Tweet
I decided to change threads as the last one dealt more with homophobes and I'd rather keep each thread focused on its topic:
Like DM says we diagree on a lot of things. One being whether Christians as a group can be judged. DM think we must judge them on an individual basis but I disagree.
On this basis:
1) Generlaizations can be accurate. I think history shows that mine is.
2) Generalizations can be efficient. People don't have enough time and rescources to always judge people individually.
For example the Nazis of WW2. The US didn't have enough time to judge each Nazi and each possible "Interpretation" of Mein Kampf before we had to decide whether Nazis as a group were bad.
Likewise rationalists today do not have all the resources to judge each Christian individually before making criticisms and taking actions. Those who state that this gives rationalists no basis for criticism commit the perfectionist fallacy. No criticism is ever perfect or so fine tuned as to take into account every possible exception in a world of 6 billion plus human beings. To say that this makes all criticism as a whole unwarranted though is a pretty weak argument.
3) If a group of people by definition go aganist certain positive values I hold, I may judge that group. For example if I dislike racists on principle, anyone who is by definition a racist is disliked to a certain degree. I don't like faith,supernaturalism or irrationalism, hence to a degree Christians as a group are judged on those principles.
Now for my critics:
David Floyd:
Atheism means "without" belief in a God. Not "there is no God", though I'd adop the latter in reference to Christianity. This is derived from breaking the word down, a-meaning without. Theism-belief in God. Atheism is thus, without or lack of belief in God.
It promotes nothing. It promotes a certain viewpoint no more then A-elfism or non-belief in faries promotes a certain viewpoint.
Atheists can adhere to a great many,often conflicting viewpoints. There are existentialists,marxists,rationalists,relativists, objectivist and buddhist atheists. Each with their own set of conflicting and differing views.
In that way atheists have no more in common then A-elfists have something in common. To hold all atheists accountable for what a certain group of atheists do is like holding a group of people who don't believe in faries accountable for what other non-believers in faries did(which is almost the whole world) even though the groups have little if anything in common.
That is why it is so futile to generalize on the basis of a negative, usually.
Now atheists in the US do tend to be pro-science and reason. And will usually unite against theists(obviously) but this does not entail any commonalities among eachother, yet again with other nonbelievers in other nations.
To form a valid generalization you should focus on a positive belief or trait. Since that sort of belef entails far more commonalities.
1) That's a simple commitment of the "No true scotsman" fallacy.
2) Can you? You still are genralizing on the basis of a negative, which is far too vague and unrelated a trait. Stalin and Mao were a specific kind of atheist with a specific kind of ideology: Marxism. Now you can perhaps criticize Marxism,(certainly Maoism and Stalinism) on the basis of such examples, But to criticize atheists as a whole is ridiculous.
Why not? If this was extremely rare, I could understand it. But it's not. And the religious motivations for many acts like these are obvious. In the Bible it allows people to murder,rape and such, God even commanded it sometime. Also it allows for self-defense and the protection of inocence, if fetuses are seen as "innocent" babies about to be murdered then one has a duty to protect them, in the religious pro-life viewpont.(Not to say that Christianity is necessarily pro-life as I doubt Jesus said anything about fetuses).
The Bible also gave the Pope authority to do as he deemed in accordance with the Lord's will. Hence the Crusades were justified in that sense according to Xianity.
Where in the New Testament does it condemn or take back OT law? A lot of people say it does, but I am yet to find a single shred of evidence to support that assertion.
That is an obvious case of switching the Burdn of Proof. I think it is up to you to show that the NT somehow makes the OT outdated.
Sirotnikov:
Keep in mind this: The Bible is supposed to be(and the Torah) the word of God. You aren't supposed to pick and choose what scriptures you obey.
Also that when I criticize a piece of literature and belief I don't have enough to time to think of any possible variation of "interpretation": some Skin-head for example might interpret Mein Kampf in a totally symbolic way. But such an interpretation is unfounded and therefore irrelavent, as are most revisionist interpretations of Holy Books.
The literal interpretation is often best to guy by,unless there is reason not too. This is because without it set as a standard...literally anything goes. In that case I could interpret the Torah to be not better, but worse then its literal interpretation would warrant.
You seem to define Christianity here and other religions with any possible exception that may appear. That is ridiculous, if given a special viewI will focus on that. But I can also at the same time generalize if I find reason to do so, and criticize a generally held belief system.
Just like a certain philsophy, I can criticize existentialism or Marxist econimic theory as a whole based on its most common views. If a another view comes up I work with that, but until it does I will criticize the standard viewpoint for that belief system. Also remember here I'm focusing on group effect, in which case individual exception become irrelevant.
Kaak:
Actually most do to an extent. Think of th whole Ten Commandmens issue. Like I said before there is no evidence that NT dictums make OT laws outdated.
It all comes down to whether a religious body can ever be judged as a group. I think they can because people who tend to believe the same thing tend to act in the same manner, that's the nature of cultural memes.
Many say "nay" on the basis of there possibly being variation, but these variations have been few in number and seem to not provide eough force to cancel out the very negative effects. Where were the nice Christians during the Crusades or Witchtrials?
Fundamentalists will always have numbers and influence within religious bodies because the fundamentalist interpretation requires the fewest assumptions, and is the most obvious. It is also the best at providing the much sought after good vs. evil viewpoint which is part of the whole supernaturalist mentality.
Like DM says we diagree on a lot of things. One being whether Christians as a group can be judged. DM think we must judge them on an individual basis but I disagree.
On this basis:
1) Generlaizations can be accurate. I think history shows that mine is.
2) Generalizations can be efficient. People don't have enough time and rescources to always judge people individually.
For example the Nazis of WW2. The US didn't have enough time to judge each Nazi and each possible "Interpretation" of Mein Kampf before we had to decide whether Nazis as a group were bad.
Likewise rationalists today do not have all the resources to judge each Christian individually before making criticisms and taking actions. Those who state that this gives rationalists no basis for criticism commit the perfectionist fallacy. No criticism is ever perfect or so fine tuned as to take into account every possible exception in a world of 6 billion plus human beings. To say that this makes all criticism as a whole unwarranted though is a pretty weak argument.
3) If a group of people by definition go aganist certain positive values I hold, I may judge that group. For example if I dislike racists on principle, anyone who is by definition a racist is disliked to a certain degree. I don't like faith,supernaturalism or irrationalism, hence to a degree Christians as a group are judged on those principles.
Now for my critics:
David Floyd:
The atheist philosophy, or whatever word you want to use, promotes the belief that there is no God.
It promotes nothing. It promotes a certain viewpoint no more then A-elfism or non-belief in faries promotes a certain viewpoint.
Atheists can adhere to a great many,often conflicting viewpoints. There are existentialists,marxists,rationalists,relativists, objectivist and buddhist atheists. Each with their own set of conflicting and differing views.
In that way atheists have no more in common then A-elfists have something in common. To hold all atheists accountable for what a certain group of atheists do is like holding a group of people who don't believe in faries accountable for what other non-believers in faries did(which is almost the whole world) even though the groups have little if anything in common.
That is why it is so futile to generalize on the basis of a negative, usually.
Now atheists in the US do tend to be pro-science and reason. And will usually unite against theists(obviously) but this does not entail any commonalities among eachother, yet again with other nonbelievers in other nations.
To form a valid generalization you should focus on a positive belief or trait. Since that sort of belef entails far more commonalities.
And you can say that Christians have gone on Crusades, bombed abortion clinics, whatever, but I'd say 1)that people who do such things aren't really Christians, and 2)for every wrong committed by a Christian I could easily name another committed by an atheist. Let's not bring Mao or Stalin or Pol Pot into this, because using extremist examples like them to bash atheists would be just as "illogically unrealistic" (ie stupid as hell) as your examples of extremist Christians.
2) Can you? You still are genralizing on the basis of a negative, which is far too vague and unrelated a trait. Stalin and Mao were a specific kind of atheist with a specific kind of ideology: Marxism. Now you can perhaps criticize Marxism,(certainly Maoism and Stalinism) on the basis of such examples, But to criticize atheists as a whole is ridiculous.
I think it's reasonable to say that someone who goes on a killing spree either is not a Christian in the Biblical sense, or has serious psychological problems.
The Bible also gave the Pope authority to do as he deemed in accordance with the Lord's will. Hence the Crusades were justified in that sense according to Xianity.
That was Old Testament Law, applicable only to the Israelites, because they lived in a theocracy with God as the sole king (well, until Saul, David, and Solomon anyway).
DM, can you reconcile modern Christianity, which I would define as post-Jesus, emphasis on the NT books written by Paul and various Disciples, with the Old Testament?
If not, I would maintain that the Old Testament was written for a differnet people living under a different law in a different set of circumstances.
If not, I would maintain that the Old Testament was written for a differnet people living under a different law in a different set of circumstances.
Sirotnikov:
B) You're way too orthodox about religions. You learnt about the basic rules of a certain religion and then think that every person of that religion is the same and blindly accepts every such right.
Also that when I criticize a piece of literature and belief I don't have enough to time to think of any possible variation of "interpretation": some Skin-head for example might interpret Mein Kampf in a totally symbolic way. But such an interpretation is unfounded and therefore irrelavent, as are most revisionist interpretations of Holy Books.
The literal interpretation is often best to guy by,unless there is reason not too. This is because without it set as a standard...literally anything goes. In that case I could interpret the Torah to be not better, but worse then its literal interpretation would warrant.
If you fight a person's views you fight his views. Not a generalization of them that you happen to know.
Just like a certain philsophy, I can criticize existentialism or Marxist econimic theory as a whole based on its most common views. If a another view comes up I work with that, but until it does I will criticize the standard viewpoint for that belief system. Also remember here I'm focusing on group effect, in which case individual exception become irrelevant.
Kaak:
Most CHRISTIANS do not follow the old testament.
It all comes down to whether a religious body can ever be judged as a group. I think they can because people who tend to believe the same thing tend to act in the same manner, that's the nature of cultural memes.
Many say "nay" on the basis of there possibly being variation, but these variations have been few in number and seem to not provide eough force to cancel out the very negative effects. Where were the nice Christians during the Crusades or Witchtrials?
Fundamentalists will always have numbers and influence within religious bodies because the fundamentalist interpretation requires the fewest assumptions, and is the most obvious. It is also the best at providing the much sought after good vs. evil viewpoint which is part of the whole supernaturalist mentality.
Comment