Moderates sheltering fundamentalists

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I would argue that not revealing himself to us at all and letting us figure it out ourselves


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you will someday have the opportunity to make your case to Him.

[ QUOTE ]

I'd rather be brainwashed into doing something


[/ QUOTE ]

You might be in the process of getting that option.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd rather be brainwashed into doing something


[/ QUOTE ]

You might be in the process of getting that option.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try as I might I can't determine what you mean by this.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I would argue that not revealing himself to us at all and letting us figure it out ourselves


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you will someday have the opportunity to make your case to Him.

[ QUOTE ]

I'd rather be brainwashed into doing something


[/ QUOTE ]

You might be in the process of getting that option.

[/ QUOTE ]

You had nothing to say to my post above?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Bunny, I haven't previously been involved in your discussion, but feel your feigning ignorance about the many logical contradictions inherent in both the metaphysical foundation of Christianity, and it's textual support, is criminal to your own argument.

By acknowledging the overtly obvious flaws in the metaphysical edifice of religion, even those "Mongrel" religions, then you could show, with clarity, why this question is not to be answered. You as a believer have a perfectly logical standpoint, because the idealistic rendering of God for Christians is something outside the provinces of rational analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]
Personally, I dont try and defend christianity (or my version of it) as I havent become a christian through rational processes, so a defence is going to amount to "It feels right" which may be factually true but is still logically irrelevant.

However, I do believe theism is a rational position, and it seems you wouldnt accept this. I dont believe there are "overtly obvious flaws in the metaphysical edifice of religion" nor "logical contradictions inherent in... ...the metaphysical foundation of Christianity". Furthermore, if one was pointed out to me, I expect I would lose my faith fairly rapidly.

Personally, I wouldnt feel at all comfortable saying "Sure, these things I believe dont make logical sense - but they're true anyway".

My experience in arguing with atheists leads me to believe that the logical contradictions alluded to usually stem from literalism or innerrancy(both of which I reject). Alternatively from a misconception of what theism claims (ie the "Omnipotent means able to do everything, so can God create a stone so heavy he cant lift it? Bzzzzt contradiction!" sort). I think exploring these last kind is useful, as it seems the only viable way to falsify my theism.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Is that a good first draft?


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Why have a book at all? God could just reach down into your brain and make you think what He wants you to think.

What I meant was a communication to all. Something that doesn't make God a puppet master and us His robots.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I made the statement at the beginning, that the purpose of the Bible was ALREADY to influence and lead us. How is my version any different? Your slippery slope argument applies equally well to ANY action God takes on Earth.

Writing each book to a specific audience is the dream of a great writer. His book wouldn't be written to enslave each individual, only to make each individual GET THE POINT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, while faith may be fundamentally important to you, or to your religion, there is no reason whatsoever that God coming into my brain and simply making me believe in him interferes with my free will. I mean, of course it interferes with my free will, just like everything I read on this board or everything anyone reads in the Bible. It would interfere with my free will to the extent that it INFLUENCES the decisions I make. But instantly believing in God does not prevent me from choosing evil. It does not force me to do good, to worship God, or to accept Jesus as my savior. It just influences my decisions, much like the Bible influences yours. If free will is the major impediment to God's action on Earth, then the Bible is all the evidence we would need that he can flip a switch in my brain and make me believe.

I think a strong argument can be made that this is the only true (Christian) way to commit evil. If I simply do not believe in God, I may certainly commit wrong action, and even commit sin. But how can I really be evil, unless I believe in God and still choose to reject him?

[revots33]

bunny -

I think you are so different from the typical "moderate" believer that the argument doesn't really apply to you.

However, for example look at the PC tightrope people have to walk when criticizing Islam. I can't even count how many times I heard "Islam is a religion of peace" immediately after 9/11. This was said to seperate the moderates from the fanatics.

But IS Islam a religion of peace, really? For that matter, is Christianity? Not judging by their respective holy books. By giving credence to the "moderate" beliefs, we are implicitly accepting the more fanatical ones. How big of a leap is it from "all non-Muslims (or Christians) will go to hell" to "all-non Muslims must convert or be killed"?

The same nonsensical beliefs are at the heart of both, the only difference is in degree.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
bunny -

I think you are so different from the typical "moderate" believer that the argument doesn't really apply to you.

However, for example look at the PC tightrope people have to walk when criticizing Islam. I can't even count how many times I heard "Islam is a religion of peace" immediately after 9/11. This was said to seperate the moderates from the fanatics.

But IS Islam a religion of peace, really? For that matter, is Christianity? Not judging by their respective holy books. By giving credence to the "moderate" beliefs, we are implicitly accepting the more fanatical ones. How big of a leap is it from "all non-Muslims (or Christians) will go to hell" to "all-non Muslims must convert or be killed"?

The same nonsensical beliefs are at the heart of both, the only difference is in degree.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can clearly see the argument applies to many theists - there are plenty of people in my church who, when pressed on some of the contradictions inherent in their positions will adopt a "each to their own" point of view which is certainly providing shelter...

I will be interested to see if Dawkins writes back to me (though I doubt he will as I expect he gets emails/letters from hundreds of theists wanting to argue with him).

[cambraceres]

I cannot honestly claim to be familiar with the fundamental tenents of theism, although I do know of a few eminent personages from antiquity who adopted it as their view.

It seems there are axioms to Christianity, hard line beliefs without which the entire system would be invalidated. These axioms are given in the bible, and are NOT in uncertain terms. There indeed is much about the bible that at best is open to interpretation, and at worst drivel, but the basic ideas are static.

Let's take one single idea, your example of the logical fallacy in the body of the omnipotence ideal is fine. In this argument, there is no place for interpretation, God is omnipotent. If he were not, the metaphysical edifice of Christianity would be shown insolvent, invalid. Accepting him to be omnipotent, any admission or recognition of inability would invalidate existence itself.
I do not think this is too strong, if God is accepted as the reason for existence, and his very being is shown to be the causal base for existence, then any invalidation of this relationship should constitute an invalidation of existence.

Violating the parameters of this concept of omnipotency is not in the nature of any such God, and if it were, the meaning and cause of this action would be irrational, or in other words, not subject to rational analysis.

Any time my particular consultant within the church was presented with any of these contradictions, he would merely say "It is a matter of faith my son", then give me a credulous, but subduedly sly smile. It took me some time to understand what was happening. By deffering to faith, the question becomes unanswerable. Now since the question is no longer one analysable by human rationalities, it is also one not subject to invalidation by this method. Your position is logically valid, but only because supernatural causes are immediately cited as a basic tenent of your religion. Again sorry of this is not applicable to theism.

Thanks

Cam

[Friedrich888]

"Religion has very little to do with ethics, it's a metaphysical question."

I somewhat disagree with that. Whatever you call mainstream "ethics" or "morality" is going to be influenced by the dominant religions of the people you are talking about. Instilling ethics and morality is the main point of organized religion. Only atheists completely separate ethics, morality and religion and do so on dubious grounds.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I somewhat disagree with that. Whatever you call mainstream "ethics" or "morality" is going to be influenced by the dominant religions of the people you are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's actually the other way around, as the morphing of religious claims to better align with current society throughout history clearly illustrates. Religion is not a leader in the area of morality it is a follower.

luckyme