down in favor of individual liberty when considering public policy.
I agree with what Tank said, if someone had this kind of attitude, I would have no problem with them in a political office. ;D
QuoteWell, you've made quite a few assumptions without having any personal knowledge to back them up, but I suppose most of us do the same. You've taken certain facts such as "you are a pastor" and assumed that everything in my life is informed by that.
Our assumptions cannot be helped, sorry to say, what with all the drive-by idiots and considerably more conservative theists...unlike yourself...that frequent the board.
Forgive us our trespass.....*winkin with a grin*
Welcome to HAF.
However, if you are a Christian Pastor, you
should know that your life, and your belief in the after life revolves around that Christianity and by default, your life
should be guided and defined by it. As for politics, Jesus says to "give no thought for the morrow" and "do not resist the evil of others". It should be anathema for you to even consider a future politician and equally abhorrent to watch Christian Politicians swear an oath to their office.
Quote from: Stevil on October 07, 2011, 07:08:15 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 07, 2011, 04:00:33 AM
You don't know that it's irrational until you have asked a particular Christian why he/she believes in Jesus but not in Zeus. He/she may have a rational reason, or at least one that is not irrational.
For example?
If a person has a religious experience involving Jesus which is powerful enough to convince that person that he/she had encountered Jesus (like it or not, such experiences occur), then that person has a reason for believing in Jesus. Since he/she has had no such experience with Zeus or Thor or Baal, he/she has a reason, based in personal experience, for believing in Jesus but not in Zeus or Thor or Baal. If you have personally experienced X, you have some basis for believing that X exists, and therefore are not irrational for having that belief. You may interpret that experience differently than another observer, but you are not just founding your belief on a holy book or what someone else has told you. You have had some personal experience that forms the foundation of your belief in one thing, whereas you may not have any such basis for a belief in something else.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 07, 2011, 07:55:54 AM
Could you please firstly define what you mean by 'rational' in this case and how it differs, if it does, from 'meaningful'?
I really don't see how any religious philosophy can be rational ???, and I'm not talking about "rational" in the Pascal's Wager sense.
"Rational" simply means based on or in accordance with reason or logic. If there is a "reason" for believing in something, and one's thought process in arriving at the belief generally follows the rules of logic, it's rational. To tie it in with "meaningful", a person may have a "meaningful" religious experience that convinces that person that Jesus is "alive" in some manner. Then that person may examine some ancient historical documents and find some evidence that Jesus was historical. The combination of these two factors in a logical manner can give rise to a belief that the historical Jesus was who Christianity has claimed - the son of God. Since that faith is based on both personal experience and historical analysis, it is not irrational, even though it may not convince anyone else.
Quote from: Tank on October 07, 2011, 10:54:51 AM
Living in the UK it's quite difficult to actually have theological discussion in public. After reading The God Delusion in 2006 I didn't believe it was possible that some of the characters that Dawkins described could really exist. So I joined the Richard Dawkins Forum (RDF) and soon found that the type of theists Dawkins describes do inhabit the Internet in a big way. I don't think one can completly extrapolate from the self selecting audience on a forum and the real world, but on forums one does tend to get some serious nut jobs who are so bound up in their faith they have lost almost all ability to see and interact with the real world.
There is no question that not just the Internet, but the world in general, is full of fundamentalist, ideological thinkers who cannot make fine distinctions, and see everything in black and white. It's frustrating as a Christian to see my faith so populated with people who just don't know how to think. Those fundamentalist thinkers (Christian variety) will scream that Jesus is the Prince of Peace and that God is love because the Bible says so, and if you don't believe that, you are going to hell and deserve to be killed. It's only a few steps away from radical Islam (the most dangerous of all fundamentalist world views). It's disappointing.
Quote from: Gawen on October 07, 2011, 05:35:29 PM
However, if you are a Christian Pastor, you should know that your life, and your belief in the after life revolves around that Christianity and by default, your life should be guided and defined by it. As for politics, Jesus says to "give no thought for the morrow" and "do not resist the evil of others". It should be anathema for you to even consider a future politician and equally abhorrent to watch Christian Politicians swear an oath to their office.
It's a little curious to hear an atheist tell me what my life should be like as a Christian, but suffice it to say that the teachings of Jesus that impact me the most are the ones that tell me to love one another as he loved, to forgive (and you will be forgiven), to give (and it will be given to you), to not judge (and you will not be judged), and to not condemn (and you will not be condemned). I vote because I think it is everyone's duty to be involved in their society, but I don't talk about politics in any teachings/sermons in my congregation. I leave it up to them to decide for whom they should vote. I've found that it makes very little difference in my daily life which party is in power.
Selecting what teachings you would adhere to and throw away the others makes you no different than any other so-called Christian in my mind. This is not meant to be antagonistic in any means. These are the problems and potential hypocrisies you must decide to work out and help out those under your auspices as well.
And, I am known at work as the guy to go to for scripture when all the other co-worker 'believers' have questions of their own religion and a small part of Islam. It is not so curious or uncanny to me at all. I've known more atheists that know more of the Bible (and in context) than the vast majority of 'Christians' I've ever known. Of course I chalk it up to a willingness to explore and apply critical thinking toward Biblical criticism and history, whereas Christians do not...or, in all probability, they would not be a Christian.
As for politics,
QuoteI vote because I think it is everyone's duty to be involved in their society...
I think Jesus said in Matt "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"....and "give no thought for the morrow" for two examples. What I did not know is that Jesus taught civic duty in anything other than the way to gain salvation.
How one reconciles the teachings of the Hebrew Bible, the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Paul would indeed be a daunting task...without being able to cherry pick the stuff one deems as good. With such an ambiguously written guide for life such as the Bible, I'm so very glad I am not a Christian.
I'm not 99.99% in agreement with most Christians....agreeing on one aspect of a diverse topic is not anything approaching actual agreement.
Thankfully most Christians don't actually believe most of the stuff in the bible and have a strong tendency to take the good and reject the bad so they are still okay to hang out with. But I sure do wish they'd tell their loudmouth fundamentalist brothers to shut the hell up.
Quote from: Gawen on October 08, 2011, 04:19:44 AM
Selecting what teachings you would adhere to and throw away the others makes you no different than any other so-called Christian in my mind. This is not meant to be antagonistic in any means. These are the problems and potential hypocrisies you must decide to work out and help out those under your auspices as well.
The "scriptures" were selected for us many years ago. There is nothing that prevents me from selecting differently, based upon my own personal experience. Scripture is not as big an issue for me as many Christians I know. Jesus never said that he would leave us a perfect book with all the answers. He said that he would leave his spirit. That's more important to me than any scripture.
99.9% in agreement for the non-existence of gods only but not in agreement with everything that can be attributable to the bible or god. Seems legit.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 08, 2011, 02:35:28 AM
Quote from: Stevil on October 07, 2011, 07:08:15 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 07, 2011, 04:00:33 AM
You don't know that it's irrational until you have asked a particular Christian why he/she believes in Jesus but not in Zeus. He/she may have a rational reason, or at least one that is not irrational.
For example?
If a person has a religious experience involving Jesus which is powerful enough to convince that person that he/she had encountered Jesus (like it or not, such experiences occur), then that person has a reason for believing in Jesus. Since he/she has had no such experience with Zeus or Thor or Baal, he/she has a reason, based in personal experience, for believing in Jesus but not in Zeus or Thor or Baal. If you have personally experienced X, you have some basis for believing that X exists, and therefore are not irrational for having that belief. You may interpret that experience differently than another observer, but you are not just founding your belief on a holy book or what someone else has told you. You have had some personal experience that forms the foundation of your belief in one thing, whereas you may not have any such basis for a belief in something else.
Sorry but I don't buy this (what a surprise :D ).
Religious visions happened before Jesus arrived and still happen to people who have no idea Jesus exists, eg isolated tribes in the Amazon basin and the Congo. Now if there were multiple examples of common experiences coming out of unpolluted sources we could say there was some evidence for a common cause, but one would still have to establish that the cause was supernatural before one could attribute deistic intent.
If a Muslim has a religious vision they will attribute that to Allah. Each visionary will attribute their personal vision to their particular version of god. So if personal religious experiences were to share a common cause all visions would be inspired to extol the virtues of a particular deity. Thus ALL visions would be attributable for example to say Allah. But they are not are they? So what we see happening here is personal preferential interpretation of a totally subjective experience, with no commonality except that influenced by the individual's personal biases induced by education and/or culture.
If one had a 'vision' would one admit to having hallucinations, which would make people worry about one, or would one claim a spiritual vision that would enhance one's position in ones societal group? I would say the latter. What is a vision other than a hallucination or dream? Before we gained some understanding of the purpose and operation of the brain we had no alternative but to posit an external influence that created visions (hallucinations or dreams). We now know that an external influence is not needed. We understand the operation of the brain sufficiently to understand that chemical imbalances, physical structure and injury can cause extreme visions.
So having a vision may convince the individual that have experience god, but that interpretation isn't rally valid as simpler explanations exist that do not require the existence of an interventionist deity.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 08, 2011, 04:39:26 AM
Jesus never said that he would leave us a perfect book with all the answers. He said that he would leave his spirit. That's more important to me than any scripture.
So you make stuff up based on how you feel on the inside? You read your own feelings, you use your reasoning and critical thinking to view the world?
Maybe you are not so different to an Atheist.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 08, 2011, 02:44:54 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 07, 2011, 07:55:54 AM
Could you please firstly define what you mean by 'rational' in this case and how it differs, if it does, from 'meaningful'?
I really don't see how any religious philosophy can be rational ???, and I'm not talking about "rational" in the Pascal's Wager sense.
"Rational" simply means based on or in accordance with reason or logic. If there is a "reason" for believing in something, and one's thought process in arriving at the belief generally follows the rules of logic, it's rational. To tie it in with "meaningful", a person may have a "meaningful" religious experience that convinces that person that Jesus is "alive" in some manner. Then that person may examine some ancient historical documents and find some evidence that Jesus was historical. The combination of these two factors in a logical manner can give rise to a belief that the historical Jesus was who Christianity has claimed - the son of God. Since that faith is based on both personal experience and historical analysis, it is not irrational, even though it may not convince anyone else.
But personal experience is subjective and history is questionable so faith on that basis is irrational isn't it? One would not buy a second hand car based on a dream and that had no service history and an odometer reading at odds with the age of the car would one?
Logic is a tool in the same way a chisel is. A chisel can be used to create, or abused to kill. Logic can also be used and abused. What makes logic and a chisel valuable is material and intent. Basing a logical argument on a false premise is the same as giving a master mason shoddy material. Using logic to define reality is useless unless the premis is founded on reality.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 08, 2011, 02:56:25 AM
Quote from: Gawen on October 07, 2011, 05:35:29 PM
However, if you are a Christian Pastor, you should know that your life, and your belief in the after life revolves around that Christianity and by default, your life should be guided and defined by it. As for politics, Jesus says to "give no thought for the morrow" and "do not resist the evil of others". It should be anathema for you to even consider a future politician and equally abhorrent to watch Christian Politicians swear an oath to their office.
It's a little curious to hear an atheist tell me what my life should be like as a Christian, but suffice it to say that the teachings of Jesus that impact me the most are the ones that tell me to love one another as he loved, to forgive (and you will be forgiven), to give (and it will be given to you), to not judge (and you will not be judged), and to not condemn (and you will not be condemned). I vote because I think it is everyone's duty to be involved in their society, but I don't talk about politics in any teachings/sermons in my congregation. I leave it up to them to decide for whom they should vote. I've found that it makes very little difference in my daily life which party is in power.
I'm surprised that you find this curious as about half the athists that frequented RDF were ex-theists. An ex-smoker is perfectly entitled to have an opinion on smoking and the behaviour of smokers. In fact one may consider the ex-smoker as a better observer of the situation vis-a-vis the benefits/detriments of smoking as they have experienced both sides of the argument.
Just a thought, but humans share the vast majority (exact figure depends on interpretation) of their genes with chimps, yet we are very different from chimps in one crucial respect; intelligence. The premise of the OP mixes a linear variable (99.99 vs 0.01) where the relationship is not linear, the small posited difference is not directy proportional to the effect of the difference.
I do not think that a "personal experience" of God is a good basis for belief, because it totally absolves someone of responsibility for their actions or using any kind of personal discretion.
God has "told" a lot of people to do some pretty horrible stuff.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/god-told-me-to-kill-boys-says-mother-558706.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/god-told-me-to-kill-boys-says-mother-558706.html)
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=7e1aebea-03b8-4cb5-8edd-eb705e1c04ba (http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=7e1aebea-03b8-4cb5-8edd-eb705e1c04ba)
http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2011/03/man-who-says-god-told-him-to-k.php (http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2011/03/man-who-says-god-told-him-to-k.php)
And yes, you might say to yourself, "Well, God wasn't REALLY talking to them, they're just nuts!". But to them, the experience was real. Real enough to go and kill their loved ones. These weren't criminals, drug addicts or homeless loons on the street. These were functional members of society (one of which, a pastor), who thought they had a real "religious experience". If you're arguing that "personal experience" is a good basis, it must be a good basis for everyone, not just people who don't, in retrospect, turn out to be "crazy".
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on October 08, 2011, 04:20:38 PM
I do not think that a "personal experience" of God is a good basis for belief, because it totally absolves someone of responsibility for their actions or using any kind of personal discretion.
God has "told" a lot of people to do some pretty horrible stuff.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/god-told-me-to-kill-boys-says-mother-558706.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/god-told-me-to-kill-boys-says-mother-558706.html)
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=7e1aebea-03b8-4cb5-8edd-eb705e1c04ba (http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=7e1aebea-03b8-4cb5-8edd-eb705e1c04ba)
http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2011/03/man-who-says-god-told-him-to-k.php (http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2011/03/man-who-says-god-told-him-to-k.php)
And yes, you might say to yourself, "Well, God wasn't REALLY talking to them, they're just nuts!". But to them, the experience was real. Real enough to go and kill their loved ones. These weren't criminals, drug addicts or homeless loons on the street. These were functional members of society (one of which, a pastor), who thought they had a real "religious experience". If you're arguing that "personal experience" is a good basis, it must be a good basis for everyone, not just people, in retrospect, who turn out to be "crazy".
And if you think about it, they did have a rational reason for doing what they did, because there is the example of Abraham being told by god to kill his son to test his faith. Of course those people were crazy, but the reason was there from which they could construct a flawed rational sequence.
Ecurb Noselrub, what I meant by 'meaningful' was more in line with something that makes sense in a way, which includes false information and fallacies and is
more subjectively-based than objective. Because of this, you have people of all geographical locations and cultures interpreting their religious experiences in accordance with what's meaningful to them both culturally and biologically/psychologically.
For instance, when primitive peoples saw volcanoes erupt they thought that their god or gods were angry with them, and so tried to appease it in some way, usually involving some sacrifice of valuable goods (in India, for instance, they still "sacrifice" money on one of their religious sort of Thanksgiving holidays).
Would you say that someone "giving" something to the universe, god or a 'higher power' in order to bargain with it in some way is meaningful or rational? Are the people sacrificing livestock rational?
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on October 08, 2011, 04:20:38 PM
And yes, you might say to yourself, "Well, God wasn't REALLY talking to them, they're just nuts!". But to them, the experience was real. Real enough to go and kill their loved ones. These weren't criminals, drug addicts or homeless loons on the street. These were functional members of society (one of which, a pastor), who thought they had a real "religious experience". If you're arguing that "personal experience" is a good basis, it must be a good basis for everyone, not just people who don't, in retrospect, turn out to be "crazy".
I certainly hold religion accountable for this. Especially when they teach that god communicates to people personally and has a relationship with them. Also when they teach that god asks people to kill others e.g. Abraham and his son.
How on earth can a Christian determine the difference between god communicating or simply an imagined voice in their head?
I have always wondered how they would know it wasn't devil in stead of god.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 08, 2011, 04:39:26 AM
Quote from: Gawen on October 08, 2011, 04:19:44 AM
Selecting what teachings you would adhere to and throw away the others makes you no different than any other so-called Christian in my mind. This is not meant to be antagonistic in any means. These are the problems and potential hypocrisies you must decide to work out and help out those under your auspices as well.
The "scriptures" were selected for us many years ago. There is nothing that prevents me from selecting differently, based upon my own personal experience. Scripture is not as big an issue for me as many Christians I know. Jesus never said that he would leave us a perfect book with all the answers. He said that he would leave his spirit. That's more important to me than any scripture.
You just admitted that you do not buy what is written in the Bible; that scripture is not perfect, therefore not inspired or written by God and that selection of scripture is left to your own devising. Otherwise, a spirit helps you be a good Christian. I do not buy this any more than Tank bought what you wrote to him.
Basically, you just...'wing it'...so it seems. Do you, based upon your own personal experience, "select" from the Book of Mormon, extra-Biblical writings, non-canonical writings, JW's Watchtower?
Does the "spirit" point you to portions of Scientology, Islam? Wicca? Norse or Celtic mythology?
And ad others have asked, how do you know it's the Holy Spirit and not a demon or another God trying to fake you out?
As Ricky Ricardo says to Lucy....you gotta lotta splainin' to do.
Excellent points, Juliet...*clappin*
Quote from: Tank on October 08, 2011, 09:20:04 AM
Religious visions happened before Jesus arrived and still happen to people who have no idea Jesus exists, eg isolated tribes in the Amazon basin and the Congo. Now if there were multiple examples of common experiences coming out of unpolluted sources we could say there was some evidence for a common cause, but one would still have to establish that the cause was supernatural before one could attribute deistic intent.
If a Muslim has a religious vision they will attribute that to Allah. Each visionary will attribute their personal vision to their particular version of god. So if personal religious experiences were to share a common cause all visions would be inspired to extol the virtues of a particular deity. Thus ALL visions would be attributable for example to say Allah. But they are not are they? So what we see happening here is personal preferential interpretation of a totally subjective experience, with no commonality except that influenced by the individual's personal biases induced by education and/or culture.
If one had a 'vision' would one admit to having hallucinations, which would make people worry about one, or would one claim a spiritual vision that would enhance one's position in ones societal group? I would say the latter. What is a vision other than a hallucination or dream? Before we gained some understanding of the purpose and operation of the brain we had no alternative but to posit an external influence that created visions (hallucinations or dreams). We now know that an external influence is not needed. We understand the operation of the brain sufficiently to understand that chemical imbalances, physical structure and injury can cause extreme visions.
So having a vision may convince the individual that have experience god, but that interpretation isn't rally valid as simpler explanations exist that do not require the existence of an interventionist deity.
The individual having the experience, assuming the person is otherwise healthy, is in the best position to determine whether or not it constitutes a true experience of God. If the individual is otherwise psychotic or brain damaged, this principle would not apply. But for the otherwise competently functioning, well-educated, introspective adult, a religious experience can be both enlightening and convincing, not only bringing a level of confident faith, but also producing a sense of peace and well-being, and eliminating a great deal of existential angst. In such cases, there is a valid reason for believing that an encounter with God has occurred, whatever the social/cultural dressing that goes along with it. These experiences, while not capable of convincing anyone else, give the believer a basis for faith that is no irrational. Whether some "simpler explanations" exist is debatable. Occam's Razor is a nice rule of logic, but it is not invariably true. Sometimes the truth is more complex. I'm sure you could think of examples.
Quote from: Tank on October 08, 2011, 09:36:38 AM
But personal experience is subjective and history is questionable so faith on that basis is irrational isn't it? One would not buy a second hand car based on a dream and that had no service history and an odometer reading at odds with the age of the car would one?
The answer to your first question is "no." In a religious experience, the individual may be convinced that he/she has encountered a personal being. If I meet a person physically, I have some basis for believing that person exists. The only difference in a religious experience is that the physical element of a body is missing. But when you meet a person physically, you are not just meeting a body - there are also the intangible elements of mind and personality that are present in the experience. Those cannot be measured by any instrument, but they are present just the same. Think of a spiritual experience as simply being the experience of another person on the other side of a veil. This renders your second question irrelevant. This faith is not based on a "dream", but more on the experience of driving the car. This, coupled with whatever information you get from the history of the faith (which, as with any car, is not 100% complete), and the information you get from others who have driven similar cars (other believers), all work together to create a rational basis for purchasing the car. It's not 100% certain, of course, which is why it's called faith. You exercise faith every time you get in your car, you know.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on October 08, 2011, 04:20:38 PM
I do not think that a "personal experience" of God is a good basis for belief, because it totally absolves someone of responsibility for their actions or using any kind of personal discretion.
God has "told" a lot of people to do some pretty horrible stuff.
I disagree. My personal experience of God does not absolve me of responsibility for my actions. I'm not talking about an experience where God tells me to do something specific. I'm talking about the presence of the divine, an ecstatic experience where an individual becomes convinced of the reality of God in some manner. Now, if I had such an experience, and felt that God was telling me to kill someone, I would still be responsible for filtering that purported message through my own sense of logic and morality, as well as through the general teachings of that particular faith. Jesus, for example, never killed anyone or told his disciples to kill anyone. He is reported to have healed and helped people. For him now to tell me to kill would be blatantly inconsistent. It would also offend any sense of morality or logic that I have (part of which is informed for me by the Christian faith). So I deny that it relieves me of personal responsibility.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 08, 2011, 04:56:36 PM
Ecurb Noselrub, what I meant by 'meaningful' was more in line with something that makes sense in a way, which includes false information and fallacies and is more subjectively-based than objective. Because of this, you have people of all geographical locations and cultures interpreting their religious experiences in accordance with what's meaningful to them both culturally and biologically/psychologically.
For instance, when primitive peoples saw volcanoes erupt they thought that their god or gods were angry with them, and so tried to appease it in some way, usually involving some sacrifice of valuable goods (in India, for instance, they still "sacrifice" money on one of their religious sort of Thanksgiving holidays).
Would you say that someone "giving" something to the universe, god or a 'higher power' in order to bargain with it in some way is meaningful or rational? Are the people sacrificing livestock rational?
Such acts can be both meaningful and rational, given the context of the particular cultural circumstances. If the volcano was, in fact, a god, it would make all the sense in the world to sacrifice to it, if experience had indicated that this gave you some form of advantage. It wouldn't be rational for me, however, as I have access to knowledge that indicates that volcanoes are not gods, and that there are purely naturalistic reasons for the way they act. So, my faith is, to an extent, limited or circumscribed by the level of knowledge of my culture. Knowledge refines and refocuses faith. Rationality is, to a degree, simply following the rules of logic, but the premises determine if the conclusion is correct. The more advanced the society, the more likely its premises are correct, but we are perhaps no more adept at following logic than some more primitive cultures.
For me, I have no other explanation for some of my experiences than that an entity I call "God" or "Jesus" exists. It's my best explanation for what I have experienced. Therefore, for me, it's at least not irrational. Now, if I were psychotic generally or incapable of living life competently, this might not be the case. But I fare pretty well, so I see nothing irrational about my stance.
Quote from: Gawen on October 08, 2011, 08:40:43 PM
You just admitted that you do not buy what is written in the Bible; that scripture is not perfect, therefore not inspired or written by God and that selection of scripture is left to your own devising. Otherwise, a spirit helps you be a good Christian. I do not buy this any more than Tank bought what you wrote to him. [/quote]
I don't think that scripture is perfect, but that does not mean that it is all worthless. I try to evaluate each writing on its own merits. For example, I would assign a much higher value to Galatians than to II Peter, primarily for historical reasons. There is still, for me, a core of validity to the basic message of the early Christian writings, and that defines the parameters of my faith. So, I don't just "wing it."
Quote from: Gawen on October 08, 2011, 08:40:43 PM
And ad others have asked, how do you know it's the Holy Spirit and not a demon or another God trying to fake you out?
I go back to my original experience with the Holy Spirit, which occurred while I was reading a passage out of Matthew about Jesus. The experience of the Spirit, for me, corresponds to the gospel about Jesus. I don't ever remotely experience the same thing when I read the Book of Mormon (which I consider to be a fraud), or the Qur'an, or any other scripture. The experience of the Spirit always corresponds to Jesus, for me. The Spirit and the gospel are essentially two rails of the same track. And by the gospel, I mean the basic message, the
kerygma or proclamation, found in such places as I Corinthians 15 and several of the sermons in Acts - the earliest formulation of the Christian message about Jesus. The "gospel" for me is not the four canonical books
per se, but the core or essence of the message about Jesus. The Spirit and the gospel "witness" to each other, or confirm each other, in my experience.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 11, 2011, 02:53:49 AM
I don't think that scripture is perfect, but that does not mean that it is all worthless. I try to evaluate each writing on its own merits.
I'll be the first atheist to admit there are valuable teachings and admirable sentiments in the bible. Even if Christ was not the first one to suggest it, I've always been impressed by his enlarging the teaching to love ones neighbors to include loving ones enemies as well. Loving the neighbors is just practical advice (I'm sure we all know how miserable a feud with a neighbor can make things) but loving your enemies, where there might well be no practical advantage to you? That's radical thinking.
Quote
I go back to my original experience with the Holy Spirit, which occurred while I was reading a passage out of Matthew about Jesus. The experience of the Spirit, for me, corresponds to the gospel about Jesus. I don't ever remotely experience the same thing when I read the Book of Mormon (which I consider to be a fraud), or the Qur'an, or any other scripture.
Let me ask this, do you believe such an experience is equally valid if it does occur to someone who is reading the Qur'an, or Book of Mormon, or, for that matter, listening to stories featuring Kwan Yin or Rainbow Crow? Or if they're reading a collection of essays by a naturalist?
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 11, 2011, 03:15:23 AM
Let me ask this, do you believe such an experience is equally valid if it does occur to someone who is reading the Qur'an, or Book of Mormon, or, for that matter, listening to stories featuring Kwan Yin or Rainbow Crow? Or if they're reading a collection of essays by a naturalist?
If someone has a subjective experience that convinces them that they have been enlightened in a particular way, I'm really not in any position to dispute them. As I said, my experiences are convincing to me - I don't expect anyone else to be convinced by them. I accept that people of different faiths and world views (including naturalistic ones) have had very moving personal experiences. What I would like to see is a discussion among those people to see what the common threads are.
I've communicated with atheists who have had quite phenomenal experiences, such as one who knew the exact moment when his father died, even though he was thousands of miles away. I think these experiences point to realities that are beyond our current level of knowledge. Science is wonderful and I accept its findings, but I do not think that it is the only source of information about reality. My epistemology is multifaceted, I suppose.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 11, 2011, 03:43:41 AM
If someone has a subjective experience that convinces them that they have been enlightened in a particular way, I'm really not in any position to dispute them.
I suppose part of my question, which I should have made clearer, is if you subscribe to the notion that all gods are one god, or that all paths lead to god?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 11, 2011, 02:17:24 AM
Quote from: Tank on October 08, 2011, 09:20:04 AM
Religious visions happened before Jesus arrived and still happen to people who have no idea Jesus exists, eg isolated tribes in the Amazon basin and the Congo. Now if there were multiple examples of common experiences coming out of unpolluted sources we could say there was some evidence for a common cause, but one would still have to establish that the cause was supernatural before one could attribute deistic intent.
If a Muslim has a religious vision they will attribute that to Allah. Each visionary will attribute their personal vision to their particular version of god. So if personal religious experiences were to share a common cause all visions would be inspired to extol the virtues of a particular deity. Thus ALL visions would be attributable for example to say Allah. But they are not are they? So what we see happening here is personal preferential interpretation of a totally subjective experience, with no commonality except that influenced by the individual's personal biases induced by education and/or culture.
If one had a 'vision' would one admit to having hallucinations, which would make people worry about one, or would one claim a spiritual vision that would enhance one's position in ones societal group? I would say the latter. What is a vision other than a hallucination or dream? Before we gained some understanding of the purpose and operation of the brain we had no alternative but to posit an external influence that created visions (hallucinations or dreams). We now know that an external influence is not needed. We understand the operation of the brain sufficiently to understand that chemical imbalances, physical structure and injury can cause extreme visions.
So having a vision may convince the individual that have experience god, but that interpretation isn't rally valid as simpler explanations exist that do not require the existence of an interventionist deity.
The individual having the experience, assuming the person is otherwise healthy, is in the best position to determine whether or not it constitutes a true experience of God. If the individual is otherwise psychotic or brain damaged, this principle would not apply. But for the otherwise competently functioning, well-educated, introspective adult, a religious experience can be both enlightening and convincing, not only bringing a level of confident faith, but also producing a sense of peace and well-being, and eliminating a great deal of existential angst. In such cases, there is a valid reason for believing that an encounter with God has occurred, whatever the social/cultural dressing that goes along with it. These experiences, while not capable of convincing anyone else, give the believer a basis for faith that is no irrational. Whether some "simpler explanations" exist is debatable. Occam's Razor is a nice rule of logic, but it is not invariably true. Sometimes the truth is more complex. I'm sure you could think of examples.
Personally if somebody told me they had spoken to God I would consider that prima-facia evidence that they were mad. Sorry about that as it implies that I think you are 'touched' and there is no two ways about it, I think you are. :(
But in a day-to-day sense you are perfectly functional and represent no threat to those around you so in that sense I'd treat you as a harmless eccentric. A good person with an odd world view because it's your actions that you should be judged by not your thoughts.
I realise what I wrote was blunt, but I see not good reason to lie about what I think, any more than you should.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 11, 2011, 02:26:18 AM
Quote from: Tank on October 08, 2011, 09:36:38 AM
But personal experience is subjective and history is questionable so faith on that basis is irrational isn't it? One would not buy a second hand car based on a dream and that had no service history and an odometer reading at odds with the age of the car would one?
The answer to your first question is "no." In a religious experience, the individual may be convinced that he/she has encountered a personal being. If I meet a person physically, I have some basis for believing that person exists. The only difference in a religious experience is that the physical element of a body is missing. But when you meet a person physically, you are not just meeting a body - there are also the intangible elements of mind and personality that are present in the experience. Those cannot be measured by any instrument, but they are present just the same. Think of a spiritual experience as simply being the experience of another person on the other side of a veil. This renders your second question irrelevant. This faith is not based on a "dream", but more on the experience of driving the car. This, coupled with whatever information you get from the history of the faith (which, as with any car, is not 100% complete), and the information you get from others who have driven similar cars (other believers), all work together to create a rational basis for purchasing the car. It's not 100% certain, of course, which is why it's called faith. You exercise faith every time you get in your car, you know.
No one does not exercise Faith when getting in a car, one exercises judgement based on previous experience in the real world. As for your spiritual interaction with others I'll believe that when I see consistent, reproducible evidence. Although I don't dismiss out of hand that there
could be as yet unexplained 'psychic' communication between people.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 11, 2011, 02:32:12 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on October 08, 2011, 04:20:38 PM
I do not think that a "personal experience" of God is a good basis for belief, because it totally absolves someone of responsibility for their actions or using any kind of personal discretion.
God has "told" a lot of people to do some pretty horrible stuff.
I disagree. My personal experience of God does not absolve me of responsibility for my actions. I'm not talking about an experience where God tells me to do something specific. I'm talking about the presence of the divine, an ecstatic experience where an individual becomes convinced of the reality of God in some manner. Now, if I had such an experience, and felt that God was telling me to kill someone, I would still be responsible for filtering that purported message through my own sense of logic and morality, as well as through the general teachings of that particular faith. Jesus, for example, never killed anyone or told his disciples to kill anyone. He is reported to have healed and helped people. For him now to tell me to kill would be blatantly inconsistent. It would also offend any sense of morality or logic that I have (part of which is informed for me by the Christian faith). So I deny that it relieves me of personal responsibility.
So, if God told you to kill someone, you wouldn't do it?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 11, 2011, 02:32:12 AM
[Jesus, for example, never killed anyone or told his disciples to kill anyone. He is reported to have healed and helped people. For him now to tell me to kill would be blatantly inconsistent. It would also offend any sense of morality or logic that I have (part of which is informed for me by the Christian faith). So I deny that it relieves me of personal responsibility.
Hi Bruce,
I guess you haven't read Luke 19:27 recently. Which part of "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me." is unclear on the subject? Presumably Jesus would want you to kill me (and I'm such a sweet guy ;) ). I certainly don't want Jesus or anyone else to be a king over me. Thanks to Michael Parenti for the quote, by the way. There are loads of others where that came from. A bit of a nutter, that Jesus guy.
ciao,
Attila
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 11, 2011, 03:15:23 AMI've always been impressed by his enlarging the teaching to love ones neighbors to include loving ones enemies as well. Loving the neighbors is just practical advice (I'm sure we all know how miserable a feud with a neighbor can make things) but loving your enemies, where there might well be no practical advantage to you? That's radical thinking.
Hi BCE,
Actually I think it could rather bad advice depending on how you interpret it. It depends on which way the power arrow is pointing. It sounds like something that a landowner or his minion might preach to a serf. Cui bono? seems an appropriate question to pose here.
ciao,
Attila
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 11, 2011, 03:15:23 AM
I'll be the first atheist to admit there are valuable teachings and admirable sentiments in the bible. Even if Christ was not the first one to suggest it, I've always been impressed by his enlarging the teaching to love ones neighbors to include loving ones enemies as well. Loving the neighbors is just practical advice (I'm sure we all know how miserable a feud with a neighbor can make things) but loving your enemies, where there might well be no practical advantage to you? That's radical thinking.
nothing radical there I'm afraid, Jesus was just repeating the words of the philosophers. Greek philosophers were teaching the exact same thing centuries before Christianity.
Quote from: Attila on October 11, 2011, 02:39:38 PM
A bit of a nutter, that Jesus guy.
:D and unfortunately most of his followers throughout history have been nutters too
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 11, 2011, 02:32:12 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on October 08, 2011, 04:20:38 PM
I do not think that a "personal experience" of God is a good basis for belief, because it totally absolves someone of responsibility for their actions or using any kind of personal discretion.
God has "told" a lot of people to do some pretty horrible stuff.
I disagree. My personal experience of God does not absolve me of responsibility for my actions. I'm not talking about an experience where God tells me to do something specific. I'm talking about the presence of the divine, an ecstatic experience where an individual becomes convinced of the reality of God in some manner. Now, if I had such an experience, and felt that God was telling me to kill someone, I would still be responsible for filtering that purported message through my own sense of logic and morality, as well as through the general teachings of that particular faith. Jesus, for example, never killed anyone or told his disciples to kill anyone. He is reported to have healed and helped people. For him now to tell me to kill would be blatantly inconsistent. It would also offend any sense of morality or logic that I have (part of which is informed for me by the Christian faith). So I deny that it relieves me of personal responsibility.
Jesus in John 10:30 (http://bible.cc/john/10-30.htm) said that, "I and the Father are one." It's a basic tenet of Christianity that YHVH, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are one god. If Jesus and YHVH are one, then yes, he killed and ordered the killing of many, many people, and trying to separate him from the actions of YHVH in the Old Testament is not only disingenuous but contrary to Christian doctrine. The Christian apologist William Lane Craig is quite willing to defend Old Testament slaughter (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767) as consistent with Christianity.
Luke 19:27King James Version (because I like the language style ;D )
Quote from: JesusBut those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Just had to throw that in there.
Quote from: Attila link=topic=8395.msg129370#msg129370quote author=Ecurb Noselrub link=topic=8395.msg129318#msg129318 date=1318296732]
Jesus, for example, never killed anyone or told his disciples to kill anyone. He is reported to have healed and helped people. For him now to tell me to kill would be blatantly inconsistent. It would also offend any sense of morality or logic that I have (part of which is informed for me by the Christian faith). So I deny that it relieves me of personal responsibility.
Jesus may not have killed anyone in the canonical gospels, but he did kill quite a few people in the infancy gospels, for doing nothing more than just getting in his way in the street or telling him off.
He did also claim in the gospels that he was immanently going to destroy the Earth in a huge conflagration and kill all non-believers (eg Luke 17.26-30), so I don't feel it would be all that inconsistent. Obviously not all Christians have thought that would be an inconsistent message, otherwise why have countless thousands been murdered in the name of Jesus over the past 1700 years?
Quote from: Tank on October 11, 2011, 10:51:36 AM
Personally if somebody told me they had spoken to God I would consider that prima-facia evidence that they were mad. Sorry about that as it implies that I think you are 'touched' and there is no two ways about it, I think you are. :(
But in a day-to-day sense you are perfectly functional and represent no threat to those around you so in that sense I'd treat you as a harmless eccentric. A good person with an odd world view because it's your actions that you should be judged by not your thoughts.
I realise what I wrote was blunt, but I see not good reason to lie about what I think, any more than you should.
Agreed, one should not lie. To be blunt, I think that atheists are spiritually autistic. They don't see the "face" or the "person" in all the sensory input they are receiving. Since they limit themselves to one particular method of receiving information (adopting a purely empirical epistemology), they are not capable of detecting the patterns that reveal the face of God. An autistic person sees the other person in front of him, but does not detect the "person", so to speak.
Of course, that's just my opinion, and it's worth what you are paying for it. But since we are being brutally honest.....
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on October 11, 2011, 11:52:07 AM
So, if God told you to kill someone, you wouldn't do it?
I would conclude that it wasn't God. Regardless, the answer is absolutely "no." Besides, I'm just a Christian - I didn't say I was a very good one. There are probably lots of things that Jesus said that I don't follow 100%, even though I think they are good advice. Like the loving your enemies bit - that is tough for me sometimes. But I try, I try.
Quote from: Attila on October 11, 2011, 02:39:38 PM
Hi Bruce,
I guess you haven't read Luke 19:27 recently. Which part of "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me." is unclear on the subject? Presumably Jesus would want you to kill me (and I'm such a sweet guy ;) ). I certainly don't want Jesus or anyone else to be a king over me. Thanks to Michael Parenti for the quote, by the way. There are loads of others where that came from. A bit of a nutter, that Jesus guy.
ciao, Attila
Buona sera, Attila. I didn't know Attila spoke Italian - Latin I could understand. Luke 19:27 is a parable, so it's metaphorical. It's aimed primarily at the Jewish leadership who was responsible for killing Jesus, and is not intended to be interpreted literally. Furthermore, both the gospels and the Pauline epistles indicate that believers themselves will be responsible for judging the world. Having been a fellow traveler on this planet, and having had my face rubbed in the shit of this world on more than one occasion, I think I can safely say that no one who is assigned to me for judgment will have to worry about being killed or sent to hell. I'm not a hangin' judge.
Quote from: Recusant on October 11, 2011, 08:33:53 PM
Jesus in John 10:30 (http://bible.cc/john/10-30.htm) said that, "I and the Father are one." It's a basic tenet of Christianity that YHVH, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are one god. If Jesus and YHVH are one, then yes, he killed and ordered the killing of many, many people, and trying to separate him from the actions of YHVH in the Old Testament is not only disingenuous but contrary to Christian doctrine. The Christian apologist William Lane Craig is quite willing to defend Old Testament slaughter (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767) as consistent with Christianity.
I'm not bound by William Lane Craig's interpretation of Jesus or the Bible. Jesus is one with the Father, true. However, I think the OT Hebrews did a pretty lousy job of interpreting him, like most of us. If Jesus was the image of the invisible God, as Paul says, then he presented a picture of God that is totally dissimilar to the OT Yahweh. Maybe Marcion was right, to a degree. Jesus got away from the OT as soon as he could, and dismantled the covenant on which it was based, introducing a New Covenant. When James and John wanted to call down fire from heaven like the OT Elijah, Jesus rebuked them and told them that he had come to save men's lives, not destroy them. So Jesus presented a more perfect picture of God than is found in the OT. WHen I want to understand the nature of God, I look at Jesus, not the OT.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 11, 2011, 09:14:40 PM
Jesus may not have killed anyone in the canonical gospels, but he did kill quite a few people in the infancy gospels, for doing nothing more than just getting in his way in the street or telling him off.
He did also claim in the gospels that he was immanently going to destroy the Earth in a huge conflagration and kill all non-believers (eg Luke 17.26-30), so I don't feel it would be all that inconsistent. Obviously not all Christians have thought that would be an inconsistent message, otherwise why have countless thousands been murdered in the name of Jesus over the past 1700 years?
I think the best scholarship concludes that the infancy gospels are at least 2nd century, Gnostic, and not originating with the apostles. Anyone can write a gospel. Mark seems to me to be the most authentic, but that's just me. Jesus was rejected by his own and crucified. He knew what was coming for himself, and I think that colored his apocalyptic teachings. He was, after all, human as well as divine. But he did one thing that I think was admirable in particular - he committed the ultimate judgment of the world to his own disciples, as Paul and even parts of the gospels explain. Rather than even trust himself to judge the world that rejected and crucified him, he committed it to those who would live in it, in each culture, in each age. When it gets right down to it, I don't know a single Christian who could sentence anyone to eternal hell. I sort of see it like the end of Braveheart, with even the bloodthirsty crowd crying "mercy." In the end, I think we all make it into the kingdom.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 12, 2011, 01:32:25 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on October 11, 2011, 11:52:07 AM
So, if God told you to kill someone, you wouldn't do it?
I would conclude that it wasn't God. Regardless, the answer is absolutely "no." Besides, I'm just a Christian - I didn't say I was a very good one. There are probably lots of things that Jesus said that I don't follow 100%, even though I think they are good advice. Like the loving your enemies bit - that is tough for me sometimes. But I try, I try.
I find this very strange. Are you saying it's impossible for God to command someone to kill another person? Can't he do anything? Others here have demonstrated that there have been legitimate commands by God in the bible for bloodshed, and other Christians have obviously interpreted "God's will" in that way, so I find it strange that you think it's impossible.
I mean, obviously, I don't think most Christians have any desire to commit murder, but on the theological and philosophical level, I don't see how any Christian could rectify deliberately "disobeying" God. What's the point of a "personal relationship" with God, if not to get a sense that you are being directly guided in what to do by him? Why would you want to cultivate a personal relationship, but still say at the back of your mind "I don't need to worry, I'll still just do whatever I want to do anyway."
I know I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate, but it just seems very disjointed to me.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 12, 2011, 01:55:41 AM
When it gets right down to it, I don't know a single Christian who could sentence anyone to eternal hell.
I guess Christians have more compassion than God does.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 12, 2011, 01:46:47 AMI'm not bound by William Lane Craig's interpretation of Jesus or the Bible. Jesus is one with the Father, true. However, I think the OT Hebrews did a pretty lousy job of interpreting him, like most of us. If Jesus was the image of the invisible God, as Paul says, then he presented a picture of God that is totally dissimilar to the OT Yahweh. Maybe Marcion was right, to a degree. Jesus got away from the OT as soon as he could, and dismantled the covenant on which it was based, introducing a New Covenant. When James and John wanted to call down fire from heaven like the OT Elijah, Jesus rebuked them and told them that he had come to save men's lives, not destroy them. So Jesus presented a more perfect picture of God than is found in the OT. WHen I want to understand the nature of God, I look at Jesus, not the OT.
If "the Father" and YHVH are the same, it sounds as if you're saying that the Hebrews got it wrong, and YHVH didn't order them to kill, nor did he do any killing himself. Stories like the one about the great flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah are not to be believed. Why have the Old Testament as part of scripture at all, if it's so untrustworthy? Even if you only discard things in the Old Testament that you think are not in line with the teachings of Jesus, you'll be losing a large percentage of what has up till now been considered by Christians as Holy Scripture. It certainly would be convenient though.
Quote from: Attila on October 11, 2011, 02:50:01 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 11, 2011, 03:15:23 AMI've always been impressed by his enlarging the teaching to love ones neighbors to include loving ones enemies as well. Loving the neighbors is just practical advice (I'm sure we all know how miserable a feud with a neighbor can make things) but loving your enemies, where there might well be no practical advantage to you? That's radical thinking.
Hi BCE,
Actually I think it could rather bad advice depending on how you interpret it. It depends on which way the power arrow is pointing. It sounds like something that a landowner or his minion might preach to a serf. Cui bono? seems an appropriate question to pose here.
ciao,
Attila
True, but just about anything can be bad advice depending on interpretation. That's what makes life so fun.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 11, 2011, 03:00:48 PM
nothing radical there I'm afraid, Jesus was just repeating the words of the philosophers. Greek philosophers were teaching the exact same thing centuries before Christianity.
And I think it was also cropping up in some Eastern religions and philosopies before Jesus' time (or supposed time). To me the credit is not for originating it but promoting it, esp. at that time and in that culture. Even today it remains a radical notion, as far as actually putting it into effect goes.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 12, 2011, 01:28:46 AM
Agreed, one should not lie. To be blunt, I think that atheists are spiritually autistic. They don't see the "face" or the "person" in all the sensory input they are receiving. Since they limit themselves to one particular method of receiving information (adopting a purely empirical epistemology), they are not capable of detecting the patterns that reveal the face of God. An autistic person sees the other person in front of him, but does not detect the "person", so to speak.
Of course, that's just my opinion, and it's worth what you are paying for it. But since we are being brutally honest.....
I would say that this is correct in my case at least. Though I did have dualistic tendencies as a child (apparently it's a normal thing in children, and very interesting to see my niece projecting emotions and thoughts onto toys ;D) those dissipated on their own before I reached 10 years of age. Even though, as a child, I accepted some explanation that what or who was responsible for the creation of the universe was called 'god', and that god was a superhuman-like figure, I never had what theists call a 'living faith' in that explanation, which is why I refer to myself as always having been an atheist.
But, there are ex-theists on this forum, who will tell you that they did see some sort of divine mind or 'person' behind it all, and still became atheists, each for their own reasons. That's a true paradigm shift. Their stories are interesting because they lived in both.
I do have a problem with the word 'spiritual', though, because it seems so generic and meaningless. Does it have to do more with spirits or some world in another realm or the emotions tied to religious experiences?
As for detecting the patterns you speak of, I see that as having other explanations (mainly evolutionary, including the social side to it), which are way more plausible to me. Those explanations are difficult to shake off because they work so well in explaining why and how people become religious. That's empirical epistemology at work. ;D
As for religions being rational, it looks a lot more like post-hoc rationalizations, which unfortunately or fortunately depending on how you want to see it, for the more intelligent theists (and people in general), is something they're good at.
So...spiritually autistic....yeah. I think I know enough about myself to know that I really doubt I will ever become theistic. :P
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 12, 2011, 01:37:51 AM
Buona sera, Attila. I didn't know Attila spoke Italian - Latin I could understand. Luke 19:27 is a parable, so it's metaphorical. It's aimed primarily at the Jewish leadership who was responsible for killing Jesus, and is not intended to be interpreted literally. Furthermore, both the gospels and the Pauline epistles indicate that believers themselves will be responsible for judging the world. Having been a fellow traveler on this planet, and having had my face rubbed in the shit of this world on more than one occasion, I think I can safely say that no one who is assigned to me for judgment will have to worry about being killed or sent to hell. I'm not a hangin' judge.
Salve Bruce,
Attila may or may not have picked up the local lingo but he certainly hung around these parts. I like to think I follow his footsteps each time I walk along the Corso Italia. But enough of this fiddle-faddle, a quick question (actually 2 questions): 1. How do you know when something is not to be interpreted literally in the bible? Are those verses written in italics? or green ink? or surrounded by inverted commas? Give it up, Bruce. How do know? Isn't religion about revealing? 2. What would a metaphorical interpretation of the phrase "bring them here and kill them in front of me" be? Does that mean, "only maim them"? "only burn their eyes out"? Indeed what is the purpose of the whole parable? What lesson is it trying to give us? Jesus doesn't sound like anyone I would care to know or even be around.
Grazie e ciao,
Attila
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 12, 2011, 01:28:46 AM
Quote from: Tank on October 11, 2011, 10:51:36 AM
Personally if somebody told me they had spoken to God I would consider that prima-facia evidence that they were mad. Sorry about that as it implies that I think you are 'touched' and there is no two ways about it, I think you are. :(
But in a day-to-day sense you are perfectly functional and represent no threat to those around you so in that sense I'd treat you as a harmless eccentric. A good person with an odd world view because it's your actions that you should be judged by not your thoughts.
I realise what I wrote was blunt, but I see not good reason to lie about what I think, any more than you should.
Agreed, one should not lie. To be blunt, I think that atheists are spiritually autistic. They don't see the "face" or the "person" in all the sensory input they are receiving. Since they limit themselves to one particular method of receiving information (adopting a purely empirical epistemology), they are not capable of detecting the patterns that reveal the face of God. An autistic person sees the other person in front of him, but does not detect the "person", so to speak.
Of course, that's just my opinion, and it's worth what you are paying for it. But since we are being brutally honest.....
Nothing wrong with honesty :)
You raise an interesting point particularly in light of the research described here Is atheism linked to autism? (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8371.0)
It could be that in the past superstition was important to human survival, I put my thought down about that in Why God? (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8210.0). But as we move from superstition to science to answer questions about reality could it be that an autistic view is more valued than a superstitious one? A subject for a different thread.
Quote from: Tank on October 12, 2011, 09:22:48 AM
Nothing wrong with honesty :)
You raise an interesting point particularly in light of the research described here Is atheism linked to autism? (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8371.0)
It could be that in the past superstition was important to human survival, I put my thought down about that in Why God? (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8210.0). But as we move from superstition to science to answer questions about reality could it be that an autistic view is more valued than a superstitious one? A subject for a different thread.
Arrrggghhh! Tank, Tank! Tank? The Daily fucking Mail!!!!!!!!!! :o Gimme a break! What would Ben Goldacre say? I was a rationalist in my mother's womb and never have shown the lightest hint of autism. Don't let my total absence of friends or relationships mislead you. ;D
Ciao,
Attila
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 12, 2011, 01:55:41 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 11, 2011, 09:14:40 PM
Jesus may not have killed anyone in the canonical gospels, but he did kill quite a few people in the infancy gospels, for doing nothing more than just getting in his way in the street or telling him off.
He did also claim in the gospels that he was immanently going to destroy the Earth in a huge conflagration and kill all non-believers (eg Luke 17.26-30), so I don't feel it would be all that inconsistent. Obviously not all Christians have thought that would be an inconsistent message, otherwise why have countless thousands been murdered in the name of Jesus over the past 1700 years?
I think the best scholarship concludes that the infancy gospels are at least 2nd century, Gnostic, and not originating with the apostles. Anyone can write a gospel. Mark seems to me to be the most authentic, but that's just me. Jesus was rejected by his own and crucified. He knew what was coming for himself, and I think that colored his apocalyptic teachings. He was, after all, human as well as divine. But he did one thing that I think was admirable in particular - he committed the ultimate judgment of the world to his own disciples, as Paul and even parts of the gospels explain. Rather than even trust himself to judge the world that rejected and crucified him, he committed it to those who would live in it, in each culture, in each age. When it gets right down to it, I don't know a single Christian who could sentence anyone to eternal hell. I sort of see it like the end of Braveheart, with even the bloodthirsty crowd crying "mercy." In the end, I think we all make it into the kingdom.
The infancy gospels are dated to the early second century, which is no later than the earliest evidence for the canonical gospels that you view as being historical and base your religious beliefs on. They weren't remotely Gnostic, the Gnostics didn't believe that Jesus was born and grew up as a normal child / man, they thought that Jesus had descended from the pleroma and realm of light into this dark world of matter.
As for the rest of your you're reading a mythological (in my view), or at least fully or partly non-historical, book and reporting it as historical events. I don't think that's any different from stating that Jesus killed people as a child because it says so in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Like you said, anyone can write a gospel, and no-one knows by who, when or where the four canonical gospels were written. They're not eyewitness accounts of historical events.
Outside of the NT / early Christian writings there is no evidence that Jesus ever lived, never mind that he 'was rejected by his own and crucified' or 'committed the ultimate judgment of the world to his own disciples'. You're choosing to read those words and believe that they are real and historical things of a truly cosmic proportion.
Personally I seriously question in reality whether the Jews would have crucified someone for blasphemy, even more so over the Passover festival. But I don't know enough about Jewish law in the first century. I think they possibly used to stone or strangle people for it, but that had been ended some time before Jesus' supposed lifetime. The Roman's certainly wouldn't have, they were famously liberal in the interpretation of religion.
As to your other point, I think there are plenty of Christians who would sentence all non-believers (or even all Christians who aren't members of their particular sect) to eternal hellfire and torture. I'm glad for you that they're not the sort of Christians you hang around with. But I didn't actually mention hell, Jesus claims in the gospels that he is going to set fire to the Earth and destroy it (and all non-believers) in a great conflagration. I think the idea of heaven and hell and eternal torture is a later accretion to Christian doctrine, they're not in Jesus' teachings in the gospels.
I think Jesus and Paul are very clear in the NT that non-believers are not going to make it into the kingdom, and you're not towing the party line or following their teachings in believing otherwise. Obviously none of us would want to make it into that mythical kingdom anyway if it were to exist. Personally I'll be happy rotting in the ground, or maybe frolicking in the Elysian Fields, or getting drunk with a few valkyries in Valhalla.
You like reading Paul's epistles. I think this is pretty clear in 2 Thessalonians 1.7-9;
'When the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and those who do not obey the gospel of our lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the lord and from the glory of his power'Or do you interpret that allegorically? ;)
Quote from: Tank on October 12, 2011, 09:22:48 AM
You raise an interesting point particularly in light of the research described here Is atheism linked to autism? (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8371.0)
It could be that in the past superstition was important to human survival, I put my thought down about that in Why God? (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8210.0). But as we move from superstition to science to answer questions about reality could it be that an autistic view is more valued than a superstitious one? A subject for a different thread.
interesting link Tank, but typical the way the scummy right wing Christian Daily Mail slant the information into an inaccurate headline claiming it shows there may be a link between atheism and autism. The study merely suggests that people with higher functioning autism are more likely to be atheists, which is something very differnet from suggesting that atheism and autism are somehow linked (which as a two way link implies that atheists are somehow slightly autistic). People with HF autism are also often highly intelligent (I have a few as very good friends), and that might also lead them to more likely be atheists. Plus in my experience, they're generally not very sociable, so I'm sure they'd avoid social situations like churches like the plague.
@ Attilla and TFL
Go down the thread a bit and you'll find a link to the original research, it makes interesting reading.
Quote from: Tank on October 12, 2011, 12:13:53 PM
@ Attilla and TFL
Go down the thread a bit and you'll find a link to the original research, it makes interesting reading.
thanks Tank, I've just been reading the PDF. It's great that people are researching religiosity through cognitive science. As I expected, the researchers concluded that HFA individuals appear more likely to be atheistic or agnostic, NOT that there is a link between atheism and autism as the Daily Heil's headline claimed. I really hate the way journalists twist things to suit their own political or religious agenda. Just found this quote online that sums up the Daily Mail rather nicely;
"I've always been a Daily Mail reader. I prefer it to a newspaper"
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 12, 2011, 12:48:50 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 12, 2011, 12:13:53 PM
@ Attilla and TFL
Go down the thread a bit and you'll find a link to the original research, it makes interesting reading.
thanks Tank, I've just been reading the PDF. It's great that people are researching religiosity through cognitive science. As I expected, the researchers concluded that HFA individuals appear more likely to be atheistic or agnostic, NOT that there is a link between atheism and autism as the Daily Heil's headline claimed. I really hate the way journalists twist things to suit their own political or religious agenda. Just found this quote online that sums up the Daily Mail rather nicely;
"I've always been a Daily Mail reader. I prefer it to a newspaper"
Sorry about the link to the Daily Mail. As part of my job, I receive a ton of articles via news feeds and this one popped up.
:D
Quote from: BullyforBronto on October 12, 2011, 12:59:39 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 12, 2011, 12:48:50 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 12, 2011, 12:13:53 PM
@ Attilla and TFL
Go down the thread a bit and you'll find a link to the original research, it makes interesting reading.
thanks Tank, I've just been reading the PDF. It's great that people are researching religiosity through cognitive science. As I expected, the researchers concluded that HFA individuals appear more likely to be atheistic or agnostic, NOT that there is a link between atheism and autism as the Daily Heil's headline claimed. I really hate the way journalists twist things to suit their own political or religious agenda. Just found this quote online that sums up the Daily Mail rather nicely;
"I've always been a Daily Mail reader. I prefer it to a newspaper"
Sorry about the link to the Daily Mail. As part of my job, I receive a ton of articles via news feeds and this one popped up.
:D
It's the Daily Mail that should be sorry, they truly are a horrible rag. It's easily done, I've done exactly the same thing before, posted a link from a story I'd found from the DM on a friend's FB wall and they jokingly berated me for polluting their wall with such filth!
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 12, 2011, 01:28:46 AM
Quote from: Tank on October 11, 2011, 10:51:36 AM
Personally if somebody told me they had spoken to God I would consider that prima-facia evidence that they were mad. Sorry about that as it implies that I think you are 'touched' and there is no two ways about it, I think you are. :(
But in a day-to-day sense you are perfectly functional and represent no threat to those around you so in that sense I'd treat you as a harmless eccentric. A good person with an odd world view because it's your actions that you should be judged by not your thoughts.
I realise what I wrote was blunt, but I see not good reason to lie about what I think, any more than you should.
Agreed, one should not lie. To be blunt, I think that atheists are spiritually autistic. They don't see the "face" or the "person" in all the sensory input they are receiving. Since they limit themselves to one particular method of receiving information (adopting a purely empirical epistemology), they are not capable of detecting the patterns that reveal the face of God. An autistic person sees the other person in front of him, but does not detect the "person", so to speak.
Of course, that's just my opinion, and it's worth what you are paying for it. But since we are being brutally honest.....
Being an autistic person, I have no idea what you mean.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 12, 2011, 01:55:41 AM
When it gets right down to it, I don't know a single Christian who could sentence anyone to eternal hell. I sort of see it like the end of Braveheart, with even the bloodthirsty crowd crying "mercy." In the end, I think we all make it into the kingdom.
As a Christian, that last statement is of terrible doctrine and has absolutely no justification within scripture.
To your former statement, Christians don't have too. It is best to plead ignorance, as we have no place to tell anyone with full assurance who is going to hell. Jesus stated that those who are least will inherit the Kingdom, while those who are called great in the world will not. What Jesus is implying is that many whom the world would never expect are to be held up highly in the Kingdom and many who are celebrated in this world will not. Therefore we have little to say as of who is/should/shouldn't be saved, but we do know that this life we have been given is in every facet meaningful, and we will be held responsible for the life we had lead.
The Christian's view on God's forgiveness is really something that would be better suited for another thread of discussion. But from my understanding, Christ's forgiveness is of equal opportunity, and that God desires no one to be lost, but searches like shepherd not wanting to loose a single flock. If there was one thing on earth Jesus enjoyed most, it was pouring out towards the foulest corners of society and showing grace to those who least deserved it. It may not be by saying "Jesus, Jesus!" three times straight or calling yourself a saved Christian that saves, because such people He does not know. But those who come to Him like the daughter pouring forth for a tug of His cloak, they will be saved. Nothing gives God more satisfaction than those who are true in their pursuit of Him, for God's wide open arms have long awaited them.
That's a lovely story Cforcerunner.
But I am still keen to find the subtle knife, its destiny must be fulfilled. Problem is, I am having some troubles finding it. But I have heard that there is a young wizard who hangs out at Hogwarts who might be able to help me find the knife. Although I don't quite know how to get to Hogwarts.
Quotemany whom the world would never expect are to be held up highly in the Kingdom and many who are celebrated in this world will not.
So being saved is basically a lottery, and nobody knows how to get there? Sounds as logical and reasonable as the rest of that delusion-system. ;D
Back to the atheist-autism connection: the report seems to indicate that autistic people are more likely to be atheists/agnostics than non-autistic people. This is not to say that atheists/agnostics are more likely to be autistic than theists. Since theism rates seems to be a function of social pressure it is not surprising that people who are autistic hence least subject to such pressure are less likely to be theists.
Ciao,
Attila
Quote from: Attila on October 12, 2011, 07:32:15 PM
Since theism rates seems to be a function of social pressure it is not surprising that people who are autistic hence least subject to such pressure are less likely to be theists.
I think this is part of what's happening. I also think that many on the high functioning end of the autism spectrum may just find theology totally irrelevant to everyday life. You'd think it would be difficult enough for a neurotypical individual to see the point of sitting, standing, kneeling and cannibalizing for a few hours every Sunday. I suspect that if I asked my son (who probably falls on the moderate part of the spectrum) to go through this every week, he would think something like "Nah, I'd rather sit here and take apart all of the remote controls in the house for the next 8 hours."
Quote from: Stevil on October 12, 2011, 07:19:35 PM
That's a lovely story Cforcerunner.
But I am still keen to find the subtle knife, its destiny must be fulfilled. Problem is, I am having some troubles finding it. But I have heard that there is a young wizard who hangs out at Hogwarts who might be able to help me find the knife. Although I don't quite know how to get to Hogwarts.
Quote from: OldGit on October 12, 2011, 07:20:51 PM
Quotemany whom the world would never expect are to be held up highly in the Kingdom and many who are celebrated in this world will not.
So being saved is basically a lottery, and nobody knows how to get there? Sounds as logical and reasonable as the rest of that delusion-system. ;D
This is simply taken from a worldview that differs from your own, no need to be childish in how one reacts towards it.
I just find it amazing how all these stories of god and heaven come about when noone has been to heaven and noone has met god.
We no nothing of this entity, don't even have knowledge of its existence.
Your story seems completely made up.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 11, 2011, 03:53:50 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 11, 2011, 03:43:41 AM
If someone has a subjective experience that convinces them that they have been enlightened in a particular way, I'm really not in any position to dispute them.
I suppose part of my question, which I should have made clearer, is if you subscribe to the notion that all gods are one god, or that all paths lead to god?
I'm not sure about this, to tell you the truth. Of all the religions, Jesus seems, to me anyway, the closest thing to a common denominator. He's accepted by the 2,000,000,000 Christians as the Son of God; he's accepted by 2,000,000,000 Muslims as a prophet/kind of Messiah; for the Jews at least he's a Jew (if he happens to be the Messiah, at least he's one of their own); he's generally not rejected by Hindus (who have so many gods, what's one more), and the Krishna stories have some parallels with him; and for any non-violent Buddhists, you've got a non-violent Jesus; and even for total non-believers he's received some decent press at times. So I'm guessing at least 5,000,000,000 of the 7,000,000,000 of us have a somewhat positive view of him, which makes him a pretty good candidate (to put it in political terms).
Even Christians can't agree on exactly what version of Jesus they believe in, so even Christians are, in a sense, approaching God from different paths. I guess my answer to your question is "yes" in a sense. I just think that at the end of the day, whatever path one chooses, he/she is going to have to deal with Jesus in some sense. Afer all, that's what we are doing on this thread. ;D
Quote from: Cforcerunner on October 12, 2011, 06:57:50 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 12, 2011, 01:55:41 AM
When it gets right down to it, I don't know a single Christian who could sentence anyone to eternal hell. I sort of see it like the end of Braveheart, with even the bloodthirsty crowd crying "mercy." In the end, I think we all make it into the kingdom.
As a Christian, that last statement is of terrible doctrine and has absolutely no justification within scripture.
Five years ago I would have agreed with you. At 59, the concept of eternal hell no longer makes any sense to me. My own personal experience of Jesus does make sense to me, however. As time has gone on, I've begun to put more stock in my experience of the Holy Spirit than in doctrine and scripture. But I know where you are coming from. How old are you? Could you send anyone to eternal burning hell? Put your finger in a flame and then let me know how long you can keep it there. Does any sin justify that level of punishment? Even if it does, would you not forgive anyone after a relatively short punishment? Are you more compassionate that God? These are just questions - I'm not chiding you.
Quote from: Davin on October 12, 2011, 04:27:53 PM
Being an autistic person, I have no idea what you mean.
Then I value your perspective. Tell me what autism means to you.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 12, 2011, 11:17:18 AM
You like reading Paul's epistles. I think this is pretty clear in 2 Thessalonians 1.7-9;
'When the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and those who do not obey the gospel of our lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the lord and from the glory of his power'
Or do you interpret that allegorically?
II Thessalonians is not one of the generally accepted authentic epistles of Paul. They are Galatians, Romans, I & II Corinthians, I Thessalonians, Philippians and Philemon. Choose a passage from one of those, or a generally accepted Mark or "Q" saying from Jesus, and then get back with me.
By the way, even though the earliest of all manuscripts we have are from the 2nd Century, there is general agreement among scholars that Mark, "Q" (though never found as a separate document), and the authentic epistles of Paul are all 1st Century in origin. That's not true of the infancy gospels. It may be true for the Gospel of Thomas, which is not canonical, and consists mainly of Q sayings with a little Gnosticim thrown in for good measure. Almost anything Christian from the 2nd Century has some Gnostic elements or is arguing against Gnosticism in some manner.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 13, 2011, 02:23:40 AM
He's accepted by the 2,000,000,000 Christians as the Son of God; he's accepted by 2,000,000,000 Muslims as a prophet/kind of Messiah; for the Jews at least he's a Jew (if he happens to be the Messiah, at least he's one of their own); he's generally not rejected by Hindus (who have so many gods, what's one more), and the Krishna stories have some parallels with him; and for any non-violent Buddhists, you've got a non-violent Jesus; and even for total non-believers he's received some decent press at times. So I'm guessing at least 5,000,000,000 of the 7,000,000,000 of us have a somewhat positive view of him, which makes him a pretty good candidate (to put it in political terms).
Can't go along with this -- I've never believed that "right determined by popularity contest" is valid. A lot of people and things in history have been well liked, or at least generally accepted, without being right, much less divine.
QuoteI just think that at the end of the day, whatever path one chooses, he/she is going to have to deal with Jesus in some sense.
That's certainly particularily true in the West, but I don't think that's a indication of rightness either -- just culture and politics. I have to deal with conservatives and conservatism all the time too but that doesn't make me even a borderline Republican.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 13, 2011, 02:41:29 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 13, 2011, 02:23:40 AM
He's accepted by the 2,000,000,000 Christians as the Son of God; he's accepted by 2,000,000,000 Muslims as a prophet/kind of Messiah; for the Jews at least he's a Jew (if he happens to be the Messiah, at least he's one of their own); he's generally not rejected by Hindus (who have so many gods, what's one more), and the Krishna stories have some parallels with him; and for any non-violent Buddhists, you've got a non-violent Jesus; and even for total non-believers he's received some decent press at times. So I'm guessing at least 5,000,000,000 of the 7,000,000,000 of us have a somewhat positive view of him, which makes him a pretty good candidate (to put it in political terms).
Can't go along with this -- I've never believed that "right determined by popularity contest" is valid. A lot of people and things in history have been well liked, or at least generally accepted, without being right, much less divine.
I didn't mean to use this as an argument for Jesus being the right path to God. I'm quite frankly still struggling with the idea of multiple paths to God. Since my experience with God is that he is infinitely merciful (he has to be to deal with me), I envision him as a God who ultimately will accept everyone (perhaps this is what Paul meant when he said that every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord, or what John meant in saying that Jesus took away the sin of the world).
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 13, 2011, 02:41:29 AM
Can't go along with this -- I've never believed that "right determined by popularity contest" is valid. A lot of people and things in history have been well liked, or at least generally accepted, without being right, much less divine.
Not to compare Jesus to Hitler, but the guy was so liked that he was
voted into the government...
***
Cforcerunner, I'm curious to know why you think that some people deserve eternal punishment and why. Do you place even non believers in that group (which does have a scriptural basis) or just the evil people? Or are non believers also evil? And how can you justify what you call a loving god sending people to eternal pain and suffering?
Quote from: Stevil on October 13, 2011, 12:36:23 AM
I just find it amazing how all these stories of god and heaven come about when noone has been to heaven and noone has met god.
I read a book once that had a pretty good explanation for that -- "Why God Won't Go Away: brain science and the biology of belief" by Andrew Newberg and Eugene D'Aquill. Basically, they found that a part of the brain has a secondary, minor function of creating the sort of experiences that are generally called divine, spiritual or supernatural. Altho this isn't its main function, since it didn't interfere with survival and may have even ehanced the chances for survival, it remained a part of the brain's functioning. In any case, that's were all these experiences of god and visions of heaven come from, regardless of anything substantial.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 13, 2011, 02:50:01 AM
Not to compare Jesus to Hitler,
Which you just did. Good Lord, you violated (or rather confirmed) Godwin's Law. I expected better.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 13, 2011, 03:06:06 AM
I read a book once that had a pretty good explanation for that -- "Why God Won't Go Away: brain science and the biology of belief" by Andrew Newberg and Eugene D'Aquill. Basically, they found that a part of the brain has a secondary, minor function of creating the sort of experiences that are generally called divine, spiritual or supernatural. Altho this isn't its main function, since it didn't interfere with survival and may have even ehanced the chances for survival, it remained a part of the brain's functioning. In any case, that's were all these experiences of god and visions of heaven come from, regardless of anything substantial.
Maybe that's where they come from, or maybe God and heaven (an alternative dimension) are real, and you are incapable of seeing the pattern in the picture. Ever consider the possibility that it is a deficiency on your part? It takes a certain amount of intelligence to understand physics and calculus. Maybe it takes a certain amount of brain capacity and insight to detect the presence of God, and you are one of the evolutionary rejects. Just saying, and I'm smiling and being very happy and friendly as I say it. See, here's a great big smile!! ;D
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 13, 2011, 03:16:17 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 13, 2011, 03:06:06 AM
I read a book once that had a pretty good explanation for that -- "Why God Won't Go Away: brain science and the biology of belief" by Andrew Newberg and Eugene D'Aquill. Basically, they found that a part of the brain has a secondary, minor function of creating the sort of experiences that are generally called divine, spiritual or supernatural. Altho this isn't its main function, since it didn't interfere with survival and may have even ehanced the chances for survival, it remained a part of the brain's functioning. In any case, that's were all these experiences of god and visions of heaven come from, regardless of anything substantial.
Maybe that's where they come from, or maybe God and heaven (an alternative dimension) are real, and you are incapable of seeing the pattern in the picture.
That's similar to one of two theories the authors (both scientists) had on this phenomenum -- 1) it was just a random biological quirk of evolution, or 2) some kind of Absolute Unitary Being (they were too scientific to tie themselves down to the word "god") created it as a way for humans to grasp what would otherwise be way outside their capacity. They just offered these up as theories, without stating a scientific or personal preference for either.
QuoteEver consider the possibility that it is a deficiency on your part?
Nope. And according to Newberg and D'Aquill, their atheist and agnostic subjects were not deficient in how this part of their brain worked --it fired off just as often and in the same way as it did in their religious subjects, from the Buddhist scholar to the Catholic nun. The only thing different was in how atheists interpreted the experience. Not to put too fine a point on it, they interpreted it as atheists, just like the Buddhist interpreted his experience in a Buddhist way the the Catholic interpreted hers in a Xtian way.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 13, 2011, 03:10:37 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 13, 2011, 02:50:01 AM
Not to compare Jesus to Hitler,
Which you just did. Good Lord, you violated (or rather confirmed) Godwin's Law. I expected better.
I'm aware of Godwin's law, but my intent was not to compare Jesus to Hitler, just point out that popularity of how liked someone is isn't a basis I (and I assume most) really take into account when deciding politically or choosing leaders. I may be a bit idealistic here...Look how it turned out for Germany back then.
You were basing your arguments on how many people in the world like Jesus or follow part of his teachings. I attribute that to some universal good themes, but not to any person in particular. The Golden Rule, for instance, has been around for far longer than Christianity. Sure he was a radical in his time, and credit where credit's due for that, but Jesus isn't
necessary as a universal role model IMO.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 13, 2011, 03:10:37 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 13, 2011, 02:50:01 AM
Not to compare Jesus to Hitler,
Which you just did. Good Lord, you violated (or rather confirmed) Godwin's Law. I expected better.
xSP simply pointed out that Hitler was voted into office and thus at the time had considerable popular support. When he was executed Jesus had only 12 party members and very limited popular support. I don't think xSP was making a Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) reference as such, it would be very out of character for her to do so.
Quote from: Cforcerunner on October 12, 2011, 08:09:38 PM
Quote from: Stevil on October 12, 2011, 07:19:35 PM
That's a lovely story Cforcerunner.
But I am still keen to find the subtle knife, its destiny must be fulfilled. Problem is, I am having some troubles finding it. But I have heard that there is a young wizard who hangs out at Hogwarts who might be able to help me find the knife. Although I don't quite know how to get to Hogwarts.
Quote from: OldGit on October 12, 2011, 07:20:51 PM
Quotemany whom the world would never expect are to be held up highly in the Kingdom and many who are celebrated in this world will not.
So being saved is basically a lottery, and nobody knows how to get there? Sounds as logical and reasonable as the rest of that delusion-system. ;D
This is simply taken from a worldview that differs from your own, no need to be childish in how one reacts towards it.
We simply don't accept that religion is worthy of any respect. It's delusional, and showing respect for it only encourages it. This is not the first time a faithhead has called me childish for mocking his delusions.
They don't like it up 'em, you see ;D
As for salvation, I went into it in more detail here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8442.0).
Quote from: Tank on October 13, 2011, 09:13:38 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 13, 2011, 03:10:37 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 13, 2011, 02:50:01 AM
Not to compare Jesus to Hitler,
Which you just did. Good Lord, you violated (or rather confirmed) Godwin's Law. I expected better.
xSP simply pointed out that Hitler was voted into office and thus at the time had considerable popular support. When he was executed Jesus had only 12 party members and very limited popular support. I don't think xSP was making a Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) reference as such, it would be very out of character for her to do so.
No Godwin's Law intended. Hitler is one of the first examples of someone democratically elected/voted into a position of power because he was popular that popped into mind.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 13, 2011, 02:38:11 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 12, 2011, 11:17:18 AM
You like reading Paul's epistles. I think this is pretty clear in 2 Thessalonians 1.7-9;
'When the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and those who do not obey the gospel of our lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the lord and from the glory of his power'
Or do you interpret that allegorically?
II Thessalonians is not one of the generally accepted authentic epistles of Paul. They are Galatians, Romans, I & II Corinthians, I Thessalonians, Philippians and Philemon. Choose a passage from one of those, or a generally accepted Mark or "Q" saying from Jesus, and then get back with me.
I'm not sure that's technically correct, I think it depends on who you believe. Some Christian scholars believe it to be a genuine letter of Paul, although admittedly others don't. It's not one of the definite known fakes, but yeah I should have picked one of the epistles that 100% of scholars think is Pauline. But either way, it's still an early Christian writing ascribed to Paul, that's been a central part of Christian teaching for 1500+ years. But Jesus also teaches the same thing in the gospels;
'This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will go out and separate the evil from the just, and throw the evil ones into the blazing furnace, where they will wail and grind their teeth.' (Matthew 13.49-50)
Quote
By the way, even though the earliest of all manuscripts we have are from the 2nd Century, there is general agreement among scholars that Mark, "Q" (though never found as a separate document), and the authentic epistles of Paul are all 1st Century in origin. That's not true of the infancy gospels. It may be true for the Gospel of Thomas, which is not canonical, and consists mainly of Q sayings with a little Gnosticim thrown in for good measure. Almost anything Christian from the 2nd Century has some Gnostic elements or is arguing against Gnosticism in some manner.
My point is the actual gospels you read can't be dated to before the second century, which is the same date as the infancy gospels. They may well derive from earlier sources but those have yet to be found. The fact of the matter is that neither the infancy gospels nor the canonical gospels are eyewitness accounts of historical events, they were written a long time after the supposed lifetime of Jesus and both contain plenty of stories that could never have historically happened. Yet you choose to base your life around one of them. The infancy gospels may have been written in the second century, but they're clearly not Gnostic, the Gnostics didn't believe that Jesus was born or had a childhood!
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 13, 2011, 02:32:22 AM
Quote from: Davin on October 12, 2011, 04:27:53 PM
Being an autistic person, I have no idea what you mean.
Then I value your perspective. Tell me what autism means to you.
It means nothing to me, it's just the way I am. The problem I have is that you said that I cannot see a face or a person. I see plenty of faces and plenty of people.
Quote from: Davin on October 13, 2011, 03:54:34 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 13, 2011, 02:32:22 AM
Quote from: Davin on October 12, 2011, 04:27:53 PM
Being an autistic person, I have no idea what you mean.
Then I value your perspective. Tell me what autism means to you.
It means nothing to me, it's just the way I am. The problem I have is that you said that I cannot see a face or a person. I see plenty of faces and plenty of people.
To the best of my knowledge, I'm not autistic and I have no idea what that meant. I think it was a religious perception of the mental limitations that cause atheists to disagree with them, but I'm not sure.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 13, 2011, 03:16:17 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 13, 2011, 03:06:06 AM
I read a book once that had a pretty good explanation for that -- "Why God Won't Go Away: brain science and the biology of belief" by Andrew Newberg and Eugene D'Aquill. Basically, they found that a part of the brain has a secondary, minor function of creating the sort of experiences that are generally called divine, spiritual or supernatural. Altho this isn't its main function, since it didn't interfere with survival and may have even ehanced the chances for survival, it remained a part of the brain's functioning. In any case, that's were all these experiences of god and visions of heaven come from, regardless of anything substantial.
Maybe that's where they come from, or maybe God and heaven (an alternative dimension) are real, and you are incapable of seeing the pattern in the picture. Ever consider the possibility that it is a deficiency on your part? It takes a certain amount of intelligence to understand physics and calculus. Maybe it takes a certain amount of brain capacity and insight to detect the presence of God, and you are one of the evolutionary rejects. Just saying, and I'm smiling and being very happy and friendly as I say it. See, here's a great big smile!! ;D
That makes absolutely no sense. I was once a firm Christian believer (I've explained this at length in other parts here, so I'll spare everyone). I "saw" everything you are talking about, but I completely changed my world view. And I now know that everything I believed was totally balony. How could that be, it if was some kind of brain deficiency? I didn't suffer head trauma that caused me to become atheist.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 14, 2011, 01:08:20 AM
Quote from: Davin on October 13, 2011, 03:54:34 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 13, 2011, 02:32:22 AM
Quote from: Davin on October 12, 2011, 04:27:53 PM
Being an autistic person, I have no idea what you mean.
Then I value your perspective. Tell me what autism means to you.
It means nothing to me, it's just the way I am. The problem I have is that you said that I cannot see a face or a person. I see plenty of faces and plenty of people.
To the best of my knowledge, I'm not autistic and I have no idea what that meant. I think it was a religious perception of the mental limitations that cause atheists to disagree with them, but I'm not sure.
Possibly, it was a very bad misunderstanding of autistic people making it a poor analogy. The other problem with it are the people that were religious and are no longer, did they suffer some kind if brain damage? Or the people that weren't religious and are now, did their brains magically heal? And the people to keep shifting back and forth. Oh well, I talk too much.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 13, 2011, 03:16:17 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 13, 2011, 03:06:06 AM
I read a book once that had a pretty good explanation for that -- "Why God Won't Go Away: brain science and the biology of belief" by Andrew Newberg and Eugene D'Aquill. Basically, they found that a part of the brain has a secondary, minor function of creating the sort of experiences that are generally called divine, spiritual or supernatural. Altho this isn't its main function, since it didn't interfere with survival and may have even ehanced the chances for survival, it remained a part of the brain's functioning. In any case, that's were all these experiences of god and visions of heaven come from, regardless of anything substantial.
Maybe that's where they come from, or maybe God and heaven (an alternative dimension) are real, and you are incapable of seeing the pattern in the picture. Ever consider the possibility that it is a deficiency on your part? It takes a certain amount of intelligence to understand physics and calculus. Maybe it takes a certain amount of brain capacity and insight to detect the presence of God, and you are one of the evolutionary rejects. Just saying, and I'm smiling and being very happy and friendly as I say it. See, here's a great big smile!! ;D
Wow, hey there, BooksCatsEtc never said it was a deficiency (in fact BooksCatsEtc said it may have been beneficial), so please cut back the condescending attitude and insults.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 13, 2011, 03:16:17 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 13, 2011, 03:06:06 AM
I read a book once that had a pretty good explanation for that -- "Why God Won't Go Away: brain science and the biology of belief" by Andrew Newberg and Eugene D'Aquill. Basically, they found that a part of the brain has a secondary, minor function of creating the sort of experiences that are generally called divine, spiritual or supernatural. Altho this isn't its main function, since it didn't interfere with survival and may have even ehanced the chances for survival, it remained a part of the brain's functioning. In any case, that's were all these experiences of god and visions of heaven come from, regardless of anything substantial.
Maybe that's where they come from, or maybe God and heaven (an alternative dimension) are real, and you are incapable of seeing the pattern in the picture. Ever consider the possibility that it is a deficiency on your part? It takes a certain amount of intelligence to understand physics and calculus. Maybe it takes a certain amount of brain capacity and insight to detect the presence of God, and you are one of the evolutionary rejects. Just saying, and I'm smiling and being very happy and friendly as I say it. See, here's a great big smile!! ;D
That smacks of the 'I'm not a racist but...' gambit.
Quote from: Davin on October 13, 2011, 03:54:34 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 13, 2011, 02:32:22 AM
Quote from: Davin on October 12, 2011, 04:27:53 PM
Being an autistic person, I have no idea what you mean.
Then I value your perspective. Tell me what autism means to you.
It means nothing to me, it's just the way I am. The problem I have is that you said that I cannot see a face or a person. I see plenty of faces and plenty of people.
I probably should have said that people with severe autism don't really see the person behind the face. You apparently don't have a very severe case of autism. Mild case of Aspergers, perhaps? You have no problem communicating. My fault for not being more clear.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 14, 2011, 01:08:20 AM
To the best of my knowledge, I'm not autistic and I have no idea what that meant. I think it was a religious perception of the mental limitations that cause atheists to disagree with them, but I'm not sure.
Here's an example of what I was trying to communicate but of which I apparently did a poor job.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/04/010418072256.htm
The phenomenon of an autistic child not being able to pick out his own mother's face is an example of not being able to distinguish certain patterns. That was my only point, but I apparently caused confusion.
This topic has been utterly derailed; however, I thought I might continue to go off the tracks.
A quote that stuck with me from the documentary "Loving Lampposts" seems to sums things up quite nicely:
"You've met one autistic person, and you've met one autistic person."
Many on the autism spectrum have disparate sensory issues involving sound, vision, touch, etc. An individual experiencing issues with visual stimuli may have difficulty picking out a face from the crowd. Though, that same individual may be able to discern the audio idiosyncrasies of (to keep with the example) his/her mother's voice.
The very notion that autism is a spectrum disorder makes any sort of generalization problematic.
Autism, eh...
What are the symptoms (mild to severe)of autism? Well, I looked them up and considered if maybe Jesus himself was autistic or showed signs of it:
Difficulties in:
Pretend play
Verbal and nonverbal communication [parables]
Have unusual distress when routines are changed
Perform repeated body movements
Show unusual attachments to objects
Cannot start or maintain a social conversation
Communicates with gestures instead of words
Develops language slowly or not at all
Does not adjust gaze to look at objects that others are looking at
Does not refer to self correctly
Does not point to direct others' attention to objects
Repeats words or memorized passages
Uses nonsense rhyming
Does not make friends
Does not play interactive games
Is withdrawn
May not respond to eye contact or smiles, or may avoid eye contact
May treat others as if they are objects
Prefers to spend time alone, rather than with others
Shows a lack of empathy
Does not startle at loud noises
Has heightened or low senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell, or taste
May find normal noises painful and hold hands over ears
May withdraw from physical contact because it is overstimulating or overwhelming
Rubs surfaces, mouths or licks objects
Seems to have a heightened or low response to pain
Doesn't imitate the actions of others
Prefers solitary or ritualistic play
Shows little pretend or imaginative play
"Acts up" with intense tantrums
Gets stuck on a single topic or task (perseveration)
Has a short attention span
Has very narrow interests
Is overactive or very passive
Shows aggression to others or self
Shows a strong need for sameness
Uses repetitive body movements
Quote from: Davin on October 14, 2011, 05:00:24 PM
Wow, hey there, BooksCatsEtc never said it was a deficiency (in fact BooksCatsEtc said it may have been beneficial), so please cut back the condescending attitude and insults.
[/quote]
In post #54 Tank told me that he truly thought I was "touched," which is a nice way of saying that he thinks I'm nuts. He encouraged honesty, so I responded. I guess it's OK for an atheist here to say something negative about a Christian, but not the other way around. I thought that by putting the smiley face no one would be offended. Guess I'm still learning where the line is. I truly didn't mean to be condescending or insulting, but someone's always going to get offended, no matter what is said. Books didn't seem to mind, however.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 15, 2011, 01:58:47 PM
Quote from: Davin on October 14, 2011, 05:00:24 PM
Wow, hey there, BooksCatsEtc never said it was a deficiency (in fact BooksCatsEtc said it may have been beneficial), so please cut back the condescending attitude and insults.
In post #54 Tank told me that he truly thought I was "touched," which is a nice way of saying that he thinks I'm nuts. He encouraged honesty, so I responded. I guess it's OK for an atheist here to say something negative about a Christian, but not the other way around. I thought that by putting the smiley face no one would be offended. Guess I'm still learning where the line is. I truly didn't mean to be condescending or insulting, but someone's always going to get offended, no matter what is said. Books didn't seem to mind, however.
I think it's a question of judging how the individual will react. I'm sure at your age you've had lots worse said and I was prepared to take a kicking if you objected and would give as good as you got. I wouldn't have said what I said to a younger, less experienced person, as there would have been a much higher chance of the person getting the hump. Your response , unique in my forum experience, also stimulated some interesting debate.
Quote from: Tank on October 15, 2011, 02:09:48 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 15, 2011, 01:58:47 PM
Quote from: Davin on October 14, 2011, 05:00:24 PM
Wow, hey there, BooksCatsEtc never said it was a deficiency (in fact BooksCatsEtc said it may have been beneficial), so please cut back the condescending attitude and insults.
In post #54 Tank told me that he truly thought I was "touched," which is a nice way of saying that he thinks I'm nuts. He encouraged honesty, so I responded. I guess it's OK for an atheist here to say something negative about a Christian, but not the other way around. I thought that by putting the smiley face no one would be offended. Guess I'm still learning where the line is. I truly didn't mean to be condescending or insulting, but someone's always going to get offended, no matter what is said. Books didn't seem to mind, however.
I think it's a question of judging how the individual will react. I'm sure at your age you've had lots worse said and I was prepared to take a kicking if you objected and would give as good as you got. I wouldn't have said what I said to a younger, less experienced person, as there would have been a much higher chance of the person getting the hump. Your response , unique in my forum experience, also stimulated some interesting debate.
Good observation about considering how a person will react. Since I'm new around here, I don't know the personalities. I'll try to take your perspective to heart, as I really don't want to get into fights or insults. I've had enough of those for several lifetimes.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 15, 2011, 02:25:06 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 15, 2011, 02:09:48 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 15, 2011, 01:58:47 PM
Quote from: Davin on October 14, 2011, 05:00:24 PM
Wow, hey there, BooksCatsEtc never said it was a deficiency (in fact BooksCatsEtc said it may have been beneficial), so please cut back the condescending attitude and insults.
In post #54 Tank told me that he truly thought I was "touched," which is a nice way of saying that he thinks I'm nuts. He encouraged honesty, so I responded. I guess it's OK for an atheist here to say something negative about a Christian, but not the other way around. I thought that by putting the smiley face no one would be offended. Guess I'm still learning where the line is. I truly didn't mean to be condescending or insulting, but someone's always going to get offended, no matter what is said. Books didn't seem to mind, however.
I think it's a question of judging how the individual will react. I'm sure at your age you've had lots worse said and I was prepared to take a kicking if you objected and would give as good as you got. I wouldn't have said what I said to a younger, less experienced person, as there would have been a much higher chance of the person getting the hump. Your response , unique in my forum experience, also stimulated some interesting debate.
Good observation about considering how a person will react. Since I'm new around here, I don't know the personalities. I'll try to take your perspective to heart, as I really don't want to get into fights or insults. I've had enough of those for several lifetimes.
No worries Bruce. (god I've waited years to be able to say that). Tank is just a big, warm, cuddly bear with a heart of gold. He just loves to romp and play, that's all. And what's more he never even banned
you. :)
ciao,
Attila
Quote from: Attila on October 15, 2011, 02:43:26 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 15, 2011, 02:25:06 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 15, 2011, 02:09:48 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 15, 2011, 01:58:47 PM
Quote from: Davin on October 14, 2011, 05:00:24 PM
Wow, hey there, BooksCatsEtc never said it was a deficiency (in fact BooksCatsEtc said it may have been beneficial), so please cut back the condescending attitude and insults.
In post #54 Tank told me that he truly thought I was "touched," which is a nice way of saying that he thinks I'm nuts. He encouraged honesty, so I responded. I guess it's OK for an atheist here to say something negative about a Christian, but not the other way around. I thought that by putting the smiley face no one would be offended. Guess I'm still learning where the line is. I truly didn't mean to be condescending or insulting, but someone's always going to get offended, no matter what is said. Books didn't seem to mind, however.
I think it's a question of judging how the individual will react. I'm sure at your age you've had lots worse said and I was prepared to take a kicking if you objected and would give as good as you got. I wouldn't have said what I said to a younger, less experienced person, as there would have been a much higher chance of the person getting the hump. Your response , unique in my forum experience, also stimulated some interesting debate.
Good observation about considering how a person will react. Since I'm new around here, I don't know the personalities. I'll try to take your perspective to heart, as I really don't want to get into fights or insults. I've had enough of those for several lifetimes.
No worries Bruce. (god I've waited years to be able to say that). Tank is just a big, warm, cuddly bear with a heart of gold. He just loves to romp and play, that's all. And what's more he never even banned you. :)
ciao,
Attila
I didn't ban you either, that as collateral damage ;D
And I am not a Care Bear! :D
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 15, 2011, 02:20:27 AM
Quote from: Davin on October 13, 2011, 03:54:34 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 13, 2011, 02:32:22 AM
Quote from: Davin on October 12, 2011, 04:27:53 PM
Being an autistic person, I have no idea what you mean.
Then I value your perspective. Tell me what autism means to you.
It means nothing to me, it's just the way I am. The problem I have is that you said that I cannot see a face or a person. I see plenty of faces and plenty of people.
I probably should have said that people with severe autism don't really see the person behind the face. You apparently don't have a very severe case of autism. Mild case of Aspergers, perhaps? You have no problem communicating. My fault for not being more clear.
My psychiatrist disagrees with your assessment of my severity. While many people with autism do have difficulties communicating, that is not an effective method for determining how severe one's autism is. Also keep in mind that many people with autism find it considerably easier to have conversations with people on forums and in chat than in person.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 15, 2011, 01:58:47 PM
Quote from: Davin on October 14, 2011, 05:00:24 PMWow, hey there, BooksCatsEtc never said it was a deficiency (in fact BooksCatsEtc said it may have been beneficial), so please cut back the condescending attitude and insults.
In post #54 Tank told me that he truly thought I was "touched," which is a nice way of saying that he thinks I'm nuts. He encouraged honesty, so I responded. I guess it's OK for an atheist here to say something negative about a Christian, but not the other way around. I thought that by putting the smiley face no one would be offended. Guess I'm still learning where the line is. I truly didn't mean to be condescending or insulting, but someone's always going to get offended, no matter what is said. Books didn't seem to mind, however.
As far as I understand it, Tank and BooksCatsEtc are different people, also, your statement was in general about everyone who is not a believer. You want to take it out on Tank, then do so, but don't try to play the persecution card when Tank addressed only you and you addressed all non-believers. Of course you're free to do so, I can't actually make you do anything, it was more of a figure of speach.
If I see another person throw out the persecution card again I'm just going to ban them....ok, well maybe not but It would make me feel better since the major aspect of how we moderate HAF is to avoid bias as much as possible. If someone thinks they are being corrected just because they are christian then they need to read through more of the rest of the forum to find the many, and even recent, times that an atheist member has been called out for not being in line. If you are corrected it means you screwed up in some way and if the reason you screwed up is related to your religious beliefs then your beliefs are inherently screwed up.
Carry on....
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 13, 2011, 02:32:22 AM
Books didn't seem to mind, however.
I have different buttons that get pushed.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 18, 2011, 01:49:21 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 13, 2011, 02:32:22 AM
Books didn't seem to mind, however.
I have different buttons that get pushed.
I'm not sure I want to follow up on that one, being happily married and all. :D
Quote from: Whitney on October 17, 2011, 06:53:54 PM
If I see another person throw out the persecution card again I'm just going to ban them....ok, well maybe not but It would make me feel better since the major aspect of how we moderate HAF is to avoid bias as much as possible. If someone thinks they are being corrected just because they are christian then they need to read through more of the rest of the forum to find the many, and even recent, times that an atheist member has been called out for not being in line. If you are corrected it means you screwed up in some way and if the reason you screwed up is related to your religious beliefs then your beliefs are inherently screwed up.
If that was aimed at me, I did not allege persecution. Someone called me out for making an analogy with autism, and I responded by pointing out that Tank had first called me "touched" - or crazy. But I wasn't claiming persecution. I got a little ticked at someone calling me a liar on another thread, but that had nothing to do with this thread, and in any event, I'm miles past that now. Sorry for causing a problem.
Quote from: Davin on October 17, 2011, 06:05:05 PM
My psychiatrist disagrees with your assessment of my severity. While many people with autism do have difficulties communicating, that is not an effective method for determining how severe one's autism is. Also keep in mind that many people with autism find it considerably easier to have conversations with people on forums and in chat than in person.
Well, I'm no psychiatrist, and I'll defer to him and to you regarding your own experience. I think the studies I've seen relate more to severely autistic children not being able to distinguish faces, but that apparently does not apply to you. By the way, just reading your posts, I would never suspect that you were autistic, for what it's worth.