All of this christian bashing is so ignorant and stupid.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

But...this isn't analogous to the whole Christianity debate anyway because by and large we're attacking Christianity itself and the thought processes it encourages, not individual people. The thing you've missed in the "slippery target" post from above is that if Christianity can't be blamed for what Christians say, nor can it be blamed for what its holy books say, under what circumstances can we say any religion is dangerous? If the answer is "never", why does religion get this special treatment as opposed to other strains of philosophy?

[/ QUOTE ]

While I don't think it's fair to blame Christianity for what Christians say, you can definitely blame the holy book for what it says. I just see the blaming Christianity for what Christians say as the same as blaming Socialism for what Hitler said or blaming evolution for what eugenisists said.

I think the reason the discussion gets so difficult is because there are so many ways to interpret the bible. I agree that a literal reading of the bible leads to some backwards conclusions about the world. I'm all about debate, but I just think that we should be trying to change things. It seems like vilifying someone's beliefs won't make them very amenable to new/better ideas.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wait, wait, wait. We don't get to hold Christianity accountable when Christians do horrible things in the name of their religion, and we don't get to hold the religion accountable for what it says because no specific priests preach about those ideals? Talk about a slippery target.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, yeah. Basically. Unless you want to do away with democracy because democratic governments do horrible things in the name of protecting democratic freedom. I mean, you see how that argument doesn't really work, right?

I mean, by this logic if I do something evil in the name of X, then X is at fault and not me even if X doesn't really say to perform that evil act.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, by this logic, how many times would someone have to do something in the name of X before you would be forced to admit that maybe X really DID say to do those things?

And where is this logic when religious groups do good things? Where is this logic when people talk about all of the great things religion does, all of he charity work, etc.? How come no one ever says "Well, you can't say religion is responsible, its the people's fault for doing all those good things."

No. Religion only gets the benefits, none of the costs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its the weak-minded egotistical fools that get offended by being insulted. Pointing this out seems to offend them.

Being offended is also one of the great evolved fitness mechanisms for organisations. It absolutely brilliantly handles attacks that may be well-founded.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wait, wait, wait. We don't get to hold Christianity accountable when Christians do horrible things in the name of their religion, and we don't get to hold the religion accountable for what it says because no specific priests preach about those ideals? Talk about a slippery target.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, yeah. Basically. Unless you want to do away with democracy because democratic governments do horrible things in the name of protecting democratic freedom. I mean, you see how that argument doesn't really work, right?

I mean, by this logic if I do something evil in the name of X, then X is at fault and not me even if X doesn't really say to perform that evil act.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, by this logic, how many times would someone have to do something in the name of X before you would be forced to admit that maybe X really DID say to do those things?

And where is this logic when religious groups do good things? Where is this logic when people talk about all of the great things religion does, all of he charity work, etc.? How come no one ever says "Well, you can't say religion is responsible, its the people's fault for doing all those good things."

No. Religion only gets the benefits, none of the costs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not the fault of religon that religons try to take all credit and no blame, its the fault of the people in the religon.

peoples are like that.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, except I'd place the fault with the people who ALLOW theists to get away with this absurd immunity, namely the culture of 'hands off religion' that we are arguing about in this thread.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But...this isn't analogous to the whole Christianity debate anyway because by and large we're attacking Christianity itself and the thought processes it encourages, not individual people. The thing you've missed in the "slippery target" post from above is that if Christianity can't be blamed for what Christians say, nor can it be blamed for what its holy books say, under what circumstances can we say any religion is dangerous? If the answer is "never", why does religion get this special treatment as opposed to other strains of philosophy?

[/ QUOTE ]

While I don't think it's fair to blame Christianity for what Christians say, you can definitely blame the holy book for what it says. I just see the blaming Christianity for what Christians say as the same as blaming Socialism for what Hitler said or blaming evolution for what eugenisists said.

I think the reason the discussion gets so difficult is because there are so many ways to interpret the bible. I agree that a literal reading of the bible leads to some backwards conclusions about the world. I'm all about debate, but I just think that we should be trying to change things. It seems like vilifying someone's beliefs won't make them very amenable to new/better ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

But when we blame the book for what it says, you say things like "Show me any preacher in the country who preaches something like THAT!" You made that exact same defense of something said earlier in this thread, or some other one. So, most people do not focus on (or even believe) most of the abhorrent things that their book says. And this absolves their religion of fault?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Its the weak-minded egotistical fools that get offended by being insulted. Pointing this out seems to offend them.

Being offended is also one of the great evolved fitness mechanisms for organisations. It absolutely brilliantly handles attacks that may be well-founded.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks chez. I think :-)
All this 'offense' being taken seems on the same level of teenage macho 'honor' rituals. Which also served evolutionary roles.

luckyme

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
While I don't think it's fair to blame Christianity for what Christians say, you can definitely blame the holy book for what it says. I just see the blaming Christianity for what Christians say as the same as blaming Socialism for what Hitler said or blaming evolution for what eugenisists said.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about blaming Marx for what Marxists say?

[vhawk01]

Taraz,

Do you understand that you are setting up a system where the ONLY time anyone is acting in accordance with whatever religious tenets they hold is when they are doing something that is unquestionably good? Any time anyone subjectively decides their actions are NOT good, you simply fall back upon one of the infinite number of interpretations that allows for the excuse that they aren't acting according to the religion. In this way, every religion is absolutely a perfect, flawless guide to living, acting and believing. If it isn't...you're reading it wrong.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not trying to change their minds. I generally don't discuss religion, because it frequently gets ugly and I have no desire to "change peoples' minds" - if they benefit from my perspective I'm pleased, but I strongly believe they should make their own independent decisions about what to believe. If I were out there proselytizing, I wouldn't have grounds for criticizing Christianity on that basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

By "change people's minds" I meant get them more educated. But if you're not interested in that, then I don't have as much of a problem with your approach. I don't think it's very productive, but you're obviously free to express your views.

[ QUOTE ]

I've been down this path multiple times, we all have, and I really don't think this is the thread for it. But it's irrelevant. Let's assume that my interpretation of Christianity is unsupported by the facts. That means I'm not allowed my interpretation? And do the theists get held to the same standards? If I can demonstrate that their interpretation of the Bible is unsupported by the facts, does that make them insulting and out-of-line? Or how about if they go on frequent diatribes against atheists? Or how about if they start threads with titles that include thinly veiled assertions atheists are "ignorant and stupid?"

Not to complain too much. It's not a big deal for me. But it seems like you're presenting a picture of poor defenseless Christians who need protection from the big mean bully atheists. And I think that representation is factually incorrect.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're certainly entitled to your interpretation! I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I think theists should be held to very high standards and we should question their beliefs and show them inconsistencies. I would just like to think that we can convince them to hold a more consistent view.

I mean, I haven't read any of your posts outlining why you think a certain interpretation is incorrect. I read "Christianity is vile and murderous" without any qualifying statements around it.

I didn't mean to present the religious folk as being defenseless or worthy of defense against atheist ideas. I would just hope that we could have constructive debate.

And I believe I already stated that theists are usually much more guilty of being offensive.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

No, by this logic, how many times would someone have to do something in the name of X before you would be forced to admit that maybe X really DID say to do those things?


[/ QUOTE ]

I mean if I go on a killing spree and kill a person in the name of democracy and then I get a following of people to kill along with me in the name of democracy, does that mean that democratic ideals are somehow at fault? What if this goes on for 50 years? When does it become democracy's fault?

If you want to claim that religion promotes groupthink and, at times, an abandonment of reason, I won't argue with you. That is where religion seems to be the most dangerous. I just think that many times a specific viewpoint within a religion is conflated with the entire religion itself.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

It's probably never justified, that's a rational term and it's an emotional reaction, so it'll spring up at the strangest times depending on the individual.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I should have used the word understandable instead of justified. Point taken.