dangin

Damn straight. But take some consolation in the fact that today's fundies are the future's comedy.

Future scientist: "They believed what? Wa ha ha ha ha ha.

HelenM

I can't help admitting that's disarmingly poetic!

Helen

BibleBelted

In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit I stole that line from our own Hedwig. Honestly, I'm too lazy to hate anyone that much.

JGL53

The phrase "white hot passion of a thousand suns" gets thirty-four hits in google - hard to say who's the originator.

Ensign Steve

Yes, but we are talking about self-proclaimed Christians, not people who are falsely accused of being Christians.

I was not comparing Christians with child molestors or Nazis. I was arguing against your claim that people should not be judged based upon the groups that they belong to. If you do feel that each Nazi and child molester deserves individual consideration, then we'll just disagree on that point, but that's not the same as saying I equate Christianity with Nazism and child molestation.

Quote:

As far as the OP goes, particularly with Christians, and given the very wide and divergent thoughts, beliefs and practices amongst them it is morally indefensible to hate, by angry with and categorize ALL Christians based on negative experiences with some. I think many Christian people identify themselves as such, but don't hold or act on the views and beliefs we, as atheists find so abhorrent and/or irrational, silly, etc.

Yes, but if there is something common to all Christians that bugs somebody (for example, belief in God or Christ), then all Christians are going to bug that person. I know Christianity is full of more holes than swiss cheese, and there's so much cherry-picking going on in that religion that you probably could produce for me several Christians who don't believe in God or Christ, but I find that even more stupid and annoying about Christianity in general.

Let me use the gay example again. I'm gay. All that means is that I have a same-sex partner. There is no gay lifestyle or gay agenda, and every single gay person is different. The only common denominator between us all is our gayness. So if somebody says, "I don't like all gay people because they all like Barbara Streisand," that would be stupid and innacurate. But if they said, "I don't like all gay people because it really bugs me when people have same-sex partners," then they'd be right on.

Sure, it's none of their damn business, just like it's none of my damn business whether somebody chooses to believe in Christ. If nobody infringes on my right to have my partner, and I don't infringe on anybody's right to worship, then everyone's happy. I still don't get why we're morally obligated to try to make friends with the individual?

Quote:

Furthermore, and no doubt there are plenty of things an individual might think, feel, or believe that others find silly, irrational, etc. but those things do not make one unworthy of friendship, or lack value as a human being. Heck, I still have a hard time believing Ricky Martin is gay or bi, but all my friends tell me I am silly and my gaydar must be broken

I'll give you that it doesn't take away their value as a human being. I never said it did. I'm sure it also doesn't make them unworthy of friendship. So, they should go out and find a friend that wants to be friends with a Christian. Why is it my job to give them a chance to be my friend? Am I not worthy of friendship from people I actually care to be friends with?

Quote:

Generalizing people by group affiliation is a dangerous, slippery slope that should be avoided whenever possible, even in difficult situations.

The Slippery Slope argument is a fallicious argument form. I will generalize a group of five-year-old and assume that they don't like to go to bars, and I don't like to watch Blue's Clues, so we probably won't make good friends. I don't have to take each five-year-old individually to figure that out. That doesn't mean that I'm going to slide down that slope and be a racist by the end of next week.

Rusting Car Bumper

Stick a cork in it.

Actually any theistic based morality potentially suffers from the same problems and quite a few specific to it.

First, your claim that atheism has a problem because its "inability to point to an objective moral foundation" puts the cart before the horse. You would need to first establish that an objective moral foundation is necessary to speak of or to hold moral values. This can be easily argued against in many ways such as noting that similar or even identical moral values have arisen from a variety of cultural circumstances. For example, the "Golden Rule" has appeared in different cultures independently even though the metaethical frameworks of those cultures are incompatible.

Secondly, claiming a "God" or "The Bible" as an absolute basis of morality suffers from the same "problems" of arbitrariness. We can then ask "Why do I care if god says this is moral" or "How does god decide if this is moral?" When we follow through on asking these types of questions we end up in the same places philosophically, or we end up with a Euthypro's Dilemma, or we end up concluding that might makes right.

Thirdly, when we throw the monotheistic problem of evil into the mix and defend evil actions in the world by saying "They serve a greater good" then this gives me license to ignore evil actions. I can ignore and not interfere with a rape on the basis of this because "Clearly the rape serves a greater good unknownst to me and I don't want to interfere with God's greater good."

...and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Claiming a theistic basis for religion is a far greater problem in ethics than claiming the contrary. The best that the theist can do is arrive at the same ethical conundrums as the non-theist (which puts them in the same boat) or worse the theist has to confront unsolvable philosophical problems that do not confront the non-theist.

DC

brighid

Yes, but are the defining characteristics of "self-proclaimed" Christians except that each believes in Christ? How does a belief in a God make one worthy of anger, derision and hatred? Do all self-defined Christians believe and act like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or Fred Phelps?

Some things about a person can be judged by the groups they belong to, but in general it is a bad principle to judge ALL people based on their group affiliation, especially when it comes to religion. I do believe that people deserve to be judged individually. I also feel (and I would say we would agree) that alot can be determined by group affiliation, specifically the extreme examples you provided. I would say that Nazi's share some very specific ideas that remain constant with people who identify themselves as Nazi's. I do not think that applies to the breadth and depth of Christian people simply because they proclaim to have a belief in Christ and that is my counter argument.

It is fine that a belief in God causes said person to have an annoyance with all Christian people they come in contact with, but it is not morally justifiable to be angry with and hate all Christians because they share a common, benign belief in Jesus. I am not sure why Christianity would be "stupid and annoying" to you because some self-identified Christians might profess a disbelief in God or Christ. One has nothing to do with the other and that choice is an individual one and should be judged individually. I don't see a believers lack of belief as a defect in Christianity (even if I believe Christianity to be defective.)

Yes, and the same applies to the general label of Christian. As a gay woman all this means is you have a same-sex partner and as you say every single person is different. I would agree that someone saying that they don't like all gay people because they all like Barbara Streisand is inaccurate. I would also say the same thing would be true for people who hate and have anger toward Christians because they all like Jesus Christ.

I would disagree that it is morally justifiable to dislike all gay people because they have same-sex partners, even if that is an accurate representation of how they feel. It seems no different to me then your Barbara Streisand comparison.

I have at no point stated one is morally obligate to try and, or make friends with the individual. I have clearly stated that one is not morally justified in hating, or having anger toward ALL people in a given group because one has had negative experiences with some who identify themselves of the same group.

You may make friends with whomever you desire, but you cannot morally justify broad stroke, stereotypical generalizations about ALL people. It is wrong because people are more then labels, and have value beyond beliefs, tastes, etc. Furthermore, Christians don't all share the same set of beliefs and just as you are more then a gay woman and an atheist, theists are more then just believers in a God.


I did not say, nor have I implied that anyone should go out and want to be friends with a Christian, but that one should not hate and be angry with ALL Christians. I don't believe you are obligated, or it is your job to give "them" a chance unless the circumstance arises but if you didn't give them a chance based on nothing more then their belief in Christ I would say you were morally incorrect. Now, if you knew more about that person and they espoused their biblical hatred for gays I would say you are justified in not wanting further association with said person. However being Christian doesn't make one a homophobe, even if many assume such.

You may generalize about what a group of people, whether they be 5 year old or not may, or may not like. This doesn't however mean you will make an accurate assessment about an individual. Given it is unlikely that many 5 year olds have been to a bar, or even know what a bar is it would be a fair assessment to conclude that 5 year olds aren't going to like bars, but prefer Blues Clues. I don't think this relates at all to the hatred and anger expressed by the poster about the stupidity, et. al of all Christians in an attempt to morally justify her outrage.

I am also not sure why you made a reference to racism. Nothing in this threads suggests that anyone is racist for being angry with Christianity (where the anger should be directed), or Christians.

Brighid

JGL53

Perhaps we all should just hate the christianity and love the christian?

Ensign Steve

A little chopped up so I can combine smililar things into a single response.

Okay, we're not arguing about the same thing. I never said that anybody should hate or be angry at anybody. I'm talking about making friendships. There are billions of people on Earth who I don't consider my friend, but I don't hate anybody. The majority of the world falls into that vast "live and let live" category.

Yes, the OP mentions anger, but I have been arguing these points:
I said:
And then you said:
Nowhere have I said that it is okay to hate or be angry at anybody for any reason, group or individual.

How can it be morally injustifiable to dislike something? What moral model do you base that upon? Virtue ethics? Do you base morality on inner virtue and thoughts? I'm arguing from a more libertarian standpoint. Think/feel what you want, as long as you don't hurt others. People have the right to think and feel however they like, it is how they act that they are responsible for. If somebody shudders and gags when they think of what gay people actually do in the bedroom, how can they help that? There's a difference between that and going out and spreading lies, causing violence, trying to supress rights, hurting people. Those things are immoral. But disliking?

Oh, and the difference between that and the Barbara Streisand thing is that it is inaccurate. Gay people don't all like Barbara Streisand. Gay people do like same-sex partners. I am trying to show that I don't promote generalizing on falsehoods, but if something is true about a group, it's not harmful to generalize that thing about the group. All gays are gay. All blacks are black. All Christians are Christian.

But why?! Why can I not set my own criteria for friendship? I am not hiring them for a job or admitting them into a university. I'm not trying to take away their rights. If I want to say, "I want all my friends to be left-handed, green-eyed Wiccans," why is that immoral? It is my choice. It may be stupid, and it may seriously reduce the amount of friends I will have, but (other than me) who does it hurt? It's different than if I'd said, "I don't want to be friends with assholes, and all brown-eyed, right-handed Wiccans are assholes." That would be an untrue generalization.

I never thought that I could guarantee that every five-year-old likes watching Blues Clues and that no five-year-old likes going to a bar, but point of generalizing isn't to get an accurate assessment of the each individual in the group, but to get a general idea, close enough for my purposes. If I want a buddy to go bar-hopping with, I'm not going to go to the kidnergarten to find one. Is there a kid in that group who would have been a fun companion? It's possible, but not probable, and is anybody really hurt if I didn't take the time to find out?

I referred to racism because, IMO, that is the extreme bad result of generalizing individuals based upon their group. I was trying to argue against your "slippery slope" argument to say that if I do generalize one group of people to get a close-enough-for-my-purposes assesment of the individuals in the group (the 5-year-olds in my example), that isn't going to start me sliding down the slope to racism.

Keith

First the need: In order to have a meaningful discussion with other people about the moral rightness/wrongness of an act (such as murder), there must be an objective standard for determining what is/isn't right/wrong. If God, by his very nature isn't the moral standard that all of us are subject to, then what is? Aren't we left with our own subjective beliefs as to what is morally right/wrong? IOW, without God, it is just as silly to argue about whether child molesting is wrong as it is to argue whether strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream.

The fact that so many people choose to interpret the bible wrongly and self-servingly or believe it is no longer relevant doesn't mean that God is not the objective standard for morality.