We seem to have gotten completely off track. I thought we were talking about whether liberal Christians gave support and legitimacy to more extreme fundamentalist views. I don’t see how this relates.
Of course your opinion doesn’t have to be proven. Most liberal or conservative believers wouldn’t claim to prove their faith based beliefs either. The point is does holding a certain belief {opinion} someone support others who hold some similar beliefs but differ quite a bit on others. The meme being offered is that they do and I disagree. So far people have repeated the meme without any convincing arguments.
I don’t see how this relates to the topic either.
And? If someone says to me they are Christian I know that gives me only very basic information about them. It doesn’t tell me what kind of Christian they are or even what kind of person they are. I prefer not to assume one way or the other but to note that I need more info.
Then I can’t see how that relates to thus statement by you.
Many people arrive at a more moderate position by giving things some thought and considering new information and altering their views.
Either way, I don’t see how this relates to the discussion at hand.
It relates because believing in magic of any sort makes magic of the less-than-favored kind possible, as well. It’s no more and no less believable than any other claims of the supernatural, and neither has been substantiated. I make no claims about the existence of magic except that I haven’t seen anything that would make me believe it’s real. Christians and other religions *really do * believe it exists. Any claim that it exists, without proof (and that would include proof of god’s intentions, as well) makes all claims legitimate. Even the icky ones.
I was responding to something you said. You feel you can lookpast labels, such as liberal christian or religious zealot, and I’m not sure that’s always possible. It’s neither here nor there; just part of the exchange.
You might need more info, but you won’t always get more info and you cannot predict how religion will affect a person’s ability to behave rationally. People have been known to get carried away with it. That’s all I’m saying. And yes, there are other kinds of mental illness that don’t manifest themselves in religious meltdowns. Those aren’t the ones we’re talking about at the moment.
The seeds of belief in the supernatural are usually planted at a young age. Some people can never let go of that. Ever. They’re tethered to godthink for their entire lives. They may change the flavor, but they often spend their lives trying different ones because they simply cannot imagine life without that god figure.
I’m working on the premise that both sides are equally sincere in their beliefs, which seems correct except for exceptional cases like Marjoe Gortner. I can say that, but each side must say that if they are guided by the Holy Spirit, the other person can’t really be, since the Holy Spirit wouldn’t be giving contradictory messages. So who is the Holy Spirit really talking to?
And again, the liberal is not supporting any specific fundamentalist belief, but is supporting the way that fundamentalists arrive at their beliefs - guidance by the Holy Spirit in your example. The best he can say under this system is that the fundamendalist’s belief is just as validly arrived at as his own. When he goes beyond that, he is pulling in extra-Biblical moral principles, or meta-interpretations of the Bible which don’t seem very justified. The moment he does this, I contend that he can throw out the Holy Spirit and the Bible entirely, and arrive at the same conclusions through secular ethical reasoning. The reason my ethical principles are closer to the liberal than the fundamentalist is that I don’t think the fundamentalist can do the same thing. In many cases, his ethical system falls apart when you don’t rely on God. (Abortion being one exception.)
While I agree that ethics can be driven by emotions, I’ve just decided that this can be dangerous. Consider a person who feels revulsion for gay sex. Proper ethical reasoning says that he shouldn’t let this influence his ethical judgements at all. Being aware of emotional justifications can help one better evaluate them. In some cases you might decide that the emotional reason is justified, and you can come up with a non-emotional chain of reasoning that validates it.
No, my teacher is teaching ethical reasoning, not ethical conclusions. And certainly not atheism, since in this example the student is alreadyan atheist. The student might come up with a conclusion different from the teachers, which the teacher might accept as being correctly arrived at. This is about as far from the “god said it, I believe it” chain of “reasoning” as you can get. You see the religious argument - both liberal and fundamentalist - is whether god said it and what god meant by what he did say. Once you’ve established that, the chain of ethical reasoning is immaterial, since God trumps all human derived ethics. Great example, since it shows the similiarity between the fundamentalist and liberal reasoning. NOT the conclusions, since they depend on the answers to the two questions.
No cite, but I remember reading in a book somewhere (how’s that for proof) that the same percentage of people who believe in Angels support Bush. Also, that same percentage of people believe man walked with the dinosaurs. The ultimate point was that a signifigant number of people are just completely, irredeemably stupid and logic can’t touch them.
While I accept this as your take on the matter I don’t agree.
What I’ve seem from discussions here and in other places is that everyone I’ve ever talked to holds some beliefs without evidence. It’s part of our human makeup to accept certain things from figures of authority and sources we consider reliable. It’s part of how our minds and emotions work to embrace certain concepts that we find personally attractive for whatever reasons. We’re not Mr. Spock.
I just can’t accept that someone who believes that god wants him to love his fellow man somehow supports the guy who believes god wants him to kill sinners.
IMHO it’s a bogus unfounded connection made at least in part because it feels good to discredit all forms of spiritual belief.
okay
I was only noting that it’s safer to judge people by their actions rather than assuming something from a label. Being human we’re not perfect about that.
Hmmmm Since there are millions and millions of Christians in the nation and our country hasn’t collapsed and our streets aren’t in total chaos I’ll probably assume that the person is functional at least.
I’d certainly agree that a lot of faith beliefs are based on tradition and accepting what’s been taught by others. You may have found an explanation that works for you but I also think you’re disregarding some significant factors. Plenty of people do imagine their lives without god and live accordingly only to have some experience that awakens their spiritual side. A lot of the spiritual life is maintained by very real experiences that people interpret as spiritual.
The difference is, you are accepting things as truths rather than preferences. You can like being kind to your neighbor without thinking that it is dictated from on high. I can say that Politician X has some good ideas, but that doesn’t make it gospel. Nor does a warm, fuzzy feeling you get when you create a supernatural answer for things that we don’t have answers for.
Well, I’m sorry…but without proof, all your religious goodness and love is simply a preference. If you say something that is unverifiable really exists, you’re giving the other guy the exact same leeway. I’m not saying you are giving him the OK to be a dick, per se, but you are making it possible for the Evil God to be real. It’s as real as your Good God. It’s just a matter of what blows a breeze up your skirt. Which is exactly why I discredit all religion. Religion is kind of like making movies – some people like a romanatic comedy and some like a horror movie. But when you get down to it, it’s all just celluloid dreams.
Agreed. But it depends on what your take on safety is.
And some…not so much.
I don’t have an explanation for any of it. But I’m certainly not going to make one up to use as a place holder until the truth comes out. Those experiences may seem real, but so do lots of dreams – know what I mean?
I can see the problem. Even in striving to listen to the HS we filter it through our own experiences and background. Each person must decide for themselves what is moving them. Paul admitted he only knew in part and saw as through a dark glass. Eastern religions liken it to peeling the layers of an onion, or removing the many veils over our eyes one at a time. Each veil we are willing to give up helps us see a little more clearly. In the case of the HS we might say their is a lot of background noise from our ego, our fears, the world and people around us making demands and telling us what’s right and important. We can’t always hear that inner voice of the spirit.
Just as in your example about evolution, the contradictions and complications don’t negate the possibility or value of the HS.
I get that. My point is that since all people arrive at their belief system in relatively the same imperfect manner how can we realistically make that connection for those two groups?
When Sam Harris made his suggestion that religious beliefs don’t deserve special protected status I heartily agreed. We need to challenge our beliefs and examine them. Since then in many discussions on this board I’ve noticed that many people without religious beliefs also have things they hold true without any real evidence.
Some people land on the no spiritual beliefs side and some don’t but either way we seem to build our belief system with the same tools.
I find it interesting that the same people that are eager to remove the protected status of religious or spiritual beliefs now seem to want to give it a separate category so that it’s easier to criticize and diminish. No fair says I.
He could, but who’s to say what vehicle is the right vehicle for someone else? The connection seems to be made because it’s religious belief. Step outside of religious belief. Two people consider the issue of terrorism. They both conclude it’s a bad thing, that’s their common belief. One decides we must aggressively use our military might to crush the terrorist’s will to attack us. The other thinks defending ourselves while diplomatically addressing the underlying issues is the best route and open war is the last possible option. Is one somehow supporting the other’s very different belief?
I whole heartedly agree. It is dangerous. It is also unavoidable as part of the human condition. In being willing to questions our beliefs we must be willing to be honest about what part is just our emotional attachment to something and why. Ithink it’s also healthy to realize that feelings are not really right or wrong although we still have to take responsibility for the actions we take because of them. Gay sex may seem gross to some people but we should be able to realize that that doesn’t make the people who prefer it gross people. IMO it’s a matter balancing our intellect and our emotion. Our independence to claim our own preferences without apology , and our compassion for others to do the same.
You seem to be implying that god belief means ethical reasoning is excluded. I don’t think that’s so. God belief leads to other questions such as , what is the nature of god? What, if anything, does god want of me? When we ask, how does god want me to relate to the people I interact with, then we enter ethical reasoning. If I believe god wants me to love my fellow man then I am forced to ask, what is love and how do I truly express it? The ongoing process of answering that question can’t be too different from ethical reasoning.
Accepting things as truths and acting upon them does not mean we stop learning or that our concept of what is true will not change with experience. I suggest that is true for non believers as well. When you make a moral or ethical decision about something relativly important doesn’t it relate to being true?
And we’re writing the script with each choice we make. Each action and it’s unavoidable consequence.
Aside from the religious label do you suppose there is any truth to actions having positive or negative consequences or is it all personal preference? It isn’t about proof IMO but about finding our way toward peace and a more positive existence for mankind. Is there truth to our connection as a race and that our decisions have very real consequences for each other? Is there a way to grow and make consistently better decisions that are better for us and others?
I’m not saying religion is the obvious or only answer. I’m saying it’s a real part of the process of finding out. We decide what we believe is true and valuable amd we act. Those actions effect each other and bring about interaction and reaction and the process goes on. You may decide that religion and spiritual beliefs hold no interest or value for you and it’s right for you to do that. When you decide they hold no value for anyone then you’ve crossed into new territory that you share with those who think their truth should be every bodies truth.
Nobody is asking you to make one up. What is being asked is that you don’t decide what is valid for someone else, especially in those areas where you don’t really know the answer.
Why not? The “mean” Christians that you describe are a minority of Christians. Moderates and liberals make up the majority. Why assume the worst? When someone says that he is an atheist, I don’t form a bad impression of that person. I think of someone reasonable like Miller or Carl Sagen, not someone filled with malice toward Christians.
As for your list of what Christians have to believe, I do know Christians who don’t believe in the Resurrection and are uncertain of life after death. They believe in the basic teachings of Jesus about how to live one’s life. Many do not believe in the Virgin birth.
Certainly in regard to the analogy, one is a pastime and one is a religion. That does not in anyway explain why the analogy is not valid. You have merely stated a difference in the two things being compared. No one claimed that they are identical. In analogies they never are.
Two groups can have something in common without one group “lending authenticity” to the other group.
Atheists believe Great Debates is a good place to post. Liberal Christians believe Great Debates is a good place to post. Atheists lend authenticity to Liberal Christians.
Well, you say it’s the HS, and I say it’s indigestion. If there is a HS that can’t get through to people in a way that is indistinguishable from noise, then it is a downright incompetent HS. Do these people really want to believe that their deity is a bumbler?
Well, I agree that they do, but the religious people don’t. They claim that they have a special insight, perhaps from the HS, which is above the purely secular one of the atheist. The difference between you and the Christian contingent is that you admit that you may not have special insight, but they, while denigrating the fundamentalist’s beliefs, seem to have a core of absolute conviction.
But the two people, assuming they are not Republicans, see their views of what to do as based on evidence and a chain of reasoning, which they expose to each other. Sure, they may disagree. Neither will say that their approach to terrorism comes from a supernatural revelation - again, leaving out certain Presidents.
It would be cool to have a religion with purely rational tenets. The Dalai Lama, who said that if science contradicts Buddhism, then Buddhism must change, seems to come the closest to this.
Not far off, since liberal Christians, unlike the other kind, seem willing to defend beliefs and can do so even when someone says after a Bible quote, “so what?”
Perhaps those Christians who don’t believe in the tenets self identify, but are they any more Christians than self-professed vegetarians are vegetarian given that they have a steak dinner a week?
No, I don’t think it’s true. I don’t believe your idea of truth and mine are necessarily the same; it’s simply a matter of what feels right to you or me. That’s my point. Because Fred Phelps really believes that “god hates fags” or (insert your own favorite Phelpsism) that doesn’t mean it’s a “truth.” That’s his preference, his path, and his personal, humanly constructed opinion. The same as your preference for a peaceful coexistence with your fellow man is. There’s nothing inspired about either opinion; it all boils down to preference on how to live your life.
Prezactly.
While it’s true that our actions produce consequences for each other, I cannot call that “a Truth” because the same action can have a different effect on each person. Nor is there a universal “connection” to our fellow man. Sure, we connect on some levels, but as individuals, we will always find a disconnect. I’d go as far as saying I prefer not connecting on every level. What a boring existence *that * would be! What you might consider a “good” act might be the worst thing that could happen to another person. Is there a way to make consistently better decisions for all of us? I don’t think so. Our “democratic process” attempts to do this, and it rarely pleases everyone. Dissatisfaction with other’s preferences is inherent in the human condition. Maybe it would work if we were all the same, but we’re not and never will be.
It might be a real part of your process, but it is nothing more than a curiosity for many of us. I’m saying that there is no “truth.” You’re free to say that somewhere, somehow, there’s a one-size-fits-all answer, but an honest look at the human condition repeatedly tells me there isn’t. But hey…I could be wrong.
I don’t decide anything for anyone. That’s impossible. We make our own decisions. All I’m saying is that personal preference is not a universal truth. I’m equally qualified with you with regard to “knowing” the answer to the origin and purpose of man. The difference is, I’m honest about it.
I’m not sure I understand either statement here, so please clarify them for me. Are you saying that liberal Christians defend their beliefs with bible quotes? (after which, presumably, fundamentalists say “so what?”) Is that what you’re saying?
The sescond statement I don’t understand at all. Please clarify.
see their views of what to do as based on evidence and a chain of reasoning, which they expose to each other. Sure, they may disagree. Neither will say that their approach to terrorism comes from a supernatural revelation - again, leaving out certain Presidents.