The war on faith.
 

In a different thread andyfox post this link

some excerpts

"Americans answered the atrocities of September 11, overwhelmingly, with faith. Attacked in the name of God, they turned to God for comfort; in the week after the attacks, nearly 70 percent said they were praying more than usual."

"After hearing once too often that "[t]o blame the attacks on Islam is like blaming Christianity for the fighting in Northern Ireland," Dawkins responded: Precisely. "It's time to get angry," he wrote, "and not only with Islam.""

"These authors have no geopolitical strategy to advance; they're interested in the metaphysics of belief, not the politics of the First Amendment. It's the idea of putting trust in God they object to"

"It is not just extremists who earn the wrath of Dawkins and Harris. Their books are attacks on religious "moderates" as well—indeed, the very idea of moderation. The West is not at war with "terrorism," Harris asserts in "The End of Faith"; it is at war with Islam, a religion whose holy book, "on almost every page ... prepares the ground for religious conflict." Christian fundamentalists, he says, have a better handle on the problem than moderates: "They know what it's like to really believe that their holy book is the word of God, and there's a paradise you can get to if you die in the right circumstances. They're not left wondering what is the 'real' cause of terrorism." As for the Bible, Harris, like the fundamentalists, prefers a literal reading. He quotes at length the passages in the Old and New Testaments dealing with how to treat slaves. Why, he asks, would anyone take moral instruction from a book that calls for stoning your children to death for disrespect, or for heresy, or for violating the Sabbath?"

But it's more than that. To those that have faith the world is being managed by a fair god. Why would they question anything that happens here? Earthy affairs do not matter to those with faith. For NotReady and Txag, the 2nd coming cannot get here soon enough. If we keep destroying our already incredible shaky relationship with Islamic nations the end of the world may be sooner than you think. Radioactive Jesus riding a mushroom cloud bringing salvation, BluffThis might rejoice.

Avian flu. When God gets mad he often sends plagues. Most of the world will be praying to an imaginary being when a major outbreak hits. Those of us who don't prey should have no trouble getting a vaccine, considering how well stocked we always are ever year in flu vaccines. I mean who could see the flu coming?

If we continue to abuse the environment in the fashion that we do in order to help some of the more unethical businessmen among us, the religious might just get to able to watch us burring in hell. The only problem is that they won't be on the right hand of jesus. No mater they'll say at least they got to watch the righteous punishment of the sinners.

Hawkins believes that if you extend the time line far out enough, a major calamity capable of destroying the human race becomes a certainty. Far out enough to him is 100-1000 years. This doesn't bode well, xtianity still going strong after 2k years, and Muslim has an even later arrival. I sense a strong possibility that enough people will not care about this mortal coil to stop the impending doom. One of the earliest religions espoused the belief that death was just the cure for the ills of life. It seems that the disease we named religion will finally cure us of life permanently.

edit: to add a math question
If something will happen with near certainty(99.9%) within 100 to 1000 years what range of is the probabilty of it happening in a single year?

Re: The war on faith.
 

Hawkins is one of the few people with the courage to tell it like it is. Many people I know who aren't religious go on and on about "respecting the beliefs of everyone" or trying to coexist peacefully with people who believe they'll be scourged from the earth and burned in hell for eternity.

Dawkins should be admired for recognizing faith as the danger that it is, without letting popular opinion drive him into compromise.

Re: The war on faith.
 

Saying that religious faith, in general, is the cause for war and fighting is like saying video games are the cause for violent behavior in teenagers. Perhaps we should hold the individuals responsible, rather than making some blanket statement about a fundamentally "good" (or at least neutral) concept that is distorted by humans to promote their agenda? A lot of things can distort an unthinking person's sense of ethics, justice, or whatever. Blaming religion because a subset of religious folk happen to be crazy extremists is ridiculous.

Re: The war on faith.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Saying that religious faith, in general, is the cause for war and fighting is like saying video games are the cause for violent behavior in teenagers.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? This is completely wrong. I have never heard any of those violent teenagers (Columbine, etc.) say that they killed people because a video game told them too, or because they were inspired by a video game. It's the parents and amateur psychologists who say that. On the other hand, terrorists routinely slaughter people and readily admit that their religous faith was the cause for their violence. Therefore, saying that religous faith is the cause of war and fighting is nothing at all like saying video games are the cause of deviant teenage behavior.

Re: The war on faith.
 

Also to OP,
None of this implies a "War on Faith." 92% of Americans believe in god while only 4% call themselves atheists. Many people would like creationsim to be taught in schools instead of evolution. Our president ends every speech with "god bless America." There is no war on faith in this country.
However, there should be. By definition, to believe something on faith is irrational and immoral. It means that you believe something is true without any evidence. After all, if you had evidence for your beliefs, you wouldn't be using faith. In almost every facet of life besides religion (science, everyday decisions), this is considered to be a massive gap in thinking.

Re: The war on faith.
 

No, but the teenagers will sometimes (often?) admit to getting their ideas from video games, music, or whatever. It may not be the source of their hatred -- but neither is the terrorist's "religion".

Do you really think religion is the cause for the terrorist's violence? Or do you think it is their hatred for America (or whoever they are fighting against)? They use religion to help *justify* their hatred and their actions, but it is not the root cause. It is pretty easy to distort the meaning of a millenia old religious text to suit your agenda and make it seem like God is on your side. If all religion is bad, and it is not the individual's fault for using religion to suit them, then why do so many people who practice the *exact* same religion condemn the fanatics who go around killing people in God's name?

Re: The war on faith.
 

[ QUOTE ]
By definition, to believe something on faith is irrational and immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is silly. Edward Witten, possibly the smartest man on the planet, believes that string theory is correct. He does so despite having no experimental evidence to back up his belief that his assumptions are right. He has *faith* that the theory is right because it describes phenemena in our universe remarkably well. In his opinion, because the math is so symmetric and beautiful and the physics works out so well, it is unlikely that the theory works by mere coincidence. However, because there is no experimental evidence to verify the assumptions, it is possible that an equally (or more) valid and more accurate model for particle physics is out there, and that string theory is "wrong".

The direction Witten's research goes is dependent in large part on faith. His faith just happens to have a more logical foundation than a religious fanatic's that somehow distorts their religion to make suicide bombing "correct".

However, saying that believing in something on faith is "irrational and immoral" is wrong. Everyone has faith in something.

Re: The war on faith.
 

[ QUOTE ]
If we continue to abuse the environment in the fashion that we do in order to help some of the more unethical businessmen among us . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is where your credibility tends to zero.

Why exactly does an OP about religion need an anti-business environmental dig stuck in the middle of it? It doesn't. In the eyes of many readers (perhaps half) this labels you as a loon. Many stop reading immediately, and others dismiss what you've written out of hand.

What I'm saying is, stick to the topic at hand.

Re: The war on faith.
 

[ QUOTE ]
If all religion is bad, and it is not the individual's fault for using religion to suit them, then why do so many people who practice the *exact* same religion condemn the fanatics who go around killing people in God's name?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your premises are both wrong. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase.

Re: The war on faith.
 

[ QUOTE ]

This is silly. Edward Witten, possibly the smartest man on the planet, believes that string theory is correct. He does so despite having no experimental evidence to back up his belief that his assumptions are right. He has *faith* that the theory is right because it describes phenemena in our universe remarkably well.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a form of evidence.

[ QUOTE ]

Everyone has faith in something.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you really think religion is the cause for the terrorist's violence? Or do you think it is their hatred for America (or whoever they are fighting against)? They use religion to help *justify* their hatred and their actions, but it is not the root cause. It is pretty easy to distort the meaning of a millenia old religious text to suit your agenda and make it seem like God is on your side. If all religion is bad, and it is not the individual's fault for using religion to suit them, then why do so many people who practice the *exact* same religion condemn the fanatics who go around killing people in God's name?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, when certain religous texts instruct true followers of that religous to kill non-members of that religion and that in return, they will be rewarded with infinite pleasure in the afterlife, then I have no problem blaming that religion for violence perpetrated in its name. Even if people absolutely hated the USA, they wouldn't be willing to die for that cause if they thought they would rot away after they died. Religion is what instructs them that they will NOT rot away. Thus, religion greatly facilitates terrorist's violence.

Re: The war on faith.
 

[ QUOTE ]
If all religion is bad, and it is not the individual's fault for using religion to suit them, then why do so many people who practice the *exact* same religion condemn the fanatics who go around killing people in God's name?

[/ QUOTE ]

In strict terms, they do not practice the same religion. Some people chose to ignore passages like these: " And kill them (non-followers of allah) wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out."

Those who chose to ignore this are not strictly practicers of that religion.

Re: The war on faith.
 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but maybe it is my use of the word "exact"?

By "exact" I essentially mean use the same religious texts, call themselves by the same name (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.), *claim* to (edit) have the same ideals...

People who practice the same religion (same as in the context above) can somehow come to vastly different conclusions on the morality of certain actions. One member of a religious group may hate America so much that they convince themselves some sacred text demands they become a suicide bomber. Another member comes to the presumably more logical conclusion that the religious text means something else entirely, and doesn't condone the murder of innocents.

Their religion thus isn't "exactly" the same, but they are presumably founded on the same premises -- the lunatic just interprets it to suit his preconceived hatred.

Re: The war on faith.
 

[ QUOTE ]
" And kill them (non-followers of allah) wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out."

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not familiar with this passage, and I would honestly like to see the context of the quote. If this is really a correct translation of a document that the Muslim (I presume?) faith holds as sacred -- and, even in context, the quote literally means "kill anyone who isn't Muslim" -- then I agree that we should be "at war" with anyone who follows this religion without question. Given the number of Muslims out there who are peaceful towards other religions though, I'm guessing there is more to it. Or... at the very least, certain texts are rejected by certain "sects" (for lack of a better word) of the Muslim faith.

However, the OP specifically mentioned Christians who use their religion in the name of war (I think he mentioned Northern Ireland?). Using your faith as justification for war is the exact *opposite* of what Christianity is about (and I know this for a fact, as I am one). So again, I stand by my original assertion that the cause of war isn't faith or religion, but the distorted and incorrect views of a certain subset of a given religion who use ridiculous interpretations of "sacred texts" to justify their behavior.

Re: The war on faith.
 

[ QUOTE ]
edit: to add a math question
If something will happen with near certainty(99.9%) within 100 to 1000 years what range of is the probabilty of it happening in a single year?

[/ QUOTE ]

About the same as a book reaching the NY Times Best-Seller list every year - proclaiming it's the end of the world......again.

Re: The war on faith.
 

Also,

[ QUOTE ]
This is a form of evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Other physicists do not work on string theory because they think some other theory is better and string theory is fundamentally wrong. They have their own evidence for doing this. They have faith that their evidence is better than whatever the evidence for string theory is.

If you *really* have faith in nothing, then you pretty much just have to wait around for other people to tell you what is right and wrong. It is the people that have faith in their beliefs who advance modern thought. Faith only becomes "irrational and immoral", and dangerous, when you refuse, under any circumstances, to modify your faith in the face of legitimate counter-evidence.

Re: The war on faith.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Their religion thus isn't "exactly" the same, but they are presumably founded on the same premises -- the lunatic just interprets it to suit his preconceived hatred.

[/ QUOTE ]

All people take their morals and prejudices to their religion and interpret it to fit ( subconsciously, natch). Sure, mostly it's pretty benign but it doesn't mean somebody with a different interpretation is doing anything wrong, they merely disagree with anothers take on it.

In cases where people do make a choice about their religion, what causes them to pick one over the other? Can a person pick a religion that they disagree with it's moral tenet's as they see it presented ... that's an oxymoron .. a believer that doesn't believe.

Since there are thousands of religions and sects often based on the same sacred works, it's pretty hard to argue that one right and one is wrong. You get out what you put in.

That doesn't leave religion not-guilty, the necessity to suspend rationality ( or we'd all have the same religion) IS the cause, not any specific interpretation. Terrorists are not lunatics and it's a big error to make thinking so.

luckyme

Re: The war on faith.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, mostly it's pretty benign but it doesn't mean somebody with a different interpretation is doing anything wrong, they merely disagree with anothers take on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where I disagree. I think it is pretty easy to pick out the "morally wrong" interpretations. Generally, if you understand the context and true translations of a writing, you don't have much wiggle room to interpret it incorrectly. Making claims like Christianity advocates war (in the northern ireland case) is so egregiously wrong that... well, let's just say this isn't open to interpretation. Unless, of course, you pick out 4 words like "Abraham went to war", and automatically conclude -- war is good, kill all non-Christians! This goes back to the issue of getting at the true meaning and context of the religion or religious text, and not picking out one verse of one passage of one chapter.

I do concede that it is *possible* some sacred religious texts (like the quote Jshuttle gave) really do advocate violence. I am not convinced that the quote he gave really means what the little snippet means, however. All I can say is, that if there ever was a religion that advocates something like "kill all non-believers", then that religion is unquestionably wrong.

Re: The war on faith.
 

And, as for this:

[ QUOTE ]
In cases where people do make a choice about their religion, what causes them to pick one over the other? Can a person pick a religion that they disagree with it's moral tenet's as they see it presented ... that's an oxymoron .. a believer that doesn't believe

[/ QUOTE ]

If Christianity really did advocate killing of innocent people, then I would definitely choose not to be a believer of Christianity. You can logically analyze the fundamental teachings of a religion and decide which one you think is more correct. I actually believe (more or less) that all major religions are "equally correct" if you will -- they just have different interpretations of spiritual/metaphysical/whatever ideas. That doesn't mean ALL religions are correct. Some cult in Idaho may believe it's okay to sacrifice innocent children, I would not say their beliefs are correct.

For instance, I can usually easily distinguish the fundamental teachings of Christianity from what some crack-pot priest has to say on some ridiculous issue. He can claim God has his side, but he can claim whatever he wants. I don't discount my religion because there are a few crazies out there who claim they are Christian.

Re: The war on faith.
 

The Christian authorities as well as the majority of the Christians themselves have long supported an interpretation that encourages war. Care to tell me what makes you more qualified than a hundred generations of Christians? Or how it's "easy" to pick out the wrong intepretations, when virtually everyone who read the Bible picked them out for 1500 years or more?

Re: The war on faith.
 

[ QUOTE ]
All I can say is, that if there ever was a religion that advocates something like "kill all non-believers", then that religion is unquestionably wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

By whose measurement?
That's where I think all your references to "true" interpretations falls down .. hard. Religious texts don't have many "anything over 60 is speeding" statements, everything is contextual ( or so those who disagree with a specific literal claim by others will insist).
Once it's open to interpretation right/wrong don't carry much meaning.. perhaps better/worse do, but that may be even conceding too much .

luckyme

Re: The war on faith.
 

Um, Jesus Christ. You know, the source of Christianity? Care to point out where he advocates going to war in the name of his religion?

Saying that Christians, in general, "encourage war" might be the most ridiculous uneducated statement I've ever read. Yes, we may say war is inevitable in certain cases to stop a greater evil. But to say that Christianity "encourages war"... well um, I guess you can believe whatever you want to believe (have faith in your ignorance I guess).

Re: The war on faith.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Um, Jesus Christ. You know, the source of Christianity? Care to point out where he advocates going to war in the name of his religion?

[/ QUOTE ]

By his acceptance of the Old Testament, and his support of it as the divine word of God, he advocates war in a very deep sense. But just because the OT is where all the conquerin' happens doesn't mean Jesus was as pacifistic as people claim.

Keep in mind the ancient scholars read the same words you do, and went to war based on them. In fact, they read the original Greek and were therefore closer to what Jesus actually said. Again, how come your interpretation is better than theirs? Better than clergy who devoted their lives to Christianity, the kings who accepted the Christian God as the only authority over them, the priests who went around violently stamping out "evil" as per (according to their belief) the dictates of Jesus? WHY are you right and they wrong? You're going to use the book they studied endlessly to prove that?

[ QUOTE ]
Saying that Christians, in general, "encourage war" might be the most ridiculous uneducated statement I've ever read. Yes, we may say war is inevitable in certain cases to stop a greater evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, like with the Midianites? Or was it the Crusades?

[ QUOTE ]
But to say that Christianity "encourages war"... well um, I guess you can believe whatever you want to believe (have faith in your ignorance I guess).

[/ QUOTE ]

Really. Last I checked it was the most religious people who were most in support of unjust wars. And typically it's the religious who ultimately initiate them! Just look at the war in Iraq - are you seriously claiming that it wasn't Christian-motivated, or at least that Christians weren't in favor of it more than atheists? If so, you're not too well-educated yourself.

Re: The war on faith.
 

Christian motivated??? I have never, ever heard that the war in Iraq was Christian motivated. The administration claims it was over WMD's. Everyone else claims they are lying and says that it was over oil. Or power. Who on earth (besides you) claims that this is a religious war?!

I have no idea if Christians were "more in favor" of it then atheists. Is there some type of poll that I'm unaware of? If there is, I would venture that it is because of political affiliations rather than religious teachings. Again, you're blaming the religion because people affilitiated with a religion have some viewpoint (even if the viewpoint has nothing to do with the religion itself).

I don't have the time nor the inclination to research the teachings of ancient Greek scholars. To put it bluntly -- I highly doubt any scholars went to war BECAUSE of Jesus' teachings. Again, maybe the rulers of the day claimed Jesus said they should have more power, thus they should kill people. Whatever. All I know is that I went to a Catholic school from kindergarten through high school, and never once was Jesus asserted to be "pro-war". He may have endorsed certain aspects of the Old Testament, but the *primary* message behind a lot of his teachings was to change the way the people of the day thought of the old testament. Maybe you can provide some evidence that Jesus was "pro-war", but I'm sorry if I take 15 years of religious education over the word of an agnostic or atheist. I have no reason to try to look it up without seeing some evidence first, because 15 years of legitimate religious study tells me you are wrong (most of it was directly from texts such as the Bible, so I have no reason to think my teachers were putting a "spin" on anything).

Re: The war on faith.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have no reason to try to look it up without seeing some evidence first, because 15 years of legitimate religious study tells me you are wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

Tom Cruise ... is that you ??

Re: The war on faith.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also,

[ QUOTE ]
This is a form of evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Other physicists do not work on string theory because they think some other theory is better and string theory is fundamentally wrong. They have their own evidence for doing this. They have faith that their evidence is better than whatever the evidence for string theory is.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is not even close to the same as faith in a god..

"I have faith that there will be daylight tomorrow"
and
"I have faith that I will go to heaven when I die"

ar two very different things.

I don't think that we should be considering the first as "faith"

Re: The war on faith.
 

[ QUOTE ]

this is not even close to the same as faith in a god..

"I have faith that there will be daylight tomorrow"
and
"I have faith that I will go to heaven when I die"

ar two very different things.

I don't think that we should be considering the first as "faith"

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, It's always a disappointment to see people fall back on equivocation when there are grounds for an interesting exchange.

luckyme

Re: The war on faith.
 

I didn't say it was a religious war. But Bush mentioned God many times in the early discussions, and there was a strong perception that it was related to 9/11 (which was certainly religiously motivated).

I forget where the Catholics are now. Care to enlighten me? I know the Pope used to be infallible, word of God blah blah blah, but these days they demote saints and apologize for early actions of the Church, who knows, maybe they don't even try to justify the Crusades! Ahahahaha, just kiddin'. All that rape and pillage, why would they drop the most fun part of their religion? Oh, did I say most fun part? Jesus, how'd I forget the Inquisition? Sure, no religiously-motivated violence for the Catholics.

I'm not claiming Jesus was violent. I don't think he was (if he existed). My claim is that the Christian religion is violent. Different claim entirely. At any rate, I can't handle another txag thread. It's too much. So briefly, do passages in the OT like

"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him.

But all the girls, who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

(the words of God spoken in Numbers 17-18)

not seem violent to you? I won't bother with all the rest, that's the "big red button" of Biblical atrocities (though possibly not the worst).

And then there's all the stuff from NT like:

"I came to throw fire on the earth. I wish it were already kindled."

(Luke 12:49)

Most of the awful stuff in the NT (worse, IMO, than the OT) is about the violence God will bring to unbelievers, rather than men. For that reason there's very little to encourage war or violence directly (though that hasn't stopped various Christian wars). But there are some striking statements of the horrors that Jesus will bring when he returns, and on how harshly God will punish the sinners, and blah blah blah. I won't bring up the fig tree or the money-changers as evidence Jesus was violent, but they're clear evidence he wasn't peaceful.

Re: The war on faith.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no reason to try to look it up without seeing some evidence first, because 15 years of legitimate religious study tells me you are wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

Tom Cruise ... is that you ??

[/ QUOTE ]

luckyme,
I assume you think professor's with Ph.D.'s in religious studies are like Tom Cruise as well? I learned from (mostly) very good teachers. Equating any type of religious education with Tom Cruise's mentality demonstrates your biases and ignorance.

Re: The war on faith.
 

Prodigy,
I didn't say they were exactly the same. But they are both faith, by definition. I was simply responding to the assertion that "all faith is immoral and irrational", or something along those lines.

I feel my faith is rational, because I see the good in Christ's teachings. Thus, I think it is rational to learn from him. Some people's faith, because they cannot think for themselves, lead to irrational conclusions and turn them into suicide bombers sometimes.

Re: The war on faith.
 

madnak,
So if a legion of computer scientists went on a rampage killing spree, and claim that their killings were "in the name of the God of computer science", does that make computer science "morally wrong"?

Again, Bush uses arguments dealing with Christianity to gain political support from Christians in America. The Church has humans running the whole organization. Last I checked, humans make mistakes. Thus I don't think that church "doctrine" or whatever is always correct. Some people do. Those people generally cannot think for themselves. This is not my problem and I sure as hell don't think you should outlaw Christianity because a few people use it to suit their own motives. If they don't use religion to do so, they'll find some other way.

I still don't think the Bible as a whole is violent in a way to say that it is immoral. Jesus claims God punishes people, sure. If I went around killing people and raping babies I would hope God would punish me in some way when I die. Just because the Bible speaks of punishment does not automatically mean it condones violence in all cases.

Re: The war on faith.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I assume you think professor's with Ph.D.'s in religious studies are like Tom Cruise as well? I learned from (mostly) very good teachers. Equating any type of religious education with Tom Cruise's mentality demonstrates your biases and ignorance.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I was just referring to you :-)
But if we're going to fall back on the 'my daddy' argument, you have to keep in mind that any major religion past or present has their Phd teachers, people that devoted their lives to the study. It's your dismissal of their study and your insistance that yours is 'true' that is tom cruisish.
hope that's clearer,

luckyme

Re: The war on faith.
 

I'm confused. When Jesus said to "turn the other cheek," love one another," "do unto others, etc..." what he really meant was to go kill people?

Let me get this straight:
If Jesus says I shouldn't kill people,
And I believe in Jesus and yet kill people,
Jesus is the cause of their death?

To paraphase the saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people": religions don't kill people, people kill people.

If you want to remove the concept of personal responsiblity, that's fine. But if you do explain to me why I shouldn't blame the atheistical philosophy that was prevalent in communist russia for the atrocities they committed?

People where killing each other long before religion came on the scene.

Re: The war on faith.
 

luckyme,
WTF, can you not read?? I said this:

[ QUOTE ]
I actually believe (more or less) that all major religions are "equally correct" if you will -- they just have different interpretations of spiritual/metaphysical/whatever ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

in this very thread. If you cannot read, I cannot debate with you. Your ignorant posts based on stuff I've never said are very clear. I hope the above quote makes my position "clear" to you, although I'm not holding my breath.

And as for this:

[ QUOTE ]
No, I was just referring to you :-)

[/ QUOTE ]

What, exactly then, do you know about my religious education that allows you to compare me with Tom Cruise's fanaticism?

Here, let me finish your argument for you, "U study religun... der der derbi der religion bad!@%.... der doobie do, you brainwashed like scienciloogy tom cruse!!419... m"

Re: The war on faith.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused. When Jesus said to "turn the other cheek," love one another," "do unto others, etc..." what he really meant was to go kill people?

Let me get this straight:
If Jesus says I shouldn't kill people,
And I believe in Jesus and yet kill people,
Jesus is the cause of their death?

To paraphase the saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people": religions don't kill people, people kill people.

If you want to remove the concept of personal responsiblity, that's fine. But if you do explain to me why I shouldn't blame the atheistical philosophy that was prevalent in communist russia for the atrocities they committed?

People where killing each other long before religion came on the scene.

[/ QUOTE ]

Near as I can tell, you're arguing with yourself. At least, I'm not familar with the atheist philosophical position ( other than the obvious 'I don't believe in a god' one). Could you point to a shortish source where the other tenets are listed? you've my curiousity perked up.

thanks, luckyme

Re: The war on faith.
 

[ QUOTE ]
At least, I'm not familar with the atheist philosophical position ( other than the obvious 'I don't believe in a god' one). Could you point to a shortish source where the other tenets are listed?

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so you're allowed to claim that Christianity is evil because some Christians advocate war, even though it has no basis in Christian teachings.

So, when John brings up the obvious in that certain atheists in the past have been proponents of immoral wars, we aren't allowed to associate atheism with war because they have nothing to do with each other.

This thread is [censored] hilarious.

Re: The war on faith.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused. When Jesus said to "turn the other cheek," love one another," "do unto others, etc..." what he really meant was to go kill people?

Let me get this straight:
If Jesus says I shouldn't kill people,
And I believe in Jesus and yet kill people,
Jesus is the cause of their death?

To paraphase the saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people": religions don't kill people, people kill people.

If you want to remove the concept of personal responsiblity, that's fine. But if you do explain to me why I shouldn't blame the atheistical philosophy that was prevalent in communist russia for the atrocities they committed?

People where killing each other long before religion came on the scene.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really dont get this or you are being facetious? I think its pretty clear that there are pacifist teachings in the Bible. None here would argue that. But what luckyme and madnak and the rest are trying to show is that there are ALSO plenty of violent teachings. So, yes, Jesus said turn the other cheek, but then the Bible ALSO encourages violence. That there is a contradiction in the message is a problem for you, not for us.

Re: The war on faith.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At least, I'm not familar with the atheist philosophical position ( other than the obvious 'I don't believe in a god' one). Could you point to a shortish source where the other tenets are listed?

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so you're allowed to claim that Christianity is evil because some Christians advocate war, even though it has no basis in Christian teachings.

So, when John brings up the obvious in that certain atheists in the past have been proponents of immoral wars, we aren't allowed to associate atheism with war because they have nothing to do with each other.

This thread is [censored] hilarious.

[/ QUOTE ]

JESUS CHRIST! He is claiming that Christianity is violent because the Bible teaches violence! THAT is why he is claiming it. NOT because of violent acts perpetrated by Christians. Not because of the Crusades. The Bible itself promotes violence. Thats his point.

Then, you just dismissed all of that, by saying that you knew the true interpretation, and in fact all of the violence in the Bible is really misinterpreted, or whatever your slant was. And THAT is when he brought up that millions of Christians for thousands of years seem to disagree with YOUR interpretation that the Bible is all about pacifism. Can you understand the seperation now? The Bible would promote violence whether any Christian in the history of the world had never so much as given a charlie horse. Thats his assertion. Countering that with "No, nu-uh, Bible says these things but they are just kidding" is what opens up the topic of the violent history of Christians themselves.

Re: The war on faith.
 

UM, JESUS CHRIST DUDE ZOMG!

I'm saying the Bible does NOT advocate violence. WHERE DOES IT TEACH VIOLENCE? Please show me a quote in its FULL CONTEXT, that would lead one to believe the Bible would advocate an ***unjust*** (KEY [censored] WORD) war in the name of Christianity.

I studied religion in school for nearly 15 years. NOT ONCE, in those 15 years did I come across a passage or an interpreation of a passage that advocated violence -- IN THE WAY THIS THREAD IS CLAIMING THAT IT DOES (please do no misquote me on this). Why is it so hard to accept the fact that people throughout history use religion and everything else under the sun to justify what they want?? This is my point. What makes you think that Bible scholars and my religion teachers and me are wrong, yet the ones that advocate violence are RIGHT? I think that *we* are right because Jesus was completely 100% against violence. This is why I think *I* am right. Plus it is also absurd to think a deity is a proponent of murdering in the name of his worship... when the opposing religion is in all likelihood worshipping the same deity under a different name/language.

You keep acting like I'm pulling the idea that "my" interpretation is right out of thin air. The only people in this thread that I see arguing the "war-mongering" interpration is right are atheists and agnostics that HAVE NEVER FORMALLY STUDIED RELIGION. If they have, they sure had a [censored] teacher. Do you understand now why I believe my interpretion is right, when it is based on the teachings of Christ (the founder of my religion)?

Re: The war on faith.
 

[ QUOTE ]
So if a legion of computer scientists went on a rampage killing spree, and claim that their killings were "in the name of the God of computer science", does that make computer science "morally wrong"?

[/ QUOTE ]

If groups of computer scientists independently tended to go on killing rampages, I would identify a correlation between a focus on computer science and violence. Then I would examine the body of computer science as well as the histories of the violent individuals to test my initial hypothesis: that computer science causes violence. If neither case served to falsify my hypothesis, then I would believe computer science causes violence.

The "morality" question would involve further study. What part of computer science causes violence? What are the benefits of computer science (as compared to the costs)? What are the other causes of the violent behavior?

In the end I'd probably put some blame on computer science itself, and some on the individual computer scientists, and possibly some on other variables, based on the results of my research.

Examples of my conclusions are religion (70% the fault of religion, 20% the fault of religious leaders, 10% the fault of practitioners) and violent video games (10% the fault of the games, 60% the fault of the players, 30% the fault of the parents).

Re: The war on faith.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Please show me a quote in its FULL CONTEXT,

[/ QUOTE ]

Bible passages are always in limited contexts. The only way to get the full context is to read the relevant book in its entirety.

[ QUOTE ]
that would lead one to believe the Bible would advocate an ***unjust*** (KEY [censored] WORD) war in the name of Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I guess your definition of "just" is like txag's? Tell me whether you think the slaughter of the Midianites (ordered by God himself) was just. If you think the killing of an entire nation, with the exception of the little girls who were taken into slavery is just, then we have very different definitions of justice.