Why are you not a Christian

[Elok]

Originally posted by Blake
The important distinction here, is that the general human justice system at large, has credible threats. Like with speeding, there is a well defined probability of getting caught, and a well defined sum of money to pay, and a well defined probability of causing harm, and a well defined time saving... it's a little complicated, but you can treat it with the rules of game theory and decide the optimal level of law-breaking, rather than just blindly following the law. And I tend to condone doing that because we shouldn't put out faith in the justice system as being infallible. It isn't.

There's an "optimal level of law-breaking?"

[Blake]

I'm inclined to say, yes.

This is especially true for stupid laws (examples pop up now and then). It is clearly optimal to break those laws. Just because it's a law, doesn't mean it's optimal to follow it to the letter... I hope you can see that.

But more to the point, NO law is perfect. Every law, is imperfect. Society, people, just can't be defined perfectly. A law is abstract, but applied to a fuzzy world.

People are round holes, laws are square pegs. They don't fit together perfectly, and some breaking has to happen at the edges (at least when the law is "too big"). Would you rather it be the people or laws which end up broken?

[Grandpa Troll]

............and I choose to simply stop chatting, fodder abound, have lots to say to all, but, chose to not incite yet more ire from the fine lot of Poly posters here.

Be well, God Bless you if you don't believe in God, this was meant as a true sincere term of endearment

Blake, my bad, I was mistaken for the budda reference, i do appreciate you clearing it up

Thank you all for pointing out my shortcomings, got me plenty of them, least of not having gratitude to those whom share what i do wrong here, I sincerely do apologize

Gramps

With this, i remove my subscription from this thread, so JM and whomever, including Blake, can carry on a more civilized conversation about whatever they choose.

Asher, thanks for always being a great poster!

be well one and all

Gramps

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Blake
One of the nice things about Buddhism is you get personal proof that there is no God.

That depends entirely on which form one subscribes to.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Blake


Using laws and rules as anything more than guidance is moronic.

Sure, sometimes I kill people too when I feel like it. We really don't want some kind of law fundamentalists here....

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
Be well, God Bless you if you don't believe in God, this was meant as a true sincere term of endearment

How would you like it if people told you to have a great God free day?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Asher

Are you serious? You don't believe that -- out in the West -- more people opposing gay marriage are religious than not?

Thought this was obvious. I suppose you do live in the south, so you are out of touch with the rest of the world.

I'm an Episcopalian so you know very well why your diatribe against Christians bugs me. Initially you may no attempt to distinguish between liberal Christians and the others, you just lumped them all in one basket.

This is a US poll:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/19/opinion/polls/main589551.shtml

For people who think marriage is a RELIGIOUS matter:
Favour gay marriage: 24%
Oppose gay marriage: 71%

For people who think marriage is a LEGAL matter:
Favour gay marriage: 55%
Oppose gay marriage: 42%


And: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=765

The most common reasons given for objecting to gay and lesbian marriage are moral and religious. Asked in an open-ended format their main reason for opposing gay marriage, more than a quarter of opponents (28%) explicitly cite the view that homosexuality is immoral, a sin, or inconsistent with biblical teaching, and another 17% say the idea simply is in conflict with their religious beliefs. One-in-five who oppose gay marriage explain their position in less moral, and more literal terms, saying that the definition of marriage involves a man and a woman (16%), or that the purpose of marriage is reproduction (4%).

http://pewforum.org/gay-marriage/

Polls show that religiosity is a factor in the opposition to gay marriage. According to an August 2007 survey by the Pew Forum, Americans oppose gay marriage 55% to 36%, but those with a high level of religious commitment oppose it by a substantially wider margin of 73% to 21%. Opposition among white evangelicals is even higher, at 81%. A majority of black Protestants (64%) also oppose gay marriage, as do pluralities of Catholics (48%) and white mainline Protestants (47%). Only among religiously unaffiliated Americans does a majority (60%) express support.

Does "religiously unaffiliated" really mean non-Christian? What portion of that group are Christians who don't believe in organized religion? Futhermore I note that you surrepetitiously shift definitions in order to fit your prejudice. If only 48% of Catholics and 47% of white mainline Protestants oppose gay marriage does it not logically follow that a majority of those groups (52% and 53%) do not oppose them?

Besides, what do you care about the institution of marriage with all of its religious connotations? I'd think you'd rather have a "civil union".

China has other cultural issues aside from religion. This doesn't negate or even apply to my point, which is discussed in a Western forum in a Western language about the Western world.

Oh great! Now we have to exterminate culture to please you! You did not originally confine your grievance to just the western world. Fact is that on a global scale atheists are just as much an impediment to gay rights as Christians. Furthermore I might point out that if you really are confining your complaints to Canada and the US the difference in size between the athiest community and the Christian community is so large ( 10 million vs 250 million ) that you really can't compare them. It's obvious that the population set of atheists in North America constitute a special population.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I'm an Episcopalian so you know very well why your diatribe against Christians bugs me. Initially you may no attempt to distinguish between liberal Christians and the others, you just lumped them all in one basket.

I'm speaking in general terms because if I used a sentence for every denomination of Christianity known to man and their stance on homosexuality, I'd run into the thread limit and my own patience. You know damn well that Christianity -- in general -- is not in favour of homosexual marriage, so arguing the point otherwise is a waste of all of our time

Does "religiously unaffiliated" really mean non-Christian? What portion of that group are Christians who don't believe in organized religion? Futhermore I note that you surrepetitiously shift definitions in order to fit your prejudice. If only 48% of Catholics and 47% of white mainline Protestants oppose gay marriage does it not logically follow that a majority of those groups (52% and 53%) do not oppose them?

I cannot believe anyone is arguing this with me. **pinches self**

Are you really saying it's not the case that Christians tend to be less in favour of gay marriage than atheists? Because all of the stats in the world will disagree with you, and you choose to willfully not believe it. That means you're incomprehensibly stupid (which is unlikely, given you're supposedly a doctor), or you're completely delusional. You don't seem to want to accept that Christianity -- in general -- is a "bad guy" in terms of equal rights for homosexuality. Everyone knows it. By far, the biggest lobby groups against gay marriage are religious groups. Can you even point to one anti-gay marriage group that is not religious?

PS: No, that does not logically follow. The quote itself clearly tells you that. Apparently you've never seen a poll before, but another category is "Undecided/don't know".

Besides, what do you care about the institution of marriage with all of its religious connotations? I'd think you'd rather have a "civil union".

The point was equal rights, period. Now you're moving the goalposts. Focus, doc.

Oh great! Now we have to exterminate culture to please you! You did not originally confine your grievance to just the western world. Fact is that on a global scale atheists are just as much an impediment to gay rights as Christians.

Let me explain the obvious to someone incapable of seeing the obvious:
China is not against equal rights for homosexuals because they are atheist.
Many Christians (statistically shown above!) are against equal rights for homosexuals because of their religion.

Proving that other people are against gay marriage and homosexual rights for reasons unrelated to religion doesn't change the fact that Christianity -- in general -- is against equal homosexual rights.

Furthermore I might point out that if you really are confining your complaints to Canada and the US the difference in size between the athiest community and the Christian community is so large ( 10 million vs 250 million ) that you really can't compare them. It's obvious that the population set of atheists in North America constitute a special population.

Furthermore may I point out that you're missing the point completely and ignoring irrefutable, undeniable, OBVIOUS statistics quoted above and about 100 million other pages just a google search away.

Let's face facts. Christianity as an institution and in general terms for Christians, is against gay marriage. I don't give a **** if China is also, and why should you unless you have no other argument than this pathetic piece of ****.

Do me a favour, Doc -- don't reply unless you want to bring a clue. Nothing infuriates me more than a brainwashed delusional as an opponent, and it's driving me crazy to see someone deny the obvious and lacking the intellectual capacity for introspection of one's faith.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher

I don't know why you need things like walking on water defined. I won't play this stupid game with you, either.

Again evading the issue of providing a thorough explanation. Do you even know what "sensical" means ? If by nonsensical you mean "non-factual", then say it - but learn to use words properly. This is what philosophy does.

That claim was never made. Please don't pretend that it was. One of the reasons I'm not a Christian is the beliefs change over time. That was my claim. Focus on that.

Why would the fact that beliefs change over time would be an issue, if not for a certain conception of truth based on eternity ? Don't be an hypocrit. You don't like this because it implies a certain conception of what the essence of truth is.
If it's not the case, then be rigorous and tell us why it's problematic.

I am? You're the one explaining this to me completely missing the point completely. I don't care that interpretations evolve -- the fact that the beliefs can change is a major strike against something as important as religion to me. That's the point -- period. It's completely asinine to argue that it changes over time when my point is I don't like that it changes over time.

Exactly what I just said. It's a major strike because you have a certain philosophical understanding of truth, or else it wouldn't be a problem.
Either that, or you're just admitting that being a "free thinker" you can't provide any explanation for what you believe.

Science changed over time, why do you like it ?

Absurd argument. The relevant stat is, of the people opposing homosexual rights, how many are religious? There is an undeniable correlation with Christianity and opposition to homosexual rights, even if some Christians support homosexual rights.

a) Perhaps, but the number remains that millions of people believe both in God and homosexual rights, as shown by the stats you posted (28-72). The correlation is insufficient to attribute this to the essence of religion.
b) Equal rights and by extension homosexual rights is a very Christian concept. It has often taken a secularized form, but the reasoning of modern secular humanists is based on Christian metaphysical concepts. They're just a branch of Christianism, really.

I think you do not comprehend the psychology behind rule by fear of the unknown. I'd urge you to either use your head, or do some research. I'm not wasting my time to explain what comes naturally to most people because you have difficulty with it.

I've asked you to tell me what is it that Christians fear more than atheists. You have been unable to answer, and you persist with vague depictions.

I never said my opinion wasn't rigorous. This is another example of countless strawmen from you in this thread that I'm not going to waste any time with.

What was that supposed to mean, then :

Are you this dense? The whole point was to ask why we are not Christian. I gave out in a stream-of-consciousness style why I am not. That's one of my reasons. I honestly can't believe you are doing this -- acting like this is some rigorous academic argument, when ALL it is is my opinion.

Basically, when the limits of your thinking are shown, you resort to pathetic excuses such as "it's only my opinion".

I wouldn't have much of an issue with this, if only you didn't fancy yourself a "free thinker" and didn't deny the value of philosophy, which would help your intellectual skills greatly.

Allow me to teach you a basic concept of argument that should've been taught to you in philosophy, even if it is common sense to most: The fact that you can find, in history, some people who are "free thinkers" despite being religious does not have any bearing on the statement that it "lends itself well to groupthink". And if you knew what Groupthink is -- and I'm convinced that you do not -- you'd see how Christianity does do that. Think about the concept of a congregation as a fundamental entity...

You're again being hapless, missing the point entirely. The fact is that any kind of thinking will have its leaders and followers, and that as such, this alone isn't an argument against religion.

Math and science rely on groupthink and authority too. You need different people trained to use the same standards, and you need to assume that few have the time and/or skill to verify in-depth the work of their colleagues.

I mean, for the first thousand years or so, they discouraged literacy in the masses so they could more easily control them.

They encouraged the crusades as a way to eliminate higher-class idle noblemen through fighting...

I don't give a ****. My example was meant to illustrate how your argument about groupthink is baseless, so don't try to hurl in counter-examples as if they were related to the point.

If you want to create a new argument, then do it clearly and state your reasons.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Again evading the issue of providing a thorough explanation. Do you even know what "sensical" means ? If by nonsensical you mean "non-factual", then say it - but learn to use words properly. This is what philosophy does.

Do my eyes deceive me? A francophone challenging a native anglophone about the definition of a word?

nonsensical: absurd: incongruous;inviting ridicule

The claim that someone walked on water is nonsensical.

(PS: This is what you filsofical types call a logical fallacy. You are once again attempting to shift the topic of discussion)

Why would the fact that beliefs change over time would be an issue, if not for a certain conception of truth based on eternity ? Don't be an hypocrit. You don't like this because it implies a certain conception of what the essence of truth is.
If it's not the case, then be rigorous and tell us why it's problematic.

Because it makes it clear that it's all subject to ridiculous interpretations that change depending on the needs of the person interpreting and the social climate of the day. In other words, it is not absolute and it is therefore likely not to hold much -- if any -- truth to it.

Again, this is simply another case of you -- a philosophy major -- taking something taken in passing in point form in a list of why I don't like something. You then take it to be an academically rigorous argument because you feel emasculated by my attack on your "profession", so you valiantly try to rip apart my simple little list as something it's not to prove your value to society. And don't you dare " pop psyc" this, it's so true.

Exactly what I just said. It's a major strike because you have a certain philosophical understanding of truth, or else it wouldn't be a problem.
Either that, or you're just admitting that being a "free thinker" you can't provide any explanation for what you believe.

Science changed over time, why do you like it ?

I'm sorry, when was my list something that says "This is why I like Science?"
I believe the list was why I "am not a Christian".
This isn't some dichotomy of science vs Christianity, there are things I don't like about science as well but I didn't list them since that's obviously not the topic.

Please tell me you don't learn this argument tactic in school. It's the kind of **** I saw all the time in philosophy students, not debating the real point for the sake of debating something, anything. The quicker they lose, the more they start edging the conversation quicker to specific philosophy terms that no one else cares to memorize...

a) Perhaps, but the number remains that millions of people believe both in God and homosexual rights, as shown by the stats you posted (28-72). The correlation is insufficient to attribute this to the essence of religion.

This isn't a philosophical question. It's one of statistics. Yes, the correlation is more than sufficient. Suggest you take a statistics course.

b) Equal rights and by extension homosexual rights is a very Christian concept.

That's funny, the Christian concept in the bible says no such thing. Do you even read what you write sometimes? It's my understanding that the bible not only doesn't advocate gay marriage (equal rights for gays), in fact it advocates some very...er...mean-spirited things towards gays.

I've asked you to tell me what is it that Christians fear more than atheists. You have been unable to answer, and you persist with vague depictions.

They fear what happens when they die. Thus the cheerful depiction of the afterlife if you follow what they tell you to do.
They fear God. Tell me, Boris, have you never heard the word "god-Fearing" before as a way of describing a "Good" Christian?

What was that supposed to mean, then :

Are you this dense? The whole point was to ask why we are not Christian. I gave out in a stream-of-consciousness style why I am not. That's one of my reasons. I honestly can't believe you are doing this -- acting like this is some rigorous academic argument, when ALL it is is my opinion.

Basically, when the limits of your thinking are shown, you resort to pathetic excuses such as "it's only my opinion".

You think all of my thinking, and all of my thinking processes, were outlined in a point-form list that was typed out in about 20 seconds? You genuinely believe this?

Has this concept crossed your mind: The reason you think the thinking is "limited" is the line of thinking was not exposed in the post, just the resultant thoughts over 24 years of thought and analysis of the subject. The fact that you think it shows "limited" thinking while you follow up with some of the worst, nonsensical (look up that word, Boris) arguments in Apolyton history is just golden. I think your desire to win your honour in the face of my ridicule of your profession is getting the best of you here.

I wouldn't have much of an issue with this, if only you didn't fancy yourself a "free thinker" and didn't deny the value of philosophy, which would help your intellectual skills greatly.

As this debate -- and all debates with Agathon have shown -- having a mind shaped by the philosophy courses in university today is clearly not a benefit I would like. You two are consistently delusional and nonsensical and you don't even debate the topics at hand in most cases. It's like you live in a parallel world with your fellow pseudointellectual academic elitists.

You're again being hapless, missing the point entirely. The fact is that any kind of thinking will have its leaders and followers, and that as such, this alone isn't an argument against religion.

Who said it was an argument against religion in favour of something I subjectively don't like about Christianity. How can you accuse me of missing the point when you still have shown a fundamental misunderstanding of the root subject matter?

Math and science rely on groupthink and authority too.

Once again. You invent **** that isn't there. This isn't a science vs Christianity thread, and it's not a simple dichotomy like you keep implying it is. This thread was things I didn't like about Christianity. You keep inventing **** that simply isn't there to try to prove a point, and look like a complete tool as a result of it.

I don't give a ****. My example was meant to illustrate how your argument about groupthink is baseless, so don't try to hurl in counter-examples as if they were related to the point.

Have you ever taken even the most basic social psychology courses?

Christianity -- especially common branches like Catholicism -- are textbook examples of groupthink. Sometimes to an extreme. When I say "textbook examples", I mean that quite literally...they were used as examples in the textbook.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Asher

That's funny, the Christian concept in the bible says no such thing. Do you even read what you write sometimes? It's my understanding that the bible not only doesn't advocate gay marriage (equal rights for gays), in fact it advocates some very...er...mean-spirited things towards gays.

This is maybe the distinction one can make.
Fundamentalists christians who base their faith more or less on the literal truth of the bible are probaly more prone to see in homosexuals something evil, than more liberal christians, who believe in God and Jesus but don´t see in the bible the direct and unaltered word of god.

One could also say:
Some christians place more value into christian ideals, like charity, than in the literal truth of the bible and adjust their behavior accordingly.
Other christains however place more worth in the literal truth of the bible and therefore see any adjustments of the kind mentioned before as deviation from the true faith and therefore will stick more or less to the rules of the book (but obviously not completely, as, for example, I doubt that there are many christian fundamentalists who really don´t wear clothes made out of 2 materials or more [forbidden according to Lev. 19:19] )

I think this might also be reflected in statistics if you combine the questions:
"Are you christian",
"Do you believe in the literal truth of the bible"
end
"Do you support homosexual rights"

I assume the percentage of people who answer "Yes" to all three questions will be much lower than th epercentage of people who answer "Yes" to question 1 and 3 and "No" to question 2

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Asher

I'm speaking in general terms because if I used a sentence for every denomination of Christianity known to man and their stance on homosexuality, I'd run into the thread limit and my own patience. You know damn well that Christianity -- in general -- is not in favour of homosexual marriage, so arguing the point otherwise is a waste of all of our time

So it would tax your patience to say "conservative Christians" or "Catholics and fundies"?

I cannot believe anyone is arguing this with me. **pinches self**

Are you really saying it's not the case that Christians tend to be less in favour of gay marriage than atheists? Because all of the stats in the world will disagree with you, and you choose to willfully not believe it. That means you're incomprehensibly stupid (which is unlikely, given you're supposedly a doctor), or you're completely delusional. You don't seem to want to accept that Christianity -- in general -- is a "bad guy" in terms of equal rights for homosexuality. Everyone knows it. By far, the biggest lobby groups against gay marriage are religious groups. Can you even point to one anti-gay marriage group that is not religious?

Actually I'm saying Christian or not there are a whole lot of people who oppose gay marriage, and on a world scale that includes a majority of atheists.

PS: No, that does not logically follow. The quote itself clearly tells you that. Apparently you've never seen a poll before, but another category is "Undecided/don't know".

Considering this issue I think you can consider people who are undecided or don't know are not opposed to gay marriage. [quote]
The point was equal rights, period. Now you're moving the goalposts. Focus, doc.

You despise religion, yet marriage is a religious ceremony. You're getting bent out of shape over something that you'd never want in a million years - to get married in a church.

Let me explain the obvious to someone incapable of seeing the obvious:
China is not against equal rights for homosexuals because they are atheist.
Many Christians (statistically shown above!) are against equal rights for homosexuals because of their religion.

Ah, well the way that I see it is that a huge number of Christians read into their religion more than there really is. They glean "sound bites" from biblical passages that validate their prejudices while ignoring the greater meaning. Their prejudices are not a result of their religion, but sadly their religious beliefs have come to incorporate their prejudices. Bishop Robinson would agree with me.

Proving that other people are against gay marriage and homosexual rights for reasons unrelated to religion doesn't change the fact that Christianity -- in general -- is against equal homosexual rights.
[quote] There are about 1 to 1 1/2 billion atheists in the world, the majority of which are Chinese, who consider homosexuals to be undesirables, yet you're saying that I can not derive from this fact that most atheists also oppose equal rights for homosexuals?

Furthermore may I point out that you're missing the point completely and ignoring irrefutable, undeniable, OBVIOUS statistics quoted above and about 100 million other pages just a google search away.

Let's face facts. Christianity as an institution and in general terms for Christians, is against gay marriage. I don't give a **** if China is also, and why should you unless you have no other argument than this pathetic piece of ****.

What you do or do not give is irrelevant. The fact is that opposition to equal rights to homosexuals transcends religious boundaries. People hide their personal prejudices behind their religion. The fact that the tiny minority of Americans who are atheist support equal rights for gays is inconsequential precisely because atheists are a tiny minority. There are about 10 million American atheists, and there are probably about as many American gays Just out of curiosity, what fraction of American atheists are gay?

Do me a favour, Doc -- don't reply unless you want to bring a clue. Nothing infuriates me more than a brainwashed delusional as an opponent, and it's driving me crazy to see someone deny the obvious and lacking the intellectual capacity for introspection of one's faith.

Evidently you've run out of arguments and you're a bit embarassed that your prejudice is showing. The fact is that I've gotten you to admit that there are a number of denominations who are out there fighting for gay rights. I think that's what infuriates you. Your neat little world model has cracks.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


This is maybe the distinction one can make.
Fundamentalists christians who base their faith more or less on the literal truth of the bible are probaly more prone to see in homosexuals something evil, than more liberal christians, who believe in God and Jesus but don´t see in the bible the direct and unaltered word of god.

Fundamentalist Christians largely base their faith on little sound bites ripped out of context from the Bible in a manner designed to support their prejudices. There were fundamentalists present at most lynchings in the old South, there were fundamentalists present at Little Rock, at Selma, at Memphis. You name any vile demonstration of bigotry in American history there were fundamentalists present. I've known fundamentalists who cheered over JFKs murder, I've heard fundamentalists tell me that charity was a sin, and that decency and compassion were not necessary characteristics of a Christian. I'll tell you right now. Fundamentalists no more cherish the literal or fundamental truth of the Bible than do Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists or any other denomination.

[Asher]

Your post is so confusing because you haven't figured out how to use the quote feature. I'm not even going to attempt to parse it.

Edit: And I'm not sure it'd be worth it anyway. Anyone arguing Christianity doesn't influence people to be anti-gay marriage needs to be institutionalized.

[Dr Strangelove]

The same could be argued about Chinese socialism, Hinduism, Islam and a variety of other -isms. It should be apparent that it's the people, not the religion.

Face it Asher, you're not going to get me to agree that the Pope, Pat Robertson, Focus on Family, or Fred Phelps speak on my behalf.