That’s only a problem for people who wish to make sweeping judgments about religion in general, without regard for nuance or accuracy.
Yeah. I don’t think that’s any more provable than the existence of a god but I can definitely say it’s not a helpful sidetrack to a mainstream discussion.
Y’know, you really aren’t helping your argument much here. You want to make much of the fact that one church holds a more extreme position than another–but if they’re all working off the same rulebook, shouldn’t they be able to come to a consensus on what to believe? I mean, gravity works whether you agree with it or not, it’s a provable empirical law that doesn’t vary by so much as a whit from one place to another, and that’s why you can rely on it. So if various sects can start out with the same basic premise, that the bible is the literal word o’god, then how in the world can they come to such glaringly disparate conclusions? Seems a bit… arbitrary to me, what do you think?
Sounds to me as though the members of these churches are almost… picking and choosing what they’re going to believe in, what they’re going to emphasize.
As for picking and choosing only things that they “like,” I submit to you that there are few drives and motivations that are so simple in humans as “like” and “don’t like.” People pick religions that fulfill their needs, and whether it’s a matter of liking or not is immaterial. Some people enjoy privation–look at anorexics. They don’t starve themselves because they “like” it, but because doing so fills a need they have. I don’t see religious strictures as being any different from the strictures anorexics and cutters and others with control issues put on themselves, it all functions the same way, psychologically speaking.
And just for my own information–why in hell would anybody hold and espouse religious beliefs they disagree with? Are religionists so lost to their own moral compass that they’ll think and do things that are against their own rules and that cause harm, just because they think god says they have to? Explain to me again why the atheists shouldn’t fear the religionists? You’re right here saying that you can’t be relied on to uphold your own morality if it conflicts with the morality your religion espouses, so how can anybody trust you? That’s just chaotic.
Oh, yes, the news is full of reports of churches routinely and heavily criticizing the Westboro Baptists … not. If its routine and heavy criticism, give me a dozen citations to it happening. I have never read one, but heck, I could have missed them. Cite? Because what I find is:
No results found for “criticized the Westboro”.
and
Your search - “Westboro baptist” “criticized by other churches” - did not match any documents.
and
No results found for “fred phelps was criticised”
and
No results found for “criticised fred phelps”.
A search for “Westboro baptist” “criticized by” brings up lots of critics of the church … however, I can’t find a church or a pastor or a priest among them. Maybe it’s professional courtesy. But heck, maybe my google-fu is weak, and I’m missing the routine and heavy criticism. If so, bring on a dozen reports of the routine criticism …
Regarding homophobia, I just picked one issue somewhat at random. Shall we take the churchs’ views on slavery instead? Your record there is no better, the churches supported slavery for a couple of hundred years. Ministers quoted chapter and verse to prove that slavery was ordained, to show that the Bible approved 100% of white people enslaving black people, don’t question it, it’s God’s Holy Word straight from the Bible, case closed.
Of course now (in a perfectly non-arbitrary way) you no longer believe those verses … but you continue to say that that your beliefs are not arbitrary. Not arbitrary? Christians believed for hundreds of years that the Bible enjoins us to keep slaves, but now you don’t believe those exact same verses at all, and you want to convince me that’s not arbitrary? It’s not just arbitrary … it’s pathetic. I’m neither gay nor black myself. I’m just sick of watching assholes attacking black people and gay people in the name of religion.
Is that a stereotype of Christianity? Well, I don’t see anybody else but good loving Christians setting up microphones and TV cameras and expensive lighting in buildings costing millions of dollars, all to broadcast their message to the world that homosexuality is evil. I don’t see anybody but pastors and priests and deacons standing up in some building in front of fifty or a hundred or a thousand of their personal flock to tell them that homosexuality is evil.
Nor is Westboro an isolated exception as you claim. The good Christians of the Westboro Baptist Church don’t believe anything different from what your average pastor or priest believes about homosexuality. They are simply more active, more out there doing something about it. Your average pastor says the same things, though. Oh, they say them in that special refined tone of voice that is just as good for justifying slavery as it is for spreading hatred, they are very reasonable about it, but it’s the same belief.
Are you not paying attention, or are you being deliberately obtuse? As I said before, the thing that proves that the churches pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe is that some Christians believe in snake handling and some don’t. Some believe in transubstantiation and some don’t. Some believe that Sunday is holy, while others say Saturday. Some believe you can’t go to heaven unless you’ve been baptized, and some don’t. Some Christians believe that God’s representative (pastor, priest, whatever) can absolve your sins by the power of God, while others believe that priests and pastors and the like are an abomination, that man has a direct relation with God, with no interlocutor except Jesus.
One church breaks into two churches all the time based solely on a dispute over which particular verses and beliefs they have picked and chosen, and you truly think that people are not picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to believe? Truly?
Oh, OK, I see at least part of the problem. You think picking and choosing means people would always choose the easiest path, the “things they like”. It appears that you are confusing rational behavior with religious behavior.
In that regard, let’s consider the flagellants, a popular sect some centuries ago. They believed that certain verses in the Bible commanded them to whip themselves until their backs were bloody. The Catholic Church was officially opposed to those teachings. The Church had its own verses that it had chosen, and those verses told them to burn several hundred of the flagellants at the stake. Despite that, the flagellants picked and chose the verses to believe, the ones that led them to whip themselves to rags. They chose those verses, despite the pain, despite the official Church of the time telling them “don’t pick those verses, pick these over here, or we’ll burn you to cinders”. Two groups. One Bible. Different verses chosen.
Your idea, that picking the verses means people will pick the easy path, what did you call it, the “things they like”, has absolutely no basis in reality. Otherwise, we would never have flagellants, or a hundred other equally self-destructive or difficult religious beliefs.
Finally, I note two things.
One is that I could sit here and provide you with example after example after example of animosity by the Christians towards homosexuals. Those were just the first ones that floated to the top of the toilet. For example, the good pastor Ted Haggard was the President of the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents thirty million Christians. Thirty million. We’re not talking one church here, or ten, or even a hundred. Have you read or heard his speeches on homosexuality? He reeks of animosity towards gay people … and we now know why. You may claim he’s an aberration … but if so, he’s an aberration who represented and spoke for thirty million Christians.
But heck, since you asked, from catholicplanet.com, we have:
Catholic Planet, that bastion of religious extremism. Catholics don’t have a very good record in this regard. In 1992, the then Bishop Ratzinger (now the Pope) sent a letter to the U.S. bishops supporting legal discrimination against gays in certain areas: adoption rights, the hiring of gays as teachers or coaches, and the prohibition of gays in the military. In such situations, Ratzinger wrote,
Of course, he doesn’t apply the same rules to gay priests, he doesn’t discriminate against them in hiring, or as teachers or coaches. In fact the Church protects them when they molest children … not sure which Bible verses they chose to justify that … but I digress. Next, we have from jesus-is-saviour.com:
From preachtoday.com:
Of course, we know the “pick and choose” part is crap, people have chosen to believe in snake handling or not, in Sunday vs. Saturday being holy or not, whether the death penalty for working on Sunday is righteous or ridiculous … but again I digress.
JThunder, assuming you are a straight guy, if I came up to you and said “Heterosexuality is evil, and you will be kicked out of the church, denied religious solace today and tortured for eternity, unless you give up loving women”, I doubt that you would call that an “objection” to your way of life. You’d probably think I was nuts. In particular, since you can’t do anything about who you might be sexually attracted to, I’m telling you that you are an evil person and since you can’t change, you’re basically fucked, you will be evil for eternity and will be punished for eternity for that.
JThunder, for all of the compassion that Christians profess and some actually have (perhaps including yourself, I don’t know), I don’t think you have a clue what that looks like from the other side. It’s ugly and nasty and vicious, and you claiming that it is just an “objection” is a vain attempt to obscure that fact. Being ugly and nasty and vicious is certainly not my idea of following the teaching of Christ.
The second thing is that you very carefully avoided any discussion of my examples of the arbitrary nature of your choice of what to believe. I gave examples of snake handlers, of Saturday vs. Sunday, of prohibitions on wearing cotton/linen shirts, I quoted chapter and verse on both sides and asked why it was not arbitrary to choose one over the other.
Your silence on the question is very revealing.
JThunder, I’m not anti-religion. Like they say, some of my best friends are Christians. I truly don’t care what Christians believe. It’s a spectator sport for me, I find it hilarious watching you guys running around, with each sect passionately trying to explain to the next sect just where their choice of which verses to follow is wrong, wrong, wrong. If you think carrying beads and eating wafers will make a difference after you are dead, and the next guy thinks getting dipped in water and handling snakes will make a difference after he is dead, more power to you both. I could care less.
But when Christians, not just one or two but heaps of them all over the country, some of them representing millions of followers, get up on TV and start spouting hateful bile about my friends … sorry, that goes beyond religion. That’s publicly attacking somebody. It has nothing to do with Jesus, and everything to do with hatred. And that’s not a stereotype or a fantasy. It’s a daily reality for my gay friends.
I’m not anti-religion. I’m anti-inhumanity in all of its guises. Many religious people are not inhumane. Many inhumane people are not religious. I am quite clear about the difference.
w.
I’m with you so far.
Dude (or Dudette), Westboro Baptist teaches that membership in the RCC is akin to devil worship. Really. He has picketed Catholic masses. Believe me, there is no allegiance between the Westboro Baptist Church and the RCC. BTW, based on your Google logic, virtually no one “criticized the Westboro.” Do you really believe that’s true?
Sure it is. But I don’t call it “truth.”
Sure they have.
[Billy Crystal character] where’s your messiah noooooow??[Billy Crystal character/off]
Boy, am I late to the party.
Okay, to answer the OP: Well, it doesn’t exist, that’s what’s with it. Question answered.
Bolding mine
You are describing a personnel preference and discretion which are specifically listed in the definition of arbitrary. That’s the point that’s I’m attempting to make.
Arbitrary doesn’t have to me that you gave it no thought and didn’t compare and exercise judgment. It’s not just a whim. It just means the deciding factor was what made sense to you. Someone else would conclude that theism is not
supportable and illogical and feel just as strongly as you. That’s arbitrary as well.
Evidently,you’re reading a different definition than I am. I’m wearing green because green is my favorite color. That’s a reason. Is it arbitrary?
I chose religion X because of a personnel experience that was meaningful to me, and after studying different religions, religion X appealed to me more. It was more meaningful and suited my spiritual needs. That’s a more complex reason that required some effort and discernment but in the final analysis it was personnel discretion and preference. That’s still arbitrary.
If your point is that it isn’t the “a momentary whim” form of arbitrary then I agree. It isn’t. Please note I’ve never argued or implied it was.
Actually they’re a convenient time saver 
I agree that sweeping judgments about anything, without regard to accuracy and nuance, don’t promote understanding and meaningful discussion. I’ve been in enough discussions on this board to see that happen repeatedly.
OTOH sometimes generalizations can be a useful tool in a discussion in keeping things brief. If I use a generalization it doesn’t mean I’m not aware it’s not 100 accurate. Most of the time I am, and it’s for brevities sake.
No, it’s not. It wasn’t randomly chosen, it wasn’t a flip of a coin, it wasn’t throwing darts. This particular decision may not have been terribly momentous, but neither was it arbitrary. “I find green an attractive and soothing color” is a reason to like it. It’s not arbitrary (since we’re parsing definitions).
You’re contradicting yourself in the same paragraph. If something suited your spiritual needs, if it required effort and discernment, if it was the result of ongoing study, it was not arbitrary. That doesn’t mean it was the best choice, objectively, or that another choice might not have actually been a better one. But it wasn’t arbitrary.
Well, some in this thread have. It is arbitrary to the point of being a completely meaningless distinction, according to some.
me neither;)
not to wander off to far, but would it be correct to say you consider it to be true? Does that mean it’s true but temped by the fact that you know it’s a personnel opinion?
I explore this because part of the thing with religion and also with opinions is not knowing the difference between belief that something is true, and something being a truth, that is, true for everyone.
So from the definition posted, what’s your take on the personnel preference and discretion portion? It seems to me you’re ignoring it completely.
Thank you for finding the words I’ve been looking for.
Are you suggesting, despite the assertions to the contrary in this thread, despite the example you yourself provided, that religious beliefs are solely an outcome of personal preference? Someone might say, “I choose X, um, I don’t know why, I guess I just like it,” and it seems that’s the definition you’re hanging your hat on. Again, despite the fact that this is not out of necessity the way religious beliefs are developed (as your own example, again, illustrates).
Religious beliefs can be arbitrary, I suppose, just as any belief system could be for a given person. The debate here (one of them) is whether religious beliefs are necessarily arbitrary. They are not. The definition you provided does not describe my religious beliefs, which are the only ones I can speak to with any authority. If your point is that it’s possible a given person arrived at his religious beliefs arbitrarily, that’s inarguable and not terribly illuminating.
I don’t believe there is a “Truth.” There are truths and they are fluid. They are not universal (as evidenced by the multitude of religions and beliefs out there). I don’t believe there’s a “secret.” There are things we don’t know, and things that as individuals, we’ll never know. Will someone figure out some of it long after we’re dead? Possibly. But by virtue of the fact that we’re all different, with different experiences and influences, there cannot be a universal Truth. “Meaning” and “Truth” are not interchangeable words. I think most people search for meaning in their lives, whether they’re confined by churches and scriptures or if they just absorb and evaluate life as it comes at them. But it cannot be the same answer for everyone. Human beings aren’t built that way.
Do you really think that’s true?
Yes, yes they are. From where I’m standing, any and all decisions involving why someone should get into a certain religion are absolutely, unequivocally nothing other than personal preference, because there IS no OBJECTIVE evidence to support a decision to choose a religion. I would venture to say that this is what the atheists have been trying to get across to the religious for some time but you guys aren’t listening very well.
Let’s shift the decisionmaking process from religion to cars. I can say I want Car A over Car B because A has more horsepower, gets better mileage, has more features, has all wheel drive–all of these are PROVABLE, VERIFIABLE differences in the two cars. I can PROVE the horsepower. I can PROVE a difference in engine displacement. I can PROVE that one has a manual transmission and the other an automatic. These are provable differences. Now, my PREFERENCE for one set of provable variables over another set is an arbitrary choice, based on my own needs and desires. To get even more arbitrary, there’s the choice of color for the car–there are provable differences in the colors the cars come in, but my own preference is an arbitrary one, based on my own liking for some colors more than others. In this instance, as in the case of choosing one religion over another there’s nothing pejorative about the arbitrariness of choice–it’s true that one person may have considered many more variables than another in choosing a car, but they could very well end up with the same model, in the same color, but have arrived there by very different paths. One spent months researching and test driving and comparing prices, the other thought it looked cool and came in the right color. However the result is exactly the same.
Now when we shift the focus back to religion, people can go through the same process of choice, spend as much or as little time and thought over it, end up in the same place–but there’s one huge difference between cars and religion. There is NO, absolutely ZERO objective, PROVABLE differences between religions. This is because they all start from the same flawed premise and build upon it. To borrow an analogy, religion is a house built upon the sand–there’s nothing underneath it to hold it all up. No science, nothing provable, no objective or rational basis for its existence. Once you put the house up (which may have been a difficult and complicated undertaking) you may like it very much and it may very well be an impressive and beautiful house that makes you very very happy–but the fact of the matter is that it’s a flawed construction placed on a shaky foundation and sooner or later that’s going to become apparent.
That’s why I use the term “arbitrary,” and I venture to say I’m not too far off in my thinking from other atheists. Where, please, is your objective and provable evidence for the existence of a god, the need to worship said god and the consequences of not doing so. As far as I’ve been able to determine, and I’ve shopped around a lot, religiously speaking, there’s nothing. It all goes back to the bible or some other book and “because we say so.” Not helpful. Basing my entire way of life on some baseless, unprovable tautology seems to be an empty and fruitless waste of my time and effort that I’d rather spend doing something useful. Your mileage varies–arbitrary, see?