Fiach

NOGO says:

You cast your net too wide.
What unifies Christians is a well defined Christian doctrine.

Fiach: So well defined that there are thousands of sects/cults of Christianity, the largest of which have spent millions of lives in inter-christian wars for the past 1700 years.

What unifies Jews is a a well defined Judaic doctrine.

Fiach: There have been separate sects of Judaism, such as Essenes, Pharasees, and today Liberal, Moderate, Conservative, Orthodox, Orthodox Fundamentalists.

What unifies Muslims is a well defined muslim doctrine.

Fiach: Sunnis, Shiites, Wahabis, Mahdists, Druses, Alawaites.

etc.
The fact is, that you cannot find a single subdivision of atheism because there aren't any.

Fiach: Correct, not believing cannnot be mild, moderate, or extreme. Either you believe in gods or you don't. Atheists can only group, and only need to group in places like the USA, where they are under constant attack from the Christian Fundamentalist Right Wing government and in general hated by the public at large.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Likewise, what unifies atheists? If you felt all atheists had obtained their position through rational reasoning, then yes, I would be ashamed that rational behavior did not prevent them from doing evil.

Fiach: Atheists achieve atheism through rational thinking. But humans are not perfect. Rational thinkers in one context may behave irrationally at other times and some even suffer mental illnesses. It has nothing to do with their being atheists.

It is the rational reasoning that I see as the common thread -- the assumption that all atheists came to their position through this route. It is obviously an oversimplification.

Fiach: Atheists only refuse to believe in irrational hypothetical beings (gods) for rational thinking. Some are highly rational in all endeavours, but others are barmy like Stalin, or Pol Pot.

For as noted above some atheists are really irrational thinkers, believe in undemocratic ideologies, etc. (Likewise, some theists can be great humanists and engage in rational thinking for much of their doctrines, just starting off with some different assumptions.)

Fiach: Agreed. For every Atheistic Stalin, there is a Christian Hitler. For every homicidal Pol Pot atheist there is a Christian Fundamentalist Rios Mott (CIA backed Guatamalan Dictator who murdered thousands).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not claim that rational reason will stop anybody from doing evil and I don't think that anybody ever made such a claim. This is the stuff of ideologies and religions in particular. Perhaps you have just proved my point.

Fiach: I think that criminologists have proposed that violent criminals are almost uniformly irrational. Inmates in prisons for violent crime are rarely rational people. I have consulted on some prisoners while in America in the 90's for various neurological problems and was impressed at how barmy most of them were.

Actually I do not see the relationship between rational thinking and atheism.

Fiach: Rational thinking when applied to theistic analysis is necessary to achieve atheism. That does not mean that theism cannot be held by rational people as well. Religious fundamentalism is a form of irrationality in itself and is incompatible with rational thinking.

Fiach

NOGO

I do not consider that my disbelief in God is a philosophy or outlook on life. Disbelief in God is about as important to me as disbelief in flying saucers in so far as how I look on life. No evidence, therefore no belief. That's it, that's all.


So we agree that ideologies result in groups or communities of people. These people (followers) automatically gain a "only we are right, everybody else is wrong" view of the world.

On an individual level this kind of thinking is harmless. Collectively it is dangerous and can be blamed for all sorts of evils throughout history. Christianity is an example. I would go further and say that when this type of collective thinking is based on religion and God the possibility for extreme is even greater.

Here you are making a fundamental mistake.

Al-Qaeda is a group of people with an ideal. It is not the Muslim ideal although they are all muslims. You cannot call Al-Qaeda a subdivion of the Muslim faith no more than you can call the crusaders a subdivision of the Christian faith. Please do not read anything into these statements other than what I already stated and that is that Communism does not need atheism and atheism does not need communism. There is no ideological link between the two. (Please do not come back with "how can you compare ...")

On the other hand Christians must be theists. The ideological link is obvious.

Just because a group of Christians embrasce another ideology does not make the new ideology part of Christianity.
Similarly just because a group of atheists embrace communism does not make communism part of atheism.
Or, just because a group of Christians embrace communism does not make communism part of Christianity.

I will further clarify this below.


You have just jumped into a different realm. When you call atheists humanists you are no longer dealing with groups of people under one organization or community. You are simply regrouping people who in fact do not know one another. We may call a number of people cowards or brave but that does not make cowards part of a community of people.

Remember above when you gave a definition of an ideology you were talking about groups of people with a leader and a doctrine etc.


No. You misunderstand me. My parents were both devout Christians and were as far from fundamentalists as you can find. I am talking about the nature of Christianity as an ideology.



You would be an excellent Christian apologist. Funny how you started your post bringing up the issue of defining terms and now you are reinventing the meaning of the word "witch". I think it pointless to continue if you are going to avoid issues by arbitrarily redefining words.

A witch or sorcerer, as some Bible translate it, is someone who has powers which do not come from God. They are evil not because they have done something wrong, they are evil by association.

Since we know that witches do not exist, killing people for sorcery is just murder.
Perhaps now you can return to the point that I made and try answering it.

Yes, the Bible is a mix isn't it? The question is why is it that all the good verse can be viewed as representative of Christianity and all the bads ones not? I see good and bad in everything. So when the Christian Bible says that it is ok to kill witches and some Christians have acted upon this statement then I think it is appropriate to blame Christianity for it.

Saving Christianity over the long term is not a goal which I would look upon as good nor necessary. Therefore trying to justify persecutions and murder for the purpose of preserving Christianity is not better than any organization doing the same for the purposes of self preservation.

"I would argue that the EARLIEST Christians were made up of a large number of humane sects"

I doubt this very much. All the nice lingo applies to believers but those who refused to believe were considered evil and less than human. You see the need to convert is the problem. You are either part of the elect or you are going to burn in hell anyway.

"... and that Jesus' message of love replaces these."

I do not see Jesus' message being one of love. If you believe you will be saved and if you don't you will go to hell. That is not a message of love as far as I am concerned.


That is quite bland as a statement when you consider that Christians claimed to be inspired with the holy spirit. If you believe that all of Europe was converted to Christianity by simple arguementation and good will then you can continue to hold such a view. I don't. Christianity, like communism, imploded and neutralized itself. Otherwise Christians would be all over the world in much greater numbers and force converting Chinese, Muslims, Hindus etc. Soon the whole world would be Christian. This was the stated aim, ie to convert the whole world.

Note that this is no longer a priority for most Christians, but why not?

I would argue that the "real" Christianity has been emasculated.


You are begining to sound like Bede. Funny that you have completely turned around. Just above you stated that Christianity was no worse than non-Christians now you credit Christianity for tolerance toward the sciences.

The way that I sort this out is based on a simple rule. I need to see a direct link between what is claimed and Christian doctrines. The rest cannot be attributed to nor blamed on Christianity.

Witch hunting occurred elsewhere however since the Bible justifies this practice I still blame Christianity for it.

As for the sciences, for example astrology and astronomy were of no importance to the church and therefore it let things be. As long as astronomers did not contradict a specific chruch doctrine all is well. In contrast the Chinese emperors monopolized astrology (and by association astronomy) because they believed in it. I would not credit Christianity for the simply act of not monopolizing something which it did not believe in. I would not call it "more tolerant" I would call it passive ignorance.


I believe that I have answered this in my previous post but also above.

Atheists profess only one thing, that there is no evidence for the existance of God and therefore no reason to believe that God exists. Only if an evil can be demonstrated to derive directly from this reasoning can athesits be blames for anything.

On the other hand Christians can be blamed for anything the Bible and other official Christian documents say which inflence people in acting in evil ways.

I hope that I have clarified my position unequivocally.



I would not either. I do not think so little of DavidH.


To Sojourner and Fiach


NOGO: What unifies Christians is a well defined Christian doctrine.

My only objective was to show a breakdown of theists into Christian, Jewish and Muslim and others. I thought that this was sufficient for my purpose. I did not see a need to further subdivide.

I did not mean to say that there is only one way to be a Christian. Believe it or not I am well aware of the dozens upon dozens of Christian churches. What I was saying is that all Christians have well defined beliefs in some form or another. The fact that there are many beliefs and many variations is exactly my point because in contrast only one thing links atheists and that is the disbelief in God. There are no variations nor subdivisions defined in any official atheist book or organization.

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Sojourner553

NOGO:

BTW: I use the adjective "atheist" before communisism to QUALIFY what type of commune living I am referring to. Obviously there have been a number of Christian communes (and even today) modern Jews communes. In Israel they are called Kibbutzes, and I was a guest at one kibbutz quite a few years back. (And all the Jews there were theists from what I could tell.)


Atheists are often subdivided into those who are humanists and those who are not. The former care about the Environment and the future of the earth/society; the latter are almost always Libertarians. If you go to web sites between Secular Humanists and Atheist Libertarians one is struck immediately by the major difference in philosophy between the two groups.


I am a humanist. And that is probably why I (as opposed to you, for example) do ask myself the question of whether individuals and society in general are better off as theists as opposed to atheists.

This is a deep issue for me, because if I really believed theism made the world a better place, then I would probably quietly harbor my doubts to myself.

I do try and check and monitor myself on this. And I try to be honest about it -- which is why you see me acknowledging that yes atheists can be evil. I am interestd in the subcategories that explain what can make an atheist evil. Is the explained according to whether the person was rational vs irrationalism for example, or something else?

When we look at history over three hundred years ago, it can be unequivocably seen (despite Bede's attempts to "reinterpret" this) that religion had a negative impact on science.

Yet, in the last centuries, it is also true that many Christian sects have become moderate and embraced a positive outlook of science into its interpretations.

Nogo, You claim that I flip-flop on this like Bede. The real reason is this depends on what TIME PERIOD you are speaking of.

As one example of modern toleration towards the sciences , I have read that a majority of people are against Creationism being taught in the classroom, and a good portion of this are theists. (Of course this would have to be true statistically since atheists make up only 10-15% of the population.)

Bede, I think, does a service in emphasizing Christianity does not have to be in opposition to science. If he stayed close to present times, I would just wish him the best in this endeavor with few commentary.

I really do wish that Bede "were" correct in asserting that the church was historically more favorable towards the sciences (and democracy as well. I note Bede does not contest the last point). Despite Bede's valiant attempts (to champion his religion) through selectively interpreting events and causes during this time period, early Christianity had it seems clear to me an abysmal record towards the sciences.

I am passionate for the truth for myself. Still, I monitor myself from time to time to ask: Is it better for Christians to "interpret" history so as to "make-believe" their religion was pro-science-- as Bede's site would imply? So far, the answer that comes to me is "No!" because the more fundamentalist elements of Christianity can distort this to squash science, even as they claim they are in reality "saving it" for a more lofty goal.

And of course there is this element too: As the famous line that goes (more or less) "there are good people and bad people, but it takes religion to make a good person act like a bad one."

I agree there are plenty of testimonials by individuals (whom I have no reason to doubt)who proclaimed that religion has made them BETTER persons than they were before.

However, I am still reminded with: when religion makes someone bad, it makes them REALLY bad... Bin Laden (who is not Christian) is just one example. I think the Jerry Falwells of this world fall into this category as well, and are also dangerous (although more subtly.)

This is what drives me to stand up for the truth with even more determination.

(With apologies NOGO, if this turned out to be an explanation of why my outlook is different than yours, rather than an answer to your original question.)


Sojourner

PS. I came from a religious background too. What caused you to break with religion and become an atheist?

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

NOGO

I can relate to this.


I can see the opposite in many people that I know. Usually people who convert do so for some reason. They confess their sins etc the whole process is designed to make the person feel that he/she is doing the right thing and according to the wishes of God. Should we be surprized that such people claim to be better.

At least we know where each one stands.

My break was in two steps. The intellect went first and the heart went second.

I read the Bible and could not make any sense of it. Too many questions unanswered or rather the answers were aimed at something other than my intellect. A man dying on a cross saved humanity. This man was God and he sacrificed himself to himself in order to buy back our sins. Wow!

If this makes sense to you then you are not using the intellect which supposedly God gave you.

It would be too long to fully explain the process but in short Christianity does not make rational sense to me.

The second step was more difficult. You cannot argue with the heart. The attachment was deep and virtually from birth. But I make it a point even today to examine my feelings, to dissect and analyze them, in an effort to understand them and in time to correct them.

You need to work on feelings until they match what your intellect knows to be true.

It was after this step was complete that I got a feeling of liberation. I was from then on in control of myself instead of being controlled by religion.

I needed to get there. I would not have accepted anything short of it and I don't understand how some people can live any other way.

As I see it, it was as much a case of rational necessity as one of emotional maturity.

Sojourner553

I too chose reason over emotion in making the switch. I remember fully when the evidence the Bible was superstition was becoming alarmingly apparent. I asked myself, "do I want to let this information in -- or should I close the (mental) doors on this?" The answer came back was "I want to know the truth ...!"

I think a lot of people when confronted with the discrepancies and superstitions in the Bible do not answer in this way. I know a relative of mine stated angrily once, that she was "happy" with her belief system (that she was going to heaven, etc) so why question any of the basics?

Sojourner

NOGO

I know many many people like that.
"I do not want to go there" kind of attitude.
I would venture to state that most people do not want to turn over the proverbial rock because they are afraid what they will find.

Vesica

I would venture to state that most people do not want to turn over the proverbial rock because they are afraid what they will find.

I could not agree more, however I think there are a lot of 'proverbial rocks' out there. Almost everyone I know, no matter how 'thinking' or 'open minded' has some rock they just do want to be bothered to turn over. So is this some flaw of religion or human nature??

NOGO

Human nature.
However of all the rocks out there that people do not want to turn over a good many of them fall under the heading of religion.

Put another way, religion exploits this flaw in our nature.

Amos

One rock at the time Vesica and very carefully because not all rocks must be turned over at once. Some are placed there by religion to serve us maybe 20 years from now.

Hansel and Grethel placed stones along their path not so they would know where they were going but to guide them back out of the jungle of life.

[ November 20, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Vesica

NOGO & Amos: Thank you both....I love the Hansel and Gretel reference....Just wanted to make sure we were conceeding that rock-turing-over is a choice not a mandate and that we all have our own little 'pet rocks' (Mine is named Sparky!).