|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Atheism on Purpose
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Naturally. Religion has the field. Mankind hasn’t come of secular age yet, but it will surely do so eventually, and then people will be able to look after one another without all the other shit that comes with religion.
Well, show me the money, so to speak. If "religion has the field" and "Mankind hasn’t come of secular age yet," then why should anybody choose secularism? This is all very theoretical so far - a bit pie-in-the-sky, so to speak. It might happen - but it really might not.
In any case, what evidence do you have for it? The only "utopian communities" - where people look after one another and others and so forth, I mean - that have ever lasted have been religious ones. There are still churches and religious orders that do this - but everything else has died off (what there ever was of such things, anyway). I don't even know of any proposals for such things anymore.
One woman I know theorizes that the reason for the higher levels of religiosity in the U.S. as compared to, say, Europe, is that in the U.S. we have very few social safety nets. And of course, unlike Japan, say, we have very fragile family relationships, too, because people move far away from one another for work. It's the natural reaction in a hard-line capitalist society like ours, she thinks.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Meanwhile, which, in your opinion, is nobler in purpose:
a) an atheist, who freely chooses to donate £5 to Christian Aid, and who gains nothing in return (except that nice warm feeling); or
b) a theist, who donates £5 to Christian Aid because they must, and who gains God’s almighty approval- and maybe the reward of salvation (oh, and that nice warm feeling)?
It seems to me that the obligation to care for the poor and oppressed takes something important away from the philosophical purity of purpose, and is nothing to boast about. You invented your canon- that’s your problem. Doing something out of voluntary compassion is quite different from doing it out of requisite duty.
As for this, I'll make the point again: people choose Christianity. IOW, they are choosing their own obligations - just as you say you are.
I don't really see the difference. Did you think we're automatons, unable to decide which group we'll throw our support behind and give our loyalties to? Did you think that Christianity's particular ethos isn't a factor in deciding to become Christian or remain in the fold?
[ 01. March 2011, 15:27: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Well, you tell me. You were the one reiterating anteater's point that Christians must look after the afflicted, as opposed to secular humanists, who only choose to. I was relating that difference to the original issue of atheists lacking higher purpose.
Of course, atheists, as a group, are less charitable than Christians, and this is one reason I'm happy to give to Christian charities- they do actually walk the walk, as you rightly point out.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Well, you tell me. You were the one reiterating anteater's point that Christians must look after the afflicted, as opposed to secular humanists, who only choose to. I was relating that difference to the original issue of atheists lacking higher purpose.
The reason she said that was to show that atheists have no particular platform on the matter. Atheists might choose to look after others - or they might instead be Social Darwinists (in I think the comparison she made).
You've actually moved the goalposts again, IOW. The thread is called "Atheism on Purpose" - not "Secular Humanism on Purpose." "Secular humanists" are a subset of atheists, not the other way around.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Yes, well the way that came round was as part of my attempt to show how atheists might have a moral philosophical framework that permitted purpose and hope, and I did carefully point out that atheism in and of itself does not do this. Any goal-post relocation was inadvertent.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Yorick:
quote:
And I would say to you and anteater that those Christians who must care for the poor and traumatised are in a certain respect further from serving a noble purpose than those who do simply because they choose to.
I don't think you've got my point. I was arguing from what your worldview carries as an implication for what you should do. For example: a scientific worldview would carry the implication that smoking is injurious to health. It probably does not carry the implication that moderate drinking is injurious to health, but even so plenty of people become complete teetotallers. It's a choice, but is not based or does not follow from what they believe the facts to be.
So a christian worldview states that the care of the poor and ( . you get the picture . ) is vital for happiness, and if you go against this, it is injurious to you. That does not mean that you have to have this worldview to take this moral stance, but it doesn't follow from the worldview, and I don't see how the atheist could argue that a social-darwinian position is not equally in harmony with an atheist worldview.
Of course, in practice it's more personal. I fear atheism because I see the plausibility of the Brave New World scenario. Indeed one of the reason for the success of the book is that the case is presented as quite reasonable, and I believe Huxley rather inclined to it at the time.
Outisde of a believe that God cares for them, I have not got a strong enough reason to care for the extremely handicapped, that I believe could stand up on purely humanistic principles. Now if you say that means I'm just a nasty piece of work, then I think you are falling into the trap of being so influenced by concepts which were originally sown into our mentality by Christianity, than you assume they are a part of being human.
I don't believe that people who have and still do advocate eugenics are bastards. They can argue their point of view. THat's my point.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Yes, the ultimate decline of Christianity in the Western world seems inevitable. This and future generations of children will hopefully be much safer from the influences of indoctrination, as church becomes increasingly irrelevant, and as their own social forces (particularly in communication) undermine the cultural restrictions and ties of religious family culture.
It's funny that you are so happy about it all. As if a Golden Age of Atheism was in the making. Of course not, there never was and never will be a society without religion. Yet if the domesticated dog dies, the wild wolf comes.
What you currently are seeing in the West is largely just the religious acedia and sinful excess induced by wealth. That's neither new nor special as such. Jesus said "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." The only thing special is that the West has managed to make such a lot of people so comparatively rich. To the extent that this universal wealth can be maintained, religion will remain low key. Where the system fails, religion will be back in force. Now look around the world, and tell me what the chances are for things continuing in the West as they have been...
Frankly, as an atheist your best hope is for regular Christianity to still be sufficiently strong when the economic shit hits the demographic fan. Otherwise, you are pretty much toast.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I’m not so sure the long-term future of the Christian church is assured, if its only means is to take metaphorical arms in a battle of assertion against culture. Such an approach may have been effective in ancient times, but I don’t see it working in this modern age. Those kids use Facebook, you know. As you rightly say, Christianity is not particularly compatible with the societies they're building for themselves.
Traditional (conservative) Christianity so far has been way more effective at leveraging the internet than liberal variants, I would say. And I'm not worried about getting the kids to dedicate their life to this or that revolution, that's par for the hormonal course, really. However, almost all revolutions are about changing others - often by removing their brains from their skulls with rapidly moving pieces of metal - only a very few are about changing yourself. You better pray that something as nice as Christianity is on the cards when the next revolution comes...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What you currently are seeing in the West is largely just the religious acedia and sinful excess induced by wealth. That's neither new nor special as such. Jesus said "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." The only thing special is that the West has managed to make such a lot of people so comparatively rich. To the extent that this universal wealth can be maintained, religion will remain low key. Where the system fails, religion will be back in force. Now look around the world, and tell me what the chances are for things continuing in the West as they have been...
You don't paint a great picture of Chistianity/religion there IngoB. Is it really just a last ditch hope for the poor? I certainly don't think so.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
redderfreak
Shipmate
# 15191
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What you currently are seeing in the West is largely just the religious acedia and sinful excess induced by wealth. That's neither new nor special as such. Jesus said "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." The only thing special is that the West has managed to make such a lot of people so comparatively rich. To the extent that this universal wealth can be maintained, religion will remain low key. Where the system fails, religion will be back in force. Now look around the world, and tell me what the chances are for things continuing in the West as they have been...
You don't paint a great picture of Chistianity/religion there IngoB. Is it really just a last ditch hope for the poor? I certainly don't think so.
I think IngoB is right. Atheism thrives in a wealthy complacent culture. You could translate what Jesus says as that it's very difficult for a Western (i.e. relatively rich) person to enter the kingdom of God.
--------------------
You know I just couldn't make it by myself, I'm a little too blind to see
Posts: 287 | From: Exeter | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Socratic-enigma
Shipmate
# 12074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And people wonder why theists claim that one needs God to have a foundation for morals... If this is true, then the only thing stopping me from doing whatever I like is 1) retaliation from others and 2) evolved instincts to avoid such retaliation. But following Yorick, we surely can use our intellect to overcome such biological predispositions if in fact we have no retaliation to fear. Thus once I grab power, I'll use my intellect to overcome my irrational qualms, and kill those I don't like, and exploit / rape those I do like. After all there's nobody and nothing to tell me I shouldn't.
3) affection and sympathy for friends and family; and a desire for their approval of one’s actions
4) the capacity to empathize with others and their position
5)the traditions and mores of the society in which one is a constituent
6)conscience... 7)... 8)...
But you see only two Ingo? Retaliation and the desire to avoid it?
Is that the only thing that dissuades you from sin – the fear of an all-seeing God’s retribution?
What a sad doctrine it must be to which you adhere.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
In any case, what evidence do you have for it? The only "utopian communities" - where people look after one another and others and so forth, I mean - that have ever lasted have been religious ones.
The Israeli kibbutzim? Admittedly their members are predominantly Jewish, but the majority of these settlements were established as avowedly non-religious communities.
But I understand your point. Religious communities usually provide a welcome for those in need.
S-E
--------------------
"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."
David Hume
Posts: 817 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
You don't paint a great picture of Chistianity/religion there IngoB. Is it really just a last ditch hope for the poor? I certainly don't think so.
Rather, I paint a realistic picture of people. This is not limited to Christianity either, other religions are likewise affected. I think it is actually mostly the illusion wealth provides that one is in control of one's life and fate. That's also why (corrupted versions of) Buddhism are getting popular in the West. They are basically about mastering the remaining uncontrollable issues life provides by your own power and effort. In other words, Pelagius is the high priest of mammon.
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
But you see only two Ingo? Retaliation and the desire to avoid it? Is that the only thing that dissuades you from sin – the fear of an all-seeing God’s retribution? What a sad doctrine it must be to which you adhere.
Firstly, I was reacting to Marvin's statement. As I said, and you quoted, "And people wonder why theists claim that one needs God to have a foundation for morals... If this is true, then the only thing stopping me from doing whatever I like is..." So spare me the cheap rhetoric, and start reading the actual thread. Secondly, I note with amusement that you were incapable to supply additional reason that went beyond the two I listed. Your "4) the capacity to empathize with others and their position, 5) the traditions and mores of the society in which one is a constituent, 6) conscience" can of course - in the absence of God - be understood as nothing but instantiations of my two points. Your 4) and 6) being examples of my 2) (evolved instincts for retaliation avoidance), your 5) being an example of my 1) (retaliation avoidance).
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It's funny that you are so happy about it all. As if a Golden Age of Atheism was in the making. Of course not, there never was and never will be a society without religion. Yet if the domesticated dog dies, the wild wolf comes.
I have no doubt that human beings will always have religious tendencies in some form or other, but I do not share your vision that Christianity (or indeed any of the other main religions today) will endure indefinitely, especially on the foundations you describe (more of which below). But I’d like to know why you feel so confident that there can never be an age of global secularism, and that, without religion, mankind must face the wolves. Do you have a crystal ball?
quote:
What you currently are seeing in the West is largely just the religious acedia and sinful excess induced by wealth. …The only thing special is that the West has managed to make such a lot of people so comparatively rich. To the extent that this universal wealth can be maintained, religion will remain low key. Where the system fails, religion will be back in force.
I find this sentiment both fascinating and repulsive. You seem to relish the prospect of mankind’s decline and fall back to medieval times, in which religion shall have the opportunity to prosper again. Do you really think religion is worth having if it only thrives at the expense of our civilisation and prosperity? Our very recent Western wealth is the product of our industrial, technological and cultural development, and the fruits of our brave and astonishing struggle out of the grime and suffering of poverty. The ‘acedia’ you see is nothing more than a manifestation of the increasing irrelevance of religion in the modern world- not the other way round. Without poverty and suffering mankind has no use for religion, but does that mean we would be better off being poor and suffering? Does it hell.
I’ve seen this time and again. As TubaMirum pointed out, at periods of great suffering, people resort to god. Bereavement is a superb recruiter for Christ. Imprisoned criminals suddenly find faith. Brothers of the murder victims of religious hatred become devoutly, fundamentally, religious. God is in all the darkest and sickest places, like a parasitic opportunist of our suffering. Halleluiah.
I wonder if you have ever experienced true poverty first hand, IngoB. Have you ever seen with your own eyes (and nose) the terrible, terrible depths to which poverty utterly and remorselessly destroys people’s lives? I seriously doubt it, or you would never see prosperity’s ‘acedia’ as a bad thing, and you would never for one nanosecond wish and hope for a cultural disintegration for the sake of your world of slick-lipped priests and corrupt churches and harmful superstitions. You’re sick with the very wealth you condemn!
quote:
You better pray that something as nice as Christianity is on the cards when the next revolution comes...
I have an incorrigibly optimistic outlook for the future of mankind, but it depends almost completely on our growing up about religion. Indeed, the way I see it, religion still poses the single greatest threat to our ultimate cultural progress, but, I hope, not for long. Although I also lack a crystal ball, I give it another four generations, tops, if we can make it that far.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
So a christian worldview states that the care of the poor and ( . you get the picture . ) is vital for happiness, and if you go against this, it is injurious to you. That does not mean that you have to have this worldview to take this moral stance, but it doesn't follow from the worldview, and I don't see how the atheist could argue that a social-darwinian position is not equally in harmony with an atheist worldview.
I'm not sure why you keep saying that atheists have no choice but to agree with your opinion of what atheism means. As Yorick has already pointed out, atheism means nothing more than a non-belief in god. Why should that inevitably be in harmony with a social-darwinist worldview?
As to your claim of an inevitable link between the Christian worldview and care for the poor I suggest you have a look at some of the threads about the policies of the US Tea Party types, who often wear their Christian beliefs very much on their sleeves. They are the people currently most active in trying to bring social Darwinism into public policy.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But it’s people who actually deliver in this mortal life, isn’t it? God doesn’t go round knocking on doors with those little red envelopes, collecting coins for Christian Aid. When those poor people call upon God, their anchor and advocate, to save them from their trauma and oppression, it’s people who actually do the saving, right?
No.
In my case it wasn't people; it was God.
The church and the bible and the people came later.
Never knew a thing about the Christian faith until God arrived.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I have an incorrigibly optimistic outlook for the future of mankind, but it depends almost completely on our growing up about religion. Indeed, the way I see it, religion still poses the single greatest threat to our ultimate cultural progress, but, I hope, not for long.
Hear, hear!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But it’s people who actually deliver in this mortal life, isn’t it? God doesn’t go round knocking on doors with those little red envelopes, collecting coins for Christian Aid. When those poor people call upon God, their anchor and advocate, to save them from their trauma and oppression, it’s people who actually do the saving, right?
No.
In my case it wasn't people; it was God.
The church and the bible and the people came later.
Never knew a thing about the Christian faith until God arrived.
Either you're claiming that God Himself directly saved you from your trauma and oppression without anyone else being involved, or you're not answering Yorick's point at all.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I’ve seen this time and again. As TubaMirum pointed out, at periods of great suffering, people resort to god. Bereavement is a superb recruiter for Christ. Imprisoned criminals suddenly find faith. Brothers of the murder victims of religious hatred become devoutly, fundamentally, religious. God is in all the darkest and sickest places, like a parasitic opportunist of our suffering. Halleluiah.
Hallelujah is right. And suffering is universal.
How about these far more common cases, instead of the ones you chose to put the faith in the worst possible light:
A woman loses her job. A man loses his wife. A couple loses their child. A woman loses her sanity. A mother cries over her learned-disabled child. A father cries over his inability to provide for his family during an economic downturn. A family is ripped apart by alcoholism. A veteran becomes homeless because of PTSD. A person has to deal with minority status and the problems that go with it. Somebody cheats you. Somebody lies to you about something very important. You are unjustly accused of some sort of wrongdoing. People gossip about you negatively, hurting your standing in your commmunity.
This is the human condition. People die; children have learning disabilities and the pain that comes from them; jobs are lost; the economy goes into the tank; people lose their feelings of self-worth; people lose their sanity.
How will the philosophy of secular humanism help any of these people? Particularly when even the best professional people often can't?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
I'm not sure why you keep saying that atheists have no choice but to agree with your opinion of what atheism means. As Yorick has already pointed out, atheism means nothing more than a non-belief in god. Why should that inevitably be in harmony with a social-darwinist worldview?
Sigh! ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
So for the removal of doubt, I have never said, thought or implied that atheism is quote:
inevitably . . in harmony with a social-darwinist worldview
I totally accept that atheists may, and many do, oppose social-darwinism. You need to turn it the other way around. My argument is:
Social-darwinism in not inevitably unacceptable on atheist principle, whereas it is on Christian principles.
If you believe atheism renders social-darwinism out of court, please explain why? If not the argument stands.
[ 02. March 2011, 15:43: Message edited by: anteater ]
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I’ve seen this time and again. As TubaMirum pointed out, at periods of great suffering, people resort to god. Bereavement is a superb recruiter for Christ. Imprisoned criminals suddenly find faith. Brothers of the murder victims of religious hatred become devoutly, fundamentally, religious. God is in all the darkest and sickest places, like a parasitic opportunist of our suffering. Halleluiah.
Hallelujah is right. And suffering is universal.
How about these far more common cases, instead of the ones you chose to put the faith in the worst possible light:
A woman loses her job. A man loses his wife. A couple loses their child. A woman loses her sanity. A mother cries over her learned-disabled child. A father cries over his inability to provide for his family during an economic downturn. A family is ripped apart by alcoholism. A veteran becomes homeless because of PTSD. A person has to deal with minority status and the problems that go with it. Somebody cheats you. Somebody lies to you about something very important. You are unjustly accused of some sort of wrongdoing. People gossip about you negatively, hurting your standing in your commmunity.
This is the human condition. People die; children have learning disabilities and the pain that comes from them; jobs are lost; the economy goes into the tank; people lose their feelings of self-worth; people lose their sanity.
How will the philosophy of secular humanism help any of these people? Particularly when even the best professional people often can't?
How will religion help them? How many devout Christians have lost their faith precisely in those situations? "How could God do this to me? I must assume there is after all no God."
It happens. I remember a case reported in the papers some years ago when a vicar lost his son. His wife stated that she had lost all faith in a loving God. Is that not worse? At least an atheist need not feel thus bereft.
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But it’s people who actually deliver in this mortal life, isn’t it? God doesn’t go round knocking on doors with those little red envelopes, collecting coins for Christian Aid. When those poor people call upon God, their anchor and advocate, to save them from their trauma and oppression, it’s people who actually do the saving, right?
No.
In my case it wasn't people; it was God.
The church and the bible and the people came later.
Never knew a thing about the Christian faith until God arrived.
Either you're claiming that God Himself directly saved you from your trauma and oppression without anyone else being involved, or you're not answering Yorick's point at all.
You're missing the point, I'd say. What difference does it make whether people will do the saving or not - and they are part of the picture but definitely not the entire picture in my own case - if you won't go to them for help in the first place?
The facts of the matter are these: human beings are broken. There isn't one person on earth that's whole and well - and some people, like me, are broken a lot worse than others. I have a very bad strain of alcoholism in my family; everybody around me was an alcoholic while I was growing up. I didn't, therefore, absorb very much information about how to live in a healthy way - and my brain chemistry is also screwed up. I need to keep my own spiritual condition healthy, or I'll fall back into the insanity. This is a truism, plain and simple, in my case: I've learned over the years how to do it. It works well.
If Yorick wants to argue with people about how they find health and wellness, and (as he says) to destroy religion and I imagine God as well - well, he should at least recognized that he's consigning many of us to continued insanity and likely to an early death. We cannot get ourselves better without spiritual help. At that's really the long and short of it.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
How will religion help them? How many devout Christians have lost their faith precisely in those situations? "How could God do this to me? I must assume there is after all no God."
It happens. I remember a case reported in the papers some years ago when a vicar lost his son. His wife stated that she had lost all faith in a loving God. Is that not worse? At least an atheist need not feel thus bereft.
All I can say is that I had no faith in God for many years, either. Perhaps it's harder for people who are "in the business," so to speak. But why should they be exempt from the pain of living, when nobody else is?
Actually, A.A. has something to say about this, too; "Sometimes A.A, comes harder to those who have lost or rejected faith than to those who never had any faith at all, for they think they have tried faith and found it wanting. They have tried the way of faith and the way of no faith. Since both ways have proved bitterly disappointing, they have concluded there is no place whatever for them to go."
A.A.'s answer is that these people can help others, later, who may be in the same situation. And that's pretty much true of any problem or tragedy; our own experience can benefit others and help them.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Perhaps it's harder for people who are "in the business," so to speak. But why should they be exempt from the pain of living, when nobody else is?
I must admit that, sorry as I felt for her, that was my reaction. What kind of faith survives the knowledge of the terrible things that happen to other people, but dies when it happens to you?
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Perhaps it's harder for people who are "in the business," so to speak. But why should they be exempt from the pain of living, when nobody else is?
I must admit that, sorry as I felt for her, that was my reaction. What kind of faith survives the knowledge of the terrible things that happen to other people, but dies when it happens to you?
He will be a better priest in the future, if he goes back to it. He will be able to really help identify with and help others to whom this has happened. He will be able to say things that will make sense to them, and give them some kind of comfort and hope.
I understand loss of faith, too - it happens to everybody, just as life happens to everybody. I have a bizarre kind of faith anyway, really - I often don't believe in God, but somehow it no longer matters to me. I just go on in hope, I guess. (I believe in Christ, though! Still can't figure that one out. I think I'm a "Doubting Thomas" sort, actually; I need to see it here on earth. Or something like that....)
[ 02. March 2011, 16:58: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gargantua
Shipmate
# 16205
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Some of us just haven't got the turn of mind to be impressed by very big numbers. Even less so by very small ones.
But that’s probably because these numbers defy comprehension. The Big Bang is so mindblowing not because of whatever we might imagine caused it, but because of what we know happened instantly after it. In the first 10^-30 seconds (that’s one million, million, million, million, millionth of a second), it expanded from being the size of a golf ball to being at least a hundred billion light-years across (or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger), and maybe infinite size. If this inflation doesn’t impress you it’s because you simply cannot imagine it (even though you can easily enough imagine god magicking it).
Yorick, I want to ask you this: how do you, personally, know that what you stated above actually happened? Vass you dere, Sharley? What you have stated is every bit as much a belief system as the theist's propositions about G-d, as far as you personally are concerned. Can you honestly say otherwise? And if so, on what grounds?
--------------------
Fraternally,
Gargantua
Posts: 84 | From: Rossburn MB, Canada | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But I’d like to know why you feel so confident that there can never be an age of global secularism, and that, without religion, mankind must face the wolves. Do you have a crystal ball?
Read for comprehension. I said you'll always face religion. If you weaken "domesticated dog" religion, then when (not if) religion comes back in force, it will be of the "wild wolf" variety. Atheists should be the best friends of tame religion. You can have your age of global secularism, if you manage to make everybody on the globe live the Western life (as it used to be, one now perhaps must begin to say...). Since that's not going to happen in the foreseeable future, neither is your atheist paradise.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I find this sentiment both fascinating and repulsive. You seem to relish the prospect of mankind’s decline and fall back to medieval times, in which religion shall have the opportunity to prosper again.
I'm simply analyzing the situation. It has nothing to do with wishing this or that. I would wish that everybody in the world would be at least as healthy, wealthy, educated, ... as I am now and at least as religious. Yet, while that is possible in principle, that's not going to happen in practice.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Do you really think religion is worth having if it only thrives at the expense of our civilisation and prosperity?
That's a strange question. Replace "religion" by "freedom" to get a feel for how strange. (I'm not equating the two, I'm saying that reading one for the other will give you an idea how I see your question.) On one hand, civilization and prosperity are only truly worth having with religion. On the other hand, they are sufficiently distinct to be considered as goods in themselves, and in the total absence of these religion will not have much "space" for being good either. What one needs is a harmony. However, our obesity is a beautiful image of the culture we have built. Our culture is "fat" in a way that is not natural to being human in this world. This will rectify itself, but till it does religion will continue to suffer. I would prefer if nothing too drastic happened, because I quite like my own love handles myself (at least the metaphorical ones). But it's quite obvious that change is coming.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I wonder if you have ever experienced true poverty first hand, IngoB. Have you ever seen with your own eyes (and nose) the terrible, terrible depths to which poverty utterly and remorselessly destroys people’s lives?
I've experienced Filipino slums and Russian poor. And for that matter I've seen some of the underbelly of Germany when working as a paramedic (instead of military service). I didn't spend more time there than I had to, but yeah, I've seen some true poverty.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I seriously doubt it, or you would never see prosperity’s ‘acedia’ as a bad thing, and you would never for one nanosecond wish and hope for a cultural disintegration for the sake of your world of slick-lipped priests and corrupt churches and harmful superstitions. You’re sick with the very wealth you condemn!
It's not my problem that your world view is so binary. The religious acedia and many other features of the "fat" West are indeed a very bad thing. That does not make fighting for survival in abject poverty a good thing. And I have never said that I hope for "cultural disintegration". It is however hardly prophetic to note that the West as it has been will be no more in the not so far future, perhaps still in our lifetimes. Change is always destructive to some extent, it is hence prudent to think ahead and maneuver. I told you that atheists would do well to support as much as they can Christianity as it has developed. It would provide a safety buffer for them in future. But frankly, atheists are just too stupid for that, as your little rant once more demonstrates.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I have an incorrigibly optimistic outlook for the future of mankind, but it depends almost completely on our growing up about religion.
That's pretty daft then. On my optimistic days, I can believe that history is not repeating along the lines of late antiquity. We may just be able to develop the base fast enough to keep the superstructure from collapsing catastrophically. But we will come out of the exercise a lot "leaner" than we are now.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Although I also lack a crystal ball, I give it another four generations, tops, if we can make it that far.
Perhaps in Sweden, but again it is pretty daft to confuse Sweden with the world.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:
I'm not sure why you keep saying that atheists have no choice but to agree with your opinion of what atheism means. As Yorick has already pointed out, atheism means nothing more than a non-belief in god. Why should that inevitably be in harmony with a social-darwinist worldview?
Sigh!
So for the removal of doubt, I have never said, thought or implied that atheism is quote:
inevitably . . in harmony with a social-darwinist worldview
I totally accept that atheists may, and many do, oppose social-darwinism. You need to turn it the other way around. My argument is:
Social-darwinism in not inevitably unacceptable on atheist principle, whereas it is on Christian principles.
If you believe atheism renders social-darwinism out of court, please explain why? If not the argument stands.
Try reading what you write. You said, and the contrast with [your idea of] Christianity was clear, that social-darwinism is as equally in harmony with an atheist worldview as care for the poor is with Christianity. In other words you were claiming that there was an inevitable link between social darwinism and atheism.
I gave you examples of why declared Christians are promoting social Darwinism. Have you read those threads? If not, why not, before commenting further? So there are clearly Christians who don't think that social Darwinism is unacceptable to Christian principles, despite what you say, and they are actively promoting that view in US politics. BTW you do realise that "social Darwinism" has nothing to do with Darwin?
And it is not for me to argue why atheism renders social-darwinism out of court. It is you who are making the libel; the onus of proof lies on you.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Try reading what you write. You said, and the contrast with [your idea of] Christianity was clear, that social-darwinism is as equally in harmony with an atheist worldview as care for the poor is with Christianity. In other words you were claiming that there was an inevitable link between social darwinism and atheism.
I gave you examples of why declared Christians are promoting social Darwinism. Have you read those threads? If not, why not, before commenting further? So there are clearly Christians who don't think that social Darwinism is unacceptable to Christian principles, despite what you say, and they are actively promoting that view in US politics. BTW you do realise that "social Darwinism" has nothing to do with Darwin?
And it is not for me to argue why atheism renders social-darwinism out of court. It is you who are making the libel; the onus of proof lies on you.
No, she's not saying that at all. Here's a quote, page 3, my bold:
quote:
In terms of world-view, what Christianity states is that as a matter of objective (though eminently not publicly-provable) fact, the future of the world is determined by a Being whose commands for Man are that we build society to care for the weak, based on honesty and purity in all our dealings, and that we all will be judged on the basis of how far we promoted the welfare of all, and that just as in some distant future, the Earth will be dissolved, equally certainly, the world will belong to the poor, the meek and those who hunger and thirst after righteousness.
Now an atheist may take a similar view. He is at liberty to do so. Or he may take a Social-Darwinian view. But a Christian has to take that view, and there lies a difference.
I really can't see what could possibly be confusing about that. Either-or, plain as day. No "inevitable link" stated or implied.
[ 03. March 2011, 03:31: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Perhaps it's harder for people who are "in the business," so to speak. But why should they be exempt from the pain of living, when nobody else is?
I must admit that, sorry as I felt for her, that was my reaction. What kind of faith survives the knowledge of the terrible things that happen to other people, but dies when it happens to you?
A very selfish one, I'm thinking-- where evils that happen to other people aren't really evil compared to evils that happen to me.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But it’s people who actually deliver in this mortal life, isn’t it? God doesn’t go round knocking on doors with those little red envelopes, collecting coins for Christian Aid. When those poor people call upon God, their anchor and advocate, to save them from their trauma and oppression, it’s people who actually do the saving, right?
No.
In my case it wasn't people; it was God.
The church and the bible and the people came later.
Never knew a thing about the Christian faith until God arrived.
Either you're claiming that God Himself directly saved you from your trauma and oppression without anyone else being involved, or you're not answering Yorick's point at all.
The former ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you weaken "domesticated dog" religion, then when (not if) religion comes back in force, it will be of the "wild wolf" variety.
Okay, I apologise for my miscomprehension, but why do you think ‘wild wolf religion’ would have any greater foothold than ‘tame religion’ in a post-religious secular age, in which acedia/prosperity makes religion irrelevant? I guess you’re talking about religious extremism and fundamentalism stepping into the chaos of a post-apocalyptic imploding secular world, I suppose. Crystal ball much? quote:
I would prefer if nothing too drastic happened, because I quite like my own love handles myself (at least the metaphorical ones). But it's quite obvious that change is coming…
the West as it has been will be no more in the not so far future, perhaps still in our lifetimes.
I have never said that I hope for "cultural disintegration".
But you do though, don’t you? I find your thinly-veiled relish rather chilling, but again, why are you so convinced that Western culture is doomed? All of mankind wants it, it seems.
quote:
I told you that atheists would do well to support as much as they can Christianity as it has developed. It would provide a safety buffer for them in future. But frankly, atheists are just too stupid for that, as your little rant once more demonstrates.
Again, I’m sorry, I genuinely don’t understand this. Why do you suppose a flourishing Christian church would be beneficial to a secular world? How would it operate as a ‘safety buffer’ (from religious extremism, I suppose)?
quote:
On my optimistic days, I can believe that history is not repeating along the lines of late antiquity. We may just be able to develop the base fast enough to keep the superstructure from collapsing catastrophically. But we will come out of the exercise a lot "leaner" than we are now.
Yes, I think so too, because we will hopefully be rid of the pathological atherosclerosis of religion.
quote:
Perhaps in Sweden, but again it is pretty daft to confuse Sweden with the world.
But where Sweden leads, who knows that the world will not follow? There’s always one child who matures before the rest of the class.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Pre-Cambrian:
I note you never attempted to show why social-darwinism is refutable on atheist principles.
Can you at least say whether you think it is? All I'm saying it that it isn't. If you change "in harmony with" to "not refutable by" do we agree?
What I suspect is that you agree that atheism does not provide a refutation of social-darwinism (in which we agree) but against me, you believe christianity can't do it either. Hence your references to far-right christian groups.
Am I right? If so it's probably to long an argument. There are good/bad/wise/stupid christians, socialists, atheists etc. That only reflects on the beliefs they purport to hold, if you can show that the badness comes from the belief, considered intelligently.
The fact that many socialists are rich and use any tax dodge they can, does not in my view detract from the fact that socialism teaches egalitarianism. As christianity teach care for the weak, and many other things.
And as atheism teaches: there is no god. THere have been quasi religious cults set up by atheists. I would not use that as an argument that atheism "secretly" is a religion.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
Of course social-darwinism cannot be refuted on atheist principles, because as has been said more than once there is not a set of atheist "principles". Atheism is nothing more and nothing less than a non-belief in god. You raise a strawman and then complain when I don't accept it as the basis of discussion.
But you went beyond even that. Following TubaMirum's attempted defence of you I refer her, and you, again to your post that I had actually quoted: quote:
So a christian worldview states that the care of the poor and ( . you get the picture . ) is vital for happiness, and if you go against this, it is injurious to you. That does not mean that you have to have this worldview to take this moral stance, but it doesn't follow from the worldview, and I don't see how the atheist could argue that a social-darwinian position is not equally in harmony with an atheist worldview.
I.e. just as care of the poor must be a result of a Christian worldview so social-darwinism is equally in harmony with an atheist worldview. OK, you are now saying that isn't your position. Good.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Either you're claiming that God Himself directly saved you from your trauma and oppression without anyone else being involved, or you're not answering Yorick's point at all.
The former
Riiiiiiight.
For that to be in any way true, you must be defining "trauma and oppression" in some misty, new-agey, all-in-your-head kind of way. Right?
Which means you weren't actually answering Yorick's point. He wasn't talking about some kind of "I felt really bad and then I suddenly felt really good - it must have been God" thing, he was talking about real trauma and oppression. The kind that happy thoughts can't actually change. The kind that needs people to help you out of it.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Okay, I apologise for my miscomprehension, but why do you think ‘wild wolf religion’ would have any greater foothold than ‘tame religion’ in a post-religious secular age, in which acedia/prosperity makes religion irrelevant? I guess you’re talking about religious extremism and fundamentalism stepping into the chaos of a post-apocalyptic imploding secular world, I suppose. Crystal ball much?
I'm not sure that a catastrophic end of "the West as we know it" is necessary. With a bit of luck and a lot of effort, it will just fade into something new. I'm merely saying that I'm betting religion will be back much stronger in what is to come. The weaker "tame" religion will be at that point in time, the more likely that "wild" religion will rule the day. Hence atheists should cultivate "tame" religion as insurance policy - if they were any smart.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But you do though, don’t you? I find your thinly-veiled relish rather chilling, but again, why are you so convinced that Western culture is doomed? All of mankind wants it, it seems.
Why would I relish something that will likely bring great disadvantage to me and my family? Do you reckon a computational neuroscientist will be all the rage post-apocalypse? Western culture is doomed by virtue of being unsustainable for the global population, and likely being unsustainable even for "core Western countries" much longer. And the attraction of our culture to others is at least to 50% based on simple envy for our current wealth and power.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Again, I’m sorry, I genuinely don’t understand this. Why do you suppose a flourishing Christian church would be beneficial to a secular world? How would it operate as a ‘safety buffer’ (from religious extremism, I suppose)?
It would not be beneficial to a secular world. It would be beneficial to the non-religious in case the secular world (or rather, the mostly secular part of the world) goes belly up. Because it is almost certain that other contenders for religious leadership will be a lot less tolerant to the non-religious.
Incidentally, Dawkins may be stupid in many ways, but as a career academic he is instinctively doing the right thing, see his comments on Rowan Williams & the CofE.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Yes, I think so too, because we will hopefully be rid of the pathological atherosclerosis of religion.
I really have no time for this attitude.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But where Sweden leads, who knows that the world will not follow? There’s always one child who matures before the rest of the class.
There's also always one child who has head lice before the rest of the class. So what?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm merely saying that I'm betting religion will be back much stronger in what is to come.
......
Western culture is doomed by virtue of being unsustainable for the global population, and likely being unsustainable even for "core Western countries" much longer.
Right on both counts Ingo!
I am always amused by talk of an increasingly secular world because that secular world is mainly in the West, and its position is declining, not gaining. Most of the world is not so secular.
But I have hope that a sustainable form of western culture is spreading around the globe. It is pretty hard to distinguish development and the West, but if Facebook is overthrowing governments in North Africa it seems that the whole world has a come a long way.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Of course social-darwinism cannot be refuted on atheist principles, because as has been said more than once there is not a set of atheist "principles". Atheism is nothing more and nothing less than a non-belief in god. You raise a strawman and then complain when I don't accept it as the basis of discussion.
But you went beyond even that. Following TubaMirum's attempted defence of you I refer her, and you, again to your post that I had actually quoted: quote:
So a christian worldview states that the care of the poor and ( . you get the picture . ) is vital for happiness, and if you go against this, it is injurious to you. That does not mean that you have to have this worldview to take this moral stance, but it doesn't follow from the worldview, and I don't see how the atheist could argue that a social-darwinian position is not equally in harmony with an atheist worldview.
I.e. just as care of the poor must be a result of a Christian worldview so social-darwinism is equally in harmony with an atheist worldview. OK, you are now saying that isn't your position. Good.
I think she left out a word in that post or something; just keep in mind what she said in her original post and there isn't any problem.
The point is that, exactly for the reason you give above ("Of course social-darwinism cannot be refuted on atheist principles, because as has been said more than once there is not a set of atheist "principles".), an atheist can either be a Social Darwinist or a Secular Humanist. Because there is not a set of atheist "principles."
However, there is a set of Christian principles; they're found in the Bible, with its repeated injunctions to care for the poor and for widows and orphans - and with Jesus' statements. Such as, "Whatever you do for the least of these my brothers, you do it for me." "The meek shall inherit the earth." Etc. And with his execution as a criminal. And with Paul: "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty...."
There really is no way to make these things compatible with Social Darwinism, no matter what any particular group of people tries to claim; they can be easily refuted.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Either you're claiming that God Himself directly saved you from your trauma and oppression without anyone else being involved, or you're not answering Yorick's point at all.
The former
Riiiiiiight.
For that to be in any way true, you must be defining "trauma and oppression" in some misty, new-agey, all-in-your-head kind of way. Right?
Which means you weren't actually answering Yorick's point. He wasn't talking about some kind of "I felt really bad and then I suddenly felt really good - it must have been God" thing, he was talking about real trauma and oppression. The kind that happy thoughts can't actually change. The kind that needs people to help you out of it.
On the contrary.....like TubaMirium said....sometimes God is the only thing that can help you out of it.
Christians believe in the presence of God. Yes we, as people, change and help things to bring in the Kingdom, but there is also always the transcendent aspect of God present.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
On the contrary.....like TubaMirium said....sometimes God is the only thing that can help you out of it.
But He doesn't, does He? No poor person has ever been lifted out of their poverty by God alone, it's people that do it.
If you're going to claim a genuine case of demonstrable oppression and/or trauma that was alleviated by God alone, with no other people involved, then I would be fascinated to hear more of the details.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But He doesn't, does He? No poor person has ever been lifted out of their poverty by God alone, it's people that do it.
I'm not sure many people would agree with that. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But He doesn't, does He? No poor person has ever been lifted out of their poverty by God alone, it's people that do it.
I'm not sure many people would agree with that.
If it's so obvious to you all that God does save people from oppression or trauma* without any other people being involved then please do give me some examples of it happening. Hell, one example will do.
*= other than of the the "I felt bad and now I feel good" variety which I mentioned earlier, of course.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
If it's so obvious to you all that God does save people from oppression or trauma* without any other people being involved then please do give me some examples of it happening. Hell, one example will do.
*= other than of the the "I felt bad and now I feel good" variety which I mentioned earlier, of course.
Generally I agree with you. But I think you under-estimate changes that are purely internal by equating them to "I think bad now I feel good". For a start some of these internal changes work in the opposite direction, as when someone realises the wrongness of their current actions. Plus it under-values the changes thjat can sometimes take place, as in the example I have quoted before of someone who totally collapsed and became (in her own words) "a stinking drug and alcohol dependent wreck" and then simply "came to" entirely without any other person involved. She went on to take a degree in sociology and SFAIK is working in that field.
I agree that this can never be provably anything to do with God, and the case I quote illustrates this since the lady involved had and has no religious faith. But in the case of Peter Howson (Scottish artist - whose story as told on BBC4 is very moving), he does attribute his turnaround to God.
So it can be neither conclusively proved, nor denied to any purpose. Like most of this, the action of God is believable.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But He doesn't, does He? No poor person has ever been lifted out of their poverty by God alone, it's people that do it.
I'm not sure many people would agree with that.
If it's so obvious to you all that God does save people from oppression or trauma* without any other people being involved then please do give me some examples of it happening. Hell, one example will do.
*= other than of the the "I felt bad and now I feel good" variety which I mentioned earlier, of course.
Well, when people pray to God for help in the middle of the night, many times there's nobody else there. Who's going to help? And fairly often, nobody who might be around can help either. (i.e., even married people can feel completely alone, if their marriage is not working properly.)
That's one pretty simple and common example.
Further, I personally can say that even having sought help for various problems from professionls (i.e., people I paid to help me), I often didn't receive even the smallest amount of help - and sometimes I was ridiculed. I'll give you an example if you like.
And Freddy is making a good point, too. Who does help people who are, say, on their last dollar? In the U.S., at any rate, there's not much help. And there's not much sympathy, either; this is a hard-core capitalistic society, and if you're not making somebody some money, you're not really worth anything to them, and you're expendable. That's just the way it is.
You seem to want to lower the bar of desperation (or depression, or whatever the emergency is) to "I felt bad and now I feel good." That's not the reality.
At times, in other words, there is no help but God. Even people who get paid to provide help aren't able to.
There are lots of examples, actually.
[ 04. March 2011, 11:50: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Well, when people pray to God for help in the middle of the night, many times there's nobody else there. Who's going to help? And fairly often, nobody who might be around can help either. (i.e., even married people can feel completely alone, if their marriage is not working properly.)
Oh yes, people cry out for help all the time. I'm not denying that. I'm asking about where that help actually comes from (if anywhere).
quote:
At times, in other words, there is no help but God. Even people who get paid to provide help aren't able to.
So what help does He give? Financial? Medical? Demonstrable? Actual?
quote:
There are lots of examples, actually.
So give me one.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The point is that, exactly for the reason you give above ("Of course social-darwinism cannot be refuted on atheist principles, because as has been said more than once there is not a set of atheist "principles".), an atheist can either be a Social Darwinist or a Secular Humanist. Because there is not a set of atheist "principles."
Since when have Social Darwinism and Secular Humanism been the only two options? You are claiming that any atheist who is not a Secular Humanist must be a Social Darwinist which is complete nonsense. And the "logic" that deduces this from there being no set of atheist principles leaves me speechless.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The point is that, exactly for the reason you give above ("Of course social-darwinism cannot be refuted on atheist principles, because as has been said more than once there is not a set of atheist "principles".), an atheist can either be a Social Darwinist or a Secular Humanist. Because there is not a set of atheist "principles."
Since when have Social Darwinism and Secular Humanism been the only two options? You are claiming that any atheist who is not a Secular Humanist must be a Social Darwinist which is complete nonsense. And the "logic" that deduces this from there being no set of atheist principles leaves me speechless.
So sorry: I'm not claiming any such thing. I'm speaking to the two issues that have been raised here.
The point is a perfectly obvious one, and I'll lay it out in the simplest possible terms for you: There is nothing to stop an atheist from being a Social Darwinist; she is perfectly free to do so. There is something that stops a Christian from being a Social Darwinist; he is NOT perfectly free to do so.
It's pretty clear you're not open to actually discussing the issue, though, preferring to ignore what people have said, set up straw men, feign shock, and remain speechless. That's fine with me. If you ever get your voice again, and would like to be reasonable about this, I'll be happy to continue the conversation.
Till then, thanks - but no thanks.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
No. What is perfectly clear is that you write things ("an atheist can either be a Social Darwinist or a Secular Humanist", i.e. one or the other, the only two options) and then when you are challenged you deny them.
You say Christians are stopped from being Social Darwinists. But earlier you said:
quote:
In the U.S., at any rate, there's not much help. And there's not much sympathy, either; this is a hard-core capitalistic society, and if you're not making somebody some money, you're not really worth anything to them, and you're expendable.
That is Social Darwinism, in the western country with the highest level of regular church going, where right-wing politics, free-market economics and conservative Christianity go hand in hand. Are you really saying there is no connection?
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
No. What is perfectly clear is that you write things ("an atheist can either be a Social Darwinist or a Secular Humanist", i.e. one or the other, the only two options) and then when you are challenged you deny them.
quote:
Interesting that I never did say "i.e. one or the other, the only two options." You're the only one who did.
But I can understand this; it's definitely a good way to continue avoiding what's actually happening in the discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
[QB] You say Christians are stopped from being Social Darwinists. But earlier you said:
[QUOTE] In the U.S., at any rate, there's not much help. And there's not much sympathy, either; this is a hard-core capitalistic society, and if you're not making somebody some money, you're not really worth anything to them, and you're expendable.
That is Social Darwinism, in the western country with the highest level of regular church going, where right-wing politics, free-market economics and conservative Christianity go hand in hand. Are you really saying there is no connection?
I have never, once, anywhere, or at any time claimed that the U.S. was a "Christian nation." Because, you know, I don't believe it is.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Sorry, a little problem with the formatting there.
(BTW, if you'd actually read the things I've been writing, instead of making your own assumptions and pretending they're mine, you'll notice that I said I believe that the cause-and-effect factor between U.S. religiousity and capitalism goes exactly the other way. To wit: there IS a connection - and that is that hard-line capitalism RESULTS in more religiosity. Not the other way around.)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I have never, once, anywhere, or at any time claimed that the U.S. was a "Christian nation." Because, you know, I don't believe it is.
Of course not. Would a Christian nation elect a Muslim President? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I have never, once, anywhere, or at any time claimed that the U.S. was a "Christian nation." Because, you know, I don't believe it is.
Depends on how you mean the phrase "Christian nation". If you mean "a nation with a population that predominantly adheres to some form of Christianity", then the U.S. is indeed a Christian nation. On the other hand if you mean "a nation where the state officially provides support for Christianity", then the U.S. should not be so classified. It seems like Pre-cambrian's comments on Christianity in the U.S. are more along the lines of the former than the latter.
Or are you maintaining that most of those claiming to be Christians in the U.S. aren't real and for true Christians?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
