Moderates sheltering fundamentalists

[luckyme]

Michael Jackson hit it on the head - 'why do people think that sleeping with little boys is all about sex.'

luckyme

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
This is really quite strong - I dont recall having my beliefs blown out of the water. Luckyme came closest I think a while back, but it was more raising doubts about whether it would even be possible for me to change my mind, not presenting a logical contradiction. I hope you can back this up with a belief of mine, followed by a logical demonstration that it leads to a contradiction...?

[/ 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.

You cannot, no matter your level or calibre of mental efficacy and logical acumen prove or disprove the God concept of christian theology. This involves analysing an incalculable entity.

FAITH FAITH FAITH FAITH FAITH FAITH FAITH

This, faith, is the reason one cannot validate or obviate the Christian God. Whenever logical fallacies arrive, they are tidily swept under the rug of Faith. "It is a matter of faith, my son. " This is the best explanation you can recieve, but it is also the perfect one for religious adherents.

I like to say that Faith is your belief in what cannot be known, and your answer to a question that cannot be answered. You cannot know an incalculable, omnipotent force.

Consider this simplistic example to see how you are on solid ground, as hurtful as this is to a committed atheist.

Several months ago, there was a post here about the significant evidence, of a physical type, that this world was not created by immaculate conception. In other words, that God did not create it as is recounted in the bible. The perfect answer, for any individual of religious conviction is simple, God left this "False" evidence to mislead us, and therefore test our Faith. This argument is rock solid, because ascertaining the answer means one must analyse something outside our abilities to do so

I must go

Cam

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Faith is belief without reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can reason itself be derived through reason?

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Faith is belief without reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can reason itself be derived through reason?

[/ QUOTE ]

Reason is the only way we can predict future events. It's the only way we can think of anything. Everyone has it, most people just don't use it. Or more adequately put, they refuse to put their feelings aside when using reason.

[chezlaw]

I agree with you, not only are moderates like you not sheltering extremists but you're actually a problem for them (and you'll be first against the wall if they get their way).

The problem is a sort of transference. If someone points out that a religous leader is wrong or a loony or a liar then its objected to as an attack on the religon and/or all the people within that religon, which of course it isn't at all. However the mass of unthinking followers are easily deceived because they don't seriously question anything.

Its no different to patriotism. We see the same rubbish if someone burns a flag or points out that their leaders are morons and/or liars.

Its encapsulated by the idea of offense which is just about the most morally bankrupt and dangerous concept in the world.

chez

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have time now, but I'll try to come up with some examples and would love to have them explained

[/ QUOTE ]

Handy link.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Either God says it's ok to own other human beings as slaves, or He does not.

Either God says we should kill our wife-to-be if she is not a virgin by the time of our marriage, or He does not.

Either God says it's ok to sell our daughters, or He does not.


[/ QUOTE ]

God has absolute answers for all questions, no doubt about it, even if believers are divided as to what those answers might be. I personally think there are some situations when those actions you mention are OK according to God. God's answers could be very detailed and situation-specific, the most important details of which are what's going on the various peoples' hearts (something a casual human observer could never know), couldn't they?

You are mistaking two kinds of maybes that look the same on the surface but are actually night and day....

1) Moral relativism: when people want to justify anything they do on the basis that morals are fuzzy.

2) Moral absolutism with sin and imperfection: when people act exactly like a moral relativist, try to be better but fall short because they are inherently imperfect.

Number 1 is the typical atheist while number 2 is the typical religious person.

The difference between them is what is going on inside their hearts. The second one is striving to improve, while the first is striving to bring others down to his level.

You are saying that if the actions are the same for the two then they are equivalent in God's eyes, while I'm saying it matters greatly to God what's in your heart, even if that is visible to no one based on your actions.

[ QUOTE ]
Either the bible is our moral compass or it is not. When you start saying, "Well, I very much disagree with God on those things, so I'm gonna say that's not to be taken literally. But I really like what God has to say about love, so yeah... Let's make that part literal!".


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but a true religious person wouldn't talk so frivolously about God's word, and even if he did, he'd be quick to realize that's probably a sin. A debate between two religous people might instead sound like "I think God expects this and that...", "no I think He expects the other thing..."

To a casual observer this may just look like moral relativism because in the end the two guys will just go on their merry way acting differently in a specific situation, at least one of whom will be sinning.

I'm trying to explain that, while this may be true, it's much less of a sin to do it by mistake (ie. not understanding the word of God) rather than adopting a position of moral relativism (saying to yourself God's word doesn't even matter).

You seem to be focusing only on actions. I'm trying to point out that you are missing the critical element of what's going on inside the person's heart.

And just to make things even more fuzzy, just because someone SAYS they are following the word of God with all their heart, they may be performing a major dupe job just to be better accepted in society. This person would seem religious on the surface but IMO God punishes these types even more than honest atheists, because neither truly believes but at least the atheist is honest with himself and others.

Note that all this fuzziness is not caused by me deliberately throwing up a smokescreen, although you cannot know that for sure based on the evidence so far, but by the incredibly complex nature of God and the necessarily incomplete picture we not-so-complex creatures could possibly make of him. And none of this implies that there are no absolute answers, just that they may be situation-specific and involve details which we can never know.

[ QUOTE ]
Too many of you guys take this on a personal level and feel insulted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not me. I'm pointing out a flaw in your thinking whereby you ignore certain factors, some of which might be invisible to humans.

[MaxWeiss]

Based on what you've said, it doesn't sound like your beliefs are sheltering. But then, it doesn't sound like you're a moderate. You sound full fledged agnostic to me.

Of course, maybe you DO believe in God, but you are very liberal in the various ways to get to him. Then who is the judge of who is right and who is wrong??? We have our petty human morals and think killing people is wrong, but many fundamentalists get their views directly from the bible. Who are we to say they are wrong?? After all, God did at least inspire it, right?. Maybe he could have been more clear about martyrdom and about stoning adulterers and children. But maybe not.

My point here is that YOU do not get your morals and live your life based on the word of the bible. You simply use the bible as a tool for introspection--which I have no problem with. Less moderate moderates than you want to keep respect for various aspects of their beliefs, such as the bible. You don't demand any kind of respect, but they do. And when you shelter parts of the bible, or other holy books, and when you shelters some of the things your religion proposes, who are you to say that those who use ALL of it are wrong??? But that's not you, and you are not the moderate I was referring to. Sorry I was unclear.

But wait, let's not alleviate all responsibility yet! After all, the Pope still declares condom use sinful, and (according to what I've heard) the only information received about condoms for the people in sub-Saharan Africa is the info they get from the religious missionaries. And millions die each year from AIDS. Non-thinking does more harm than just fundamentalism. What would we do without all the guilt and shame and sin!!??

But again, that's not you. The fact that you are thinking/worrying about the topic and that you consider it a personal thing and that politics should be secular pretty much says it all--You are a good and decent person. Many people THINK they are because they are doing God's word, but if in the process they cause more suffering or shame or guilt (when not justified earthly) or their ideas shelter more violent ideas, can we really say they are doing good for mankind???

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Faith is belief without reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can reason itself be derived through reason?

[/ QUOTE ]

Reason is the only way we can predict future events. It's the only way we can think of anything. Everyone has it, most people just don't use it. Or more adequately put, they refuse to put their feelings aside when using reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reason is indispensable, no doubt. My question is, if we define faith as belief not based on reason, what is belief in reason based on?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> But my position is that I'm not sure. </font>

Then how can you call yourself a believer in something you are not sure of?

The fact is, I am unsure as well. I never did like the term atheist. I have never said emphatically that does not exist. I am simply a non-believer. I cannot bring myself to "believe" that which I am not "sure" of.

So you can forgive someone for thinking your stance is wishy-washy. Some might call it a copout. If you are not sure that the bible is the word of God, then how do you call yourself a Christian? And the reason why you provide legitimacy to fundamentalists, is because you lean towards a religion they are very sure of, even though you admit to not being at all sure.

Again, I'm guessing. I can't speak for Dawkins.