Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
01-03-2003, 10:11 AM | #31 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer
Posts: 5,276
|
Quote:
Starboy |
|
01-03-2003, 10:36 AM | #32 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer
Posts: 5,276
|
Quote:
As to an explaination, let me ask you a question. If you didn't think Christianity were "true" would you be a Christian? Would anyone be a Christian? This may seem like a strange idea, but consider the possiblity that you are holding onto the thought patterns from the first century. That there is a new way of thinking that has proved very successful that does not require the "truth" in order to work. Starboy |
|
01-03-2003, 10:39 AM | #33 | |
Contributor
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Posts: 24,524
|
Quote:
You can pick one or the other; either you want the Christians to stay away, or you want them to come demonstrate in support. But you can't reject both, and then complain. |
|
01-03-2003, 10:43 AM | #34 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer
Posts: 5,276
|
Quote:
Starboy |
|
01-03-2003, 10:44 AM | #35 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Posts: 24,524
|
Quote:
Quote:
I am aware that there are *many* ways of thinking. I am not afraid of any of 'em; I just don't think any of them are, alone, "all the truth I need". See, you're assuming that, because I have some religious beliefs, that this is the only way I think, and that I'm not familiar with, say, the scientific method, or with formal logic, or with any of the other ways of thinking about the world. I have no idea why you assume this. It's a stupid assumption, frankly; even the most casual effort would show that I use other tools when I think they're appropriate. I would really like to see you define your concept of "truth" (in quotes), because I am not sure what you think it means. The idea of external truth? I don't think most models will work without that. If you mean "rejection of other ways of thinking about things", then yes, that's a bad thing. But you're the one doing it, not me; I use different ways of thinking for different problems. You've picked a way of thinking, declared it the enemy, and announced that it must be destroyed. That, to my mind, is the real problem. |
||
01-03-2003, 10:47 AM | #36 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Posts: 24,524
|
Quote:
Quote:
Both groups have "fundies" who deny that people who disagree with them are "real" members of their group; you'll see occasional atheist fundies bashing other atheists for not being anti-religious enough. I get bashed by Christian fundies for not being anti-atheist enough. In the end, the *real* line is not "atheist/theist", but "tolerant/intolerant". Rufus and Wildy are on the same side. I'm on the same side as lots of people here. You and people like gunnysgt are also on the same side; it's the side that wants to fight to the death to eliminate someone else's right to hold personal beliefs. In the end, to eliminaute religion is to eliminate the right to hold personal beliefs... and that stays wrong whether its your beliefs or mine being banned. |
||
01-03-2003, 10:49 AM | #37 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer
Posts: 5,276
|
Quote:
Starboy |
|
01-03-2003, 10:57 AM | #38 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer
Posts: 5,276
|
Quote:
Starboy |
|
01-03-2003, 10:57 AM | #39 | |
Contributor
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Posts: 24,524
|
Quote:
I think that, if you don't know what you mean by the term, you shouldn't blame society's ills on it; that strikes me as being a bit of a leap. I can at least tell you what intolerance is, before I blame society's ills on it. I think I see your mistake. The distinction between truth and "truth" is where the problem comes in. What, exactly, is that distinction? It's that the latter is the one people are willing to kill over. In other words, it's not what you believe, or whether you believe it's true (which is nearly exactly the same thing), but whether you can *tolerate other views*. That's the distinction. Most people are quite content to live their lives surrounded by people whose opinions they may not share. The few who don't are very loud. So... You have the same "truth" thing; you believe you've found a belief system to be false, and because of this, it is important to you that it be eliminated, because it's the "false belief" that's causing all the world's problems. Sound familiar? It does to me. |
|
01-03-2003, 11:00 AM | #40 | |
Contributor
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Posts: 24,524
|
Quote:
That's a pretty big distinction. There are certain statistical assertions I can make; most Christians will frown on casual sex, have some kind of opposition to divorce (although it may not be very strong), and will believe that moral action is a Good Idea. However, we're still people. Christian theology says people are "sinful". All that really means is "sometimes, we don't do the right thing, even when we ought to know better". I have never seen anyone who *didn't* believe that, when you get down to it. So... It doesn't surprise me a whole lot when Christians do bad things. It bothers me, and I try to help them not repeat their mistakes, but it's not as if it contradicts any of my theology for them to have done so. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|