I just finished reading The Battle for God by Karen Armstrong last night, and it’s almost eerie to review this thread with the knowledge in that book. Karen Armstrong is DEAD ON with her characterization of both Fundamentals and Secularists alike. It’s a tremendous read, and I recommend it to everyone. This quote by pldennison is essentially the epitome of Armstrong’s secular humanist:
Ok, now a few real comments. Far be it from me to get involved in the p*ssing war between FoG and David B, but FoG, I think you overlooked something critical that DB said…
**
In other words, with the scads and scads of shows that supposedly present Christianity poorly, you (FoGgy) should be able to present scads and scads of examples of this mistreatment. You’ve already said that you won’t do so, and that’s why David B. wants you to admit that you’re wrong.
Also, FoGgy, you quoted the Humanist Manifesto as saying “We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species.” You interpret this as an attack on Christianity. I don’t think so. First off, I’ve learned that when you say “Christianity,” you really mean “MY Christianity,” i.e., Biblical literism, Born-Again, Fundamental, etc. ad nauseum. So, is the HM lashing out against the Mormons? Muslims? The Roman Catholics that you think the media shelters?
Secondly, I don’t think that the HM is unilaterally condemning religion. They are specifically condemning a religion that places belief in one statement over practical, organized compassion. I think that, ultimately, a humanist (well, I suppose I should only speak for myself) has very little problem with a religion that helps the poor, without resorting to promises of Hellfire and browbeating. I would gladly give money to an organization of any religious affiliation that cared about the poor simply because it’s the command of Christ/Muhammad/Buddha/etc. It’s the accompanying prosletyzing that upsets me–the only motivation of the organization tends to be winning converts. However, even this doesn’t upset me as much as the fact that Christian organizations would rather stick to DOGMA than COMPASSION. I think that’s what the HM is ultimately railing against. Granted, I think most humanists deny the existence of a Diety, but they would not be so extreme against Organized Religion if OR served more of a compassionate purpose.
Um, which part of this gives you grief? Are you against birth control? Abortion? Divorce? Should a married couple (for the sake of argument) be forced to avoid sexual pleasure because they don’t want children? Should rape victim be forced to carry the baby to term? Should an abused wife have to stay with her husband? These are all topics for another GD, but you make them sound like they are a bad thing.
I will disagree. Based upon these government stats, probably edited by the Evil Atheist Conspiracy:
Looks to me like it’s been pretty level overall since 1980, and has actually started decreasing since about 1991. I’ll keep looking for stats on the 1970s in the meantime. Thanks for playing!
Found some stats back to the 1970s on teen pregnancy for many countries. Again, looks like there hasn’t been any dramatic change since we started our moral decline here in the USA!
However, I am sure this won’t stop people from making the claim that teen pregnancy is up drastically since the moral decline of our country began in earnest.
Okay, you might have been reading my messages, but you haven’t shown any understanding of them.
As I said when discussing the fallacy of newspapers’ “atheist front page,” absence of religious testimonials does not imply rejection of religion. News media are secular only to the extent that they remove religious context and allow the reader to interpret the facts as they like. I asked you then, and I ask you once again, will the media be religious only if they reference Jesus in every other paragraph?
Well, apparently, according to your suggestions to improve “Friends,” “Ally McBeal,” and “Dawson’s Creek,” the answer to that is yes. Unfortunately, as Menocchio points out, it can’t be done without alienating major portions of the audience. Sitcoms are, by their nature, generic and flexible. Individual viewers are free to imagine, while watching “Seinfeld,” that George Costanza goes to confession – but off-camera, because it’s hard to make it funny. The minute you put it on-camera, you run into trouble, for one very simple reason: Which religion is correct? Obviously, you think yours. However, as Fred Phelps, Benny Hinn, and Al Sharpton demonstrate, Christianity is a very, very big tent. Which version of the Bible would you have Ally McBeal reading? King James? Revised Standard? Orange Catholic? (;)) Which part should she be reading, Old or New Testament? Which book specifically? Does she get more out of Job, or the Gospels? Should she be marking it up? Should she be witnessing to her roommate? See, the minute you get into specifics, you begin catering to niches and alienating everyone else. It’s bad economics for the show, and it’s bad social engineering.
Instead, the examples we ask you to provide are not shows that fail to mention Christianity, but shows that deliberately and specifically attack Christianity. In other words, I want to know when David Spade’s character on “Just Shoot Me” walked down to the local revival meeting (or synagogue, or mosque) and said, “You Christians are wasting your time. There is no God.” You can’t provide examples of this, because they don’t exist.
No, rather, you would point to “Will and Grace.” The gay men on that show are portrayed in a positive light. Grace’s attempts at dating (and probable premarital sex) are likewise taken for granted. Fans of the show want both Will and Grace to hook up with loving, caring people. For Will to find a smart, funny, handsome man is viewed, within the context of the show, as a good thing. This, and developments like it, you would point to as a bad thing. To wit:
The thing is, the consequences are valid only within your worldview. As I repeatedly pointed out, both in this and the other thread:
You’ve just done exactly this, in your quote above. You assert that showing “sinful” behavior is “dangerous” if it doesn’t show “consequences.” This is an absolute statement. Unfortunately, it’s based on your faith, which is, by definition, not absolute. Your statement holds water only if your religious beliefs are correct, true, and accurate. You believe this to be the case; those you are debating have no such restriction. Hence, a logical breakdown.
As I said, you need to differentiate between statements that can actually be measured and proven in our physical world (e.g., television increases rates of violence, divorce, and extramarital sex, which is a specific hypothesis that can be treated empirically, and which is currently being studied by people much smarter than we are), and statements that rely on faith for support (e.g., showing sinful behavior on television without showing the consequences thereof is dangerous because it leads people to temptation and they’ll go to Hell for it).
Many people engage in “sinful behavior” without any consequences of any kind. Before we met, my wife and I each had plenty of sex. Now we’re married. Everything’s fine: no physical or emotional complications for either of us. Likewise, many homosexuals engage in “sinful” sexual practices without contracting diseases or anything else. (In fact, for many of them, the biggest fear is persecution by misguided people calling themselves Christian: they could get fired, or beat up, or murdered. Those don’t count as consequences, unless you’re a psychopath.) However, again, diseases, emotional problems, etc. are not necessarily the consequences you’re referring to. According to your faith-based moral code, my wife and I (and all of our gay friends) are eventually going to Hell.
That, unfortunately, doesn’t hold water here. I and most other people on the board have absolutely no problem with your believing this to be true. We readily acknowledge that this belief is firmly held by many, many people. However, you cannot assert it as fact. You cannot prove it to be true in any way, shape, or form. It is taken entirely on faith. Let me repeat that: Faith.
I will repeat what I said before: If you want to engage in civil debates on this board, you need to untangle which beliefs exist in the secular, empirical, provable domain, and which are inextricably linked to a faith-based worldview. The former, you can assert and debate to your heart’s content, with the requisite citations and factual proof. The latter, you cannot prove, and you cannot expect anyone outside your religion to accept at face value. You are free to assert your beliefs, but you must be wise enough to say that they are based on faith. For instance: “I believe that showing sinful behavior on television without showing consequences is dangerous, because I believe people led into temptation by those representations will be damned to Hell. I know I can’t prove this, but we’ll see who’s right in the afterlife.”
If you keep asserting religious and moral judgments as fact, we will continue to ask for proof – proof which, by definition, does not exist in any empirical or rational sense. And this debate will continue to go in circles, with your intellectual honesty and debating skills repeatedly called into question, and our denials of what seems perfectly obvious to you because of your particular reality tunnel making you more and more frustrated.
Speaking only for myself, a merry-go-round is fun for a while, but eventually you realize you aren’t going anywhere. I hope the above helps to break us out of the endless circle.
You see them attacking religion and throwing out of all the rules. I see them seeking to loosen the rules. They are neither attacking religion or going for a anything goes mentality. Rather, they are seeking moderation. Being too strict (“puritanical or orthodox”) can be harmful and being too permisiveness (“unbridled promiscuity”) can also be harmful. They are advocating a healthier moderation.
Well, I realize that you are not a woman and may not be aware of this, but women are still respected. My opinions and talents have been consistently respected by my male peers.
My mother, on the other hand, recalls that her male peers actively dissuaded her from seeking a higher education or putting her talents to use.
I guess it all depends on your point of view. If you view men opening doors for women as the epitomy of respect, then yes the 1950s were better. If you’re like me and think allowing women to chose how they will use their talents is respect, then things are far better today.
Also, I sincerely doubt that the 1950s were as safe as everyone would like to think. I am 25 years old and have never been attack or involved in a serious crime. None of my family have ever been involved in a crime. None of my friends have been involved in a crime. I am aware that the world is a dangerous place, even though I have not experienced it. Had I been 25 years old in 1950s, I would have been lulled into a false sense of security.
I am not claiming that the 1950s were just as dangerous as today, because frankly I don’t know. I am just pointing out that the 1950s were not as a safe as people would like to remember.
Maybe they do want to go away. But wanting something to end is not the same thing being out to destroy it.
As somebody else pointed out, there is such a thing as tolerance. If somebody wants to believe in their version of religion, I may point out the flaws in it (especially if they come over to the SDMB singing its praises), but I’m not going to try to stop them from practicing it. Similarly, I’m not going to try to stop somebody from smoking or eating Big Macs.
