Life, The Universe, And Everything

[Ouroboros]

Whoopee! I got points for an honest answer. Your welcome affirmation is only slightly negated by your quick agreement to my being brainwashed.

We're all brainwashed to a large degree by our parents, society and culture... don't deny it! There's not much room for what we call free will. So don't fret, we're all in the same den.

 

I appreciate the nuance of non-theist, and I understand and somewhat echo your requirement for 100% certainty. Unfortunately, that level of certainty is only inherent in the non-theoretical math and science realms, a relatively small portion of our collective thinking. I'm happy with an 80% probability of success at the beginning of a new engineering effort on the assumption that we'll improve the number as we progress. You're right in holding a higher standard of certainty for this; too important not to.

 

Hard core? You're probably right, I don't consider myself hard core; it has the tone of deliberate immovability (the hard headed kind); unteachable. I remember the number of times the young churches needed to be corrected for their foolishness and hope I would be open to such were it needed. It's a particularly difficult task retaining an open mind. I find my tendency is to deal with information, make decisions, and move on. Revisiting a previously made decision, particularly a foundational decision, risks major reorganization of information and ideas, plus decisions dependent on the first will have to be revisited. It's hard work just to be willing. I'm don't think I'm willing all the time; just when I can drag myself away from routine.

I think we at least came to something that seems to be a kind of common ground. I'll leave this debate now, because I think you have enough work dealing with the rest of the lions. Besides I suspect we won't hear from you that much the next two weeks when you're traveling anyway. Correct?

[Grandpa Harley]

Bon voyage!

 

Dammit, I'm starting to like this one... can we keep him?

[Ouroboros]

Dammit, I'm starting to like this one... can we keep him?

Sure. I kind of start liking him too... you know the way you want to keep a pet around. Something for us lions to play with.

[Grandpa Harley]

[dano]

Bad news, pal; this trip is all tax dollars. The good news is I got a great deal on my airfare.

Buddy

 

Well, then concentrate, concentrate on engineering or what ever you are getting "over paid" to do (anything gov. does, cost at least double what it ought). I want something tangible for my money.

 

Forget about religion and give me my moneys worth. God can take care of hisself. he don't need you worshiping him.

 

I suspect that he is sorry about starting all that shit with the Jews anyhow, and wishes he'd waited a couple of million years more till there was intelligent life on earth.

[Antlerman]

The subject of true and false interpretations, true and false religions, has come up several times. As you suggest, I'm inclined to think I'm right and they're wrong. Everybody does; you do. It's a condition of mental balance; if we find that we're wrong, we juggle to re-balance things to be right. The question you frame relates to the integrity of that process; do I think so for any particular reason? Is it an adequate, defensible position? Having said all that, it's an over-simplification as stated; it seems unlikely to me that someone who with an honest heart pursues God will come back with a completely invalid experience; the right/wrong question is more correctly answered that I'm fully persuaded to Christianity; I'm not persuaded to Christian exclusivity, nor do I believe the Bible supports it. Can a native American connect with God under a different name? Probably. Is that the very best offer that God would make to him? Probably not.

Hi Buddy, of course I want to continue our dialog about spirituality in humanity outside religion, but I want to respond to this above you said to Han.

 

I understand the point you are making here, but parts of it seem questionable to me after you acknowledge in so many words the subjectivity of knowing right and wrong, you state you are “fully persuaded to Christianity”. If you have an understanding that dualism is influencing your “right/wrong” way of thinking, yet can acknowledge that when you factor in others incompatible dualistic thinking of “right/wrong”, that it is impossible for you to be “fully persuaded”?

 

I’m an atheist. It’s what I see as the best answer to what I perceive about the world. I have a great deal of reason to be persuade to believe so, yet you will never hear me state “I am fully persuaded”. I can respect you saying it makes the most sense to you, but when I hear conclusions stated, I also hear the door of the mind snapping shut and the pursuit of knowledge and growth coming to an abrupt and ugly end. And that goes for both the religious and the secular.

 

As far other people’s relationships to the gods of their faiths, you suggest that others outside Christianity may not have the best that God would offer them. Would you also say the Christianity is not the best that God would offer Europeans too?

 

I’m curious to hear your thoughts to stepping outside your beliefs for a minute and considering a “ground to sky” perception, rather than a “sky to ground” perception. The Native American’s relationship with “God”, the Aboriginals relationship to “God”, the Muslim’s, the Christian’s, the Hindu’s relationship to “God”, are all images of themselves filtered through their cultures. It isn’t a case of God revealing himself from the sky to the ground, but man extending himself from the ground to the sky. Who then is right or wrong in this scenario?

 

Wouldn’t saying that God has revealed the superior truth to Christians be exactly the same thing as saying “savages needing civilizing” because they don’t share the same culture and values that evolved elsewhere? Isn't this exaclty like the Imperialism of the British empire “civilizing” the savage lands? Is the attitude that Christianity is a superior revelation from God – one bit different in arrogance that this? Is it one bit more valid a thought than this? Isn’t it a good thought to consider this the lowest point of humanity, rather than the highest; to consider himself “the elected ones”?

 

Are my visions more real than others? Probably not. More truly illuminating of supernatural reality than any other? Probably not. More useful? Only somewhat, mostly to me and a few others, and then only insofar as they are consistent with the Biblical narrative.

“Consistent with the Biblical narrative”? Who set this criteria? Who judges it? Priest’s interpretations? Goodness, talk about handing control over to others.

 

Regarding visions: I told you before I’ve had visions. Quite powerful, quite life-changing. However, the understanding of what this was, had it not been for the “teaching of the church’s understanding of scripture”, would never have come to that sort of “square peg in a round hole” limiting control!

 

Understanding it now as a human experience that speaks about what is in myself, and not some “god out there” sort of theological definition of God, has a far more limitless nature to it than anything that “conforms” to someone’s idea of what is “consistent with the Biblical narrative”. Screw that! Those people honestly don’t know their head from a hole in the ground when it comes to, well really anything profound, IMO. I studied with them in a Bible College for 4 years on my way into the ministry. And trust me when I say, “I learned more than all my teachers”. I found that happening about half way through the nonsense.

 

Christianity and all its theological definitions of God and Truth and “salvation”, etc became painfully evident to me that it was ALL a human construction. It’s all a human construction, from the Aboriginals to Christianity. It’s all man-made. And that’s not to say its all BAD, but understanding it’s human origins, it’s cultural origins strips away anyone’s right to call themselves “the elect” and not view others as “un-enlightened”, as “savages needing civilization”. Are these visions something about an external, supernatural world? I don't see a reason why they would have to be. When you say they are, then you start looking for answers where none exist, and the best you have is your own ideas anyway except with an unnessary layer of anxiety about "being consistent with.." a priest's, or pastor's interpretation of some book so far removed from our language and culture it's barely recognizable by us in its substance to it's original, long-dead readers.

 

I’m hoping to hear your thoughts to this, as my other posts to you. You use your own reason and words and that's a valuable thing.

[BuddyFerris]

Buddy I know that you have been bombarded with questions. And I think you’ve done an admirable job of trying to stay on top of them, but I have one more to throw at you.

 

Do you really think Christianity will survive the coming centuries? I have an intense interest in biology and I look forward to this coming century. I think it will be a century in which biology will come to the fore. It seems to me that as our understanding of life and living phenomena waxes Christianity will wane. Do you not feel that this will be the case?

Well, good afternoon, Legion. It's afternoon, and I'm on the road. Again. Waiting for the coffee to finish perking. Thanks for the kind words.

 

To answer your question, yes I do. It is wryly useful to point out that Christianity has endured while ages and empires have passed. Usurpation, misrepresentation, frontal assault, covert infiltration, the dark ages, the age of reason, the rise of evolution, and the bloodiest century in the history of the world, all have assailed Christianity without doing appreciable harm to the genuine article, and here we are, you and I, considering the likelihood of its' continuance. While some here will attest otherwise, Christianity isn't on its' last breath, nor is there credible threat to it. Didn't mean to go on quite that long. What I was curious about was the trail you envision as biology tinkers with life; what do you see as the impact on Christian belief?

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

At the risk of being confrontational, the Dark Ages were due in no small part to the rise of Christianity. If the Eastern Church hadn't botched the Middle East, then we'd not have had the Ottomans to fall back on for a lot of science that was lost while the church burned everything 'heretical' it could find. Up until the Age of Reason, the church was a major player. It would have been remarkable if it hadn't survived that, since it was the major power broker of the time. The only real challenge it had in the period you outline was the Black Death. If the Protestants hadn't broken the hegemony of the Holy Roman Empire there was nothing to stop them... and chances are we'd all be speaking either a Spanish or Portuguese dialect...

[BuddyFerris]

Buddy,

 

If you are sincerely trying to "understand" us, and not actually just trying to evangelize, then please take some time to explore this site: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/central.html

 

To be brief, you have decided to adopt the position in your life of unshakable religious belief. There are many people that have adopted that position for their lives in many different religions. In fact, it's a fairly common occurrence in human history.

 

What might be a bit less common is finding someone who has made that decision to devotedly follow a religion and has actually had experiences that were interpreted with his or her mind to be "supernatural," and that one day became sincerely willing to explore the very real possibility that his or her worldview and accompanying subjective experiences were fraught with terrible errors of judgment and gross misinterpretation of data.

 

My wife's sister is a life-long Charismatic Christian (she and her husband led a Vineyard Church in Belgium for many years). She and my wife talk frequently over the Internet. My wife is now an atheist, and her sister knows it, and they've discussed many things about their upbringing, their lives, their religion, etc. Their father, whom I've mentioned earlier, truly does believe God

speaks to him in an audible voice about mundane matters. He left manufacturing in the early 60's to devote his life to missionary work in Europe with Operation Mobilization. My wife and her siblings knew only One Way to view reality. Their parents only recently retired and returned to the States.

 

Anyway, my wife and her sister talk. This is what my wife's sister has to say about my wife's de-conversion: "I know that all the things you are telling me make perfect sense, but if I were to abandon my faith now at this point in my life, then all my life would have been wasted. I just can't consider the possibility that all that I've believed is a lie."

 

Again, If you really are sincerely trying to "understand" us, and not actually just trying to "help us understand what we think, or see if we know what or why we think what we think," then please take some time to explore this site: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/central.html

WM, Thanks for the reference; I'll be glad to take a look. I appreciate your making the offer.

 

One of the things we'll have to talk about sometime relates to the circumstance you describe with your sister-in-law. I'm aware that you and I and a some others can hold this sort of discussion without being particularly uncomfortable. We can consider arguments (with at least some objectivity) without being particularly afraid of the implications. Others we know cannot. They find themselves unable to hold any ambiguity in mind without distress or even panic. Additionally, many appear unable to intrude into the expert realms of, for example, medicine or science. The path such folks seem to follow is to acquire enough information to get by, and let the experts handle the rest. 'Just tell me what to do, and I'll be OK.' If you press them hard, they fight from having been backed into a corner, not from intellectual affront. Now I wouldn't speculate on what percentage of folks might fall into such a category, but we're stuck with maybe a lot of them. Their experts are preachers, teachers, doctors, lawyers, politicians, and folks like us who think about things they don't want to think about.

 

A web site like this one serves well to drag such folks out of their uninformed state. Have you thought about the extent of the impact of what you do here? Impressive. Not that I approve, of course.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

At the risk of being confrontational, the Dark Ages were due in no small part to the rise of Christianity. If the Eastern Church hadn't botched the Middle East, then we'd not have had the Ottomans to fall back on for a lot of science that was lost while the church burned everything 'heretical' it could find. Up until the Age of Reason, the church was a major player. It would have been remarkable if it hadn't survived that, since it was the major power broker of the time. The only real challenge it had in the period you outline was the Black Death. If the Protestants hadn't broken the hegemony of the Holy Roman Empire there was nothing to stop them... and chances are we'd all be speaking either a Spanish or Portuguese dialect...

Hey, Grandpa. So when did you start worrying about being confrontational? (Cheap humor; ignore it and speak your mind. I'm getting used to it.)

 

OK, Christianity stinks, the Church stinks, clerics stink, and the whole of history demonstrates just that and no more. So much has been done in the name of the church, for the glory of God, for the call of Christ, that it all stinks. I agree wholeheartedly. To balance that a bit, the church hasn't managed anything to equal Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, Hitler, et al. The 20th Century has been the bloodiest century in all of history, and humanism has proven to be the most destructive religion of all time. Far more people have been killed in the name of atheism than by all other religions combined.

 

Paul Johnson, the historian to whom I have referred previously, observes that ”the 20th Century state has proved itself the great killer of all time.” The 20th Century has seen the worst atrocities ever committed; the word ”genocide”, a new term coined in the 20th Century, describes what has occurred repeatedly in secular humanist states - which had first disarmed their populations.

 

While I'm sure this isn't news to atheists and agnostics, it isn't usually mentioned when flailing away at Christianity.

 

Beyond that though, we're stuck with trying to extricate our ideology from the quagmire created by its' usurpers. If you figure out how to make atheism look like the salvation of mankind, lemme know.

 

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

Actually that is a fallacy. Pohl Pot came close to the Roman Church's body count.

 

Hitler was an amateur (BTW there was a concentration camp run by Franciscan Monks in Serbia that SS men went to the Eastern Front rather than work, and Gestapo men had problems communicating their shock and horror at the treatment meted out... Predominantly on Slavs and Romanys. Vatican admitted it in the late 80s but refuse to supply paperwork to the Holocaust Council)

 

Stalin, close run...

 

If you add the Protestant and Roman Churches body count, then you're looking at all three 'arch monsters' of the 20th century being almost benign.

[Grandpa Harley]

Also to assert that Hitler, Stalin or Pohl Pot were humanists is specious too

 

Hitler, and Pot both worked on cults of the personality. Even a desultory study of either proves that

 

Stalinist communism, despite being atheist on paper, is a lot more complex than that. The USSR's love of relics of past leaders is proof of that, but again, even a desultory study shows that to assert that humanism is responsible for the Pogroms and Holocausts of the 20th C is just a bald lie by people selling Religion.

[BuddyFerris]

Also to assert that Hitler, Stalin or Pohl Pot were humanists is specious too

 

Hitler, and Pot both worked on cults of the personality. Even a desultory study of either proves that

 

Stalinist communism, despite being atheist on paper, is a lot more complex than that. The USSR's love of relics of past leaders is proof of that, but again, even a desultory study shows that to assert that humanism is responsible for the Pogroms and Holocausts of the 20th C is just a bald lie by people selling Religion.

 

Grandpa, my comment was to point to atheists and humanists as those who occupy positions of power and abuse that power in the absence of government founded on sound principles. Inaccurate? Is the communist atheism we credit for dehumanizing the Soviet population and murdering 30+million of its' own folks actually a just usurper of the atheist ideology? Should we expect extraordinary respect for life and humanity from atheists following the advent of moral relativism brought us by Darwin's followers? What say the voices of modern atheism?

 

What is man to an athiest? ”A hairless ape” - Schoenberg; ”A mere insect, an ant…” - Church; ”An accidental twig” - Gould; ”A rope stretched over an abyss” - Nietzsche; ”A fungus on the surface of one of the minor planets” - Du Maurier; ”A jest, a dream, a show, bubble, air…” - Thornbury; and ”I see no reason for attributing to man a significant difference in kind from that which belongs to a grain of sand” - Oliver Wendell Holmes.

 

To suggest that despots and governments who answer to no higher power than themselves are poor candidates for categorization as atheist an/or humanist is a weak argument as they walk the walk convincingly.

 

I hold no great hope for atheism or humanism offering to elevate mankind. On the other side of the coin, clearly not every atheist is a tyrant, a despot, a murderer, perhaps for not yet having realized the release from moral law provided by their philosophy. ”Without God all activities are equivalent…thus it amounts to the same thing whether one gets drunk alone, or is a leader of nations.” - Sartre.

 

The cause of the horrors on all sides to which we refer is much the same in every case. Absent accountability to an external and objective moral standard. Atheism hasn't improved the lot of mankind.

 

These are strong words to pass between thoughtful people; I've offered them primarily as a balance to the blame put upon Christianity for the ills of the world, and certainly not as a personal attack.

 

Buddy

[webmdave]

It is wryly useful to point out that Christianity has endured while ages and empires have passed. Usurpation, misrepresentation, frontal assault, covert infiltration, the dark ages, the age of reason, the rise of evolution, and the bloodiest century in the history of the world, all have assailed Christianity without doing appreciable harm to the genuine article, and here we are, you and I, considering the likelihood of its' continuance. While some here will attest otherwise, Christianity isn't on its' last breath, nor is there credible threat to it. Didn't mean to go on quite that long. What I was curious about was the trail you envision as biology tinkers with life; what do you see as the impact on Christian belief?

Buddy

 

The same can be said for Islam.

 

And the worship of RA lasted more than 2,000 years.

[Mankey]

Buddy:

The cause of the horrors on all sides to which we refer is much the same in every case. Absent accountability to an external and objective moral standard. Atheism hasn't improved the lot of mankind.

 

Atheism? Atheism is merely a lack of belief in Gods. That is all, no more no less. Free Thought and Humanism work well but are not perfect. Both should not, and need not be entangled in Government to improve lives for people. Government should remain neutral. Secular.

 

If we really respect our basic needs we respect others. We have to because we are social animals.....no man is an island unto himself. In a way if you harm others you harm yourself now or later. Plus, altruism and empathy is a part of human nature just as much as our other attributes and so, there is more emotional incentive if we pratice them to feel their benefit. We are social animals. No system is pefect, because we are not perfect, but we can mitigate harm. The bibles idol is no where near as useful as rational systems that are based on human make up. The Christian religion....all denominations... is very faulty equipment and does not really measure up to humanism. When the bible is lacking Christians borrow from secular ideas. You are awfully squirrelly and suffer from cognitive dissonance and compartmentalize a lot in your apologies to peoples posts here. I do not trust you.

 

After having read this whole thread I am very impressed by your intelligence and knowledge........but I would rather slit my wrists than meeting you in person.

 

I am done with this thread.

 

Good Buy Buddy.

[BuddyFerris]

It is wryly useful to point out that Christianity has endured while ages and empires have passed. Usurpation, misrepresentation, frontal assault, covert infiltration, the dark ages, the age of reason, the rise of evolution, and the bloodiest century in the history of the world, all have assailed Christianity without doing appreciable harm to the genuine article, and here we are, you and I, considering the likelihood of its' continuance. While some here will attest otherwise, Christianity isn't on its' last breath, nor is there credible threat to it. Didn't mean to go on quite that long. What I was curious about was the trail you envision as biology tinkers with life; what do you see as the impact on Christian belief?

Buddy

 

The same can be said for Islam.

 

And the worship of RA lasted more than 2,000 years.

You're correct of course. I only mention it in light of the several times in history when the end of Christianity has been announced. We'll have to wait awhile to see the end, I suppose.

Buddy

[Legion]

It is wryly useful to point out that Christianity has endured while ages and empires have passed. Usurpation, misrepresentation, frontal assault, covert infiltration, the dark ages, the age of reason, the rise of evolution, and the bloodiest century in the history of the world, all have assailed Christianity without doing appreciable harm to the genuine article, and here we are, you and I, considering the likelihood of its' continuance. While some here will attest otherwise, Christianity isn't on its' last breath, nor is there credible threat to it. Didn't mean to go on quite that long. What I was curious about was the trail you envision as biology tinkers with life; what do you see as the impact on Christian belief?

Well it seems to me that the God of the gaps is still alive and well. The truth is, there remains much that we do not yet understand about life. We don’t really know how terrestrial life began. And we really don’t understand what life is. That is, what is it that distinguishes an organism from a rock? We don’t explicitly know, yet. And I think while these gaps exist in our understanding many people will be tempted to hedge their bets with the mythology offered up by various religions.

 

I suspect however that these gaps are soon to shrink. I suspect that we will close in on the probable path by which life emerged from non-life. I also suspect that we will discover what distinguishes living systems from non-living systems. As this understanding becomes ours there will be less and less room for recourse to supernatural explanations in my estimation.

 

Life is an entirely natural phenomenon in my view. And I think our continuing efforts to tease forth the natural relationships that make life possible will, as they always have, make the supernatural less and less appealing.

[BuddyFerris]

I'll leave this debate now, because I think you have enough work dealing with the rest of the lions. Besides I suspect we won't hear from you that much the next two weeks when you're traveling anyway. Correct?

Assuming the day ends at a civilized hour, it's this or TV. We'll see.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

I suspect however that these gaps are soon to shrink. I suspect that we will close in on the probable path by which life emerged from non-life. I also suspect that we will discover what distinguishes living systems from non-living systems. As this understanding becomes ours there will be less and less room for recourse to supernatural explanations in my estimation.

 

Life is an entirely natural phenomenon in my view. And I think our continuing efforts to tease forth the natural relationships that make life possible will, as they always have, make the supernatural less and less appealing.

 

Legion,

Should scientific inquiry continue its' course and pace, you may well be correct, though the advances you suggest will little change the root question, asked and answered on most fronts, which addresses the existence or non-existence of a creator. The atheists position is and will continue to be that no god is required. The theists position is that God gave you the opportunity to choose that position, or some such. Worlds apart. Perhaps the emerging understanding that the general population will acquire from scientific advance will in fact lessen the attraction of the supernatural in some regards. What effect that will have on Western Christianity, I can't predict. I doubt it will fizzle and fade away. Surely it will change; at least I certainly hope it does.

 

Buddy

"Reason’s last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it" --Pascal

[Legion]

Perhaps the emerging understanding that the general population will acquire from scientific advance will in fact lessen the attraction of the supernatural in some regards. What effect that will have on Western Christianity, I can't predict. I doubt it will fizzle and fade away. Surely it will change; at least I certainly hope it does.

I think that last comment is interesting Buddy.

 

In what way do you hope Western Christianity will change?

[BuddyFerris]

Perhaps the emerging understanding that the general population will acquire from scientific advance will in fact lessen the attraction of the supernatural in some regards. What effect that will have on Western Christianity, I can't predict. I doubt it will fizzle and fade away. Surely it will change; at least I certainly hope it does.

I think that last comment is interesting Buddy.

 

In what way do you hope Western Christianity will change?

Much of what passes for Christianity in Western culture seems out of balance; it centers around a church service and little else. As I mentioned some time earlier, mainline denominations are in somewhat of a decline, particularly compared to emerging churches that bear little resemblance to the familiar red brick and cross. I would hope the church would shake off the last 50 years of feel-good theology and do some serious growing up. I say that while recognizing the tendencies in myself to follow along. I'm in favor of intelligent change; failing proactive movement in a positive direction, I'm not averse to culturally forced change. I don't criticize those who wash their cars on Saturday and shine their shoes in preparation for Sunday church, but we hope for better things.

Buddy

[Kuroikaze]

To suggest that despots and governments who answer to no higher power than themselves are poor candidates for categorization as atheist an/or humanist is a weak argument as they walk the walk convincingly.

 

 

No, it is you who fail to understand that atheist and humanist are not the same thing...one can be an atheist without being a humanist. How much have you even studied humanist philosophy? Because it doesn't sound like you know what your are talking about when you speak of it.

 

I hold no great hope for atheism or humanism offering to elevate mankind. On the other side of the coin, clearly not every atheist is a tyrant, a despot, a murderer, perhaps for not yet having realized the release from moral law provided by their philosophy. ”Without God all activities are equivalent…thus it amounts to the same thing whether one gets drunk alone, or is a leader of nations.” - Sartre.

 

 

Well...Christianity certainly hasn't done a good job of elevating humanity...hell even you admit it.

 

To be quite honest, this response cost you pretty much all the small amount of respect I had for you... (not that you care I'm sure)

 

Submitting that atheists would all be immoral despots if they followed their beliefs out to their logical conclusion? It is factually wrong considering history...and Logically specious... furthermore it shows how little you have actually learned in your time here speaking with us.

 

I for one am done talking with you. It simply isn't worth my time to have debate with someone who isn't even bound to take anything I say as having the slightest merit.... and it is apparent you don't.

[Grandpa Harley]

Also to assert that Hitler, Stalin or Pohl Pot were humanists is specious too

 

Hitler, and Pot both worked on cults of the personality. Even a desultory study of either proves that

 

Stalinist communism, despite being atheist on paper, is a lot more complex than that. The USSR's love of relics of past leaders is proof of that, but again, even a desultory study shows that to assert that humanism is responsible for the Pogroms and Holocausts of the 20th C is just a bald lie by people selling Religion.

 

Grandpa, my comment was to point to atheists and humanists as those who occupy positions of power and abuse that power in the absence of government founded on sound principles. Inaccurate? Is the communist atheism we credit for dehumanizing the Soviet population and murdering 30+million of its' own folks actually a just usurper of the atheist ideology? Should we expect extraordinary respect for life and humanity from atheists following the advent of moral relativism brought us by Darwin's followers? What say the voices of modern atheism?

 

What is man to an athiest? ”A hairless ape” - Schoenberg; ”A mere insect, an ant…” - Church; ”An accidental twig” - Gould; ”A rope stretched over an abyss” - Nietzsche; ”A fungus on the surface of one of the minor planets” - Du Maurier; ”A jest, a dream, a show, bubble, air…” - Thornbury; and ”I see no reason for attributing to man a significant difference in kind from that which belongs to a grain of sand” - Oliver Wendell Holmes.

 

To suggest that despots and governments who answer to no higher power than themselves are poor candidates for categorization as atheist an/or humanist is a weak argument as they walk the walk convincingly.

 

I hold no great hope for atheism or humanism offering to elevate mankind. On the other side of the coin, clearly not every atheist is a tyrant, a despot, a murderer, perhaps for not yet having realized the release from moral law provided by their philosophy. ”Without God all activities are equivalent…thus it amounts to the same thing whether one gets drunk alone, or is a leader of nations.” - Sartre.

 

The cause of the horrors on all sides to which we refer is much the same in every case. Absent accountability to an external and objective moral standard. Atheism hasn't improved the lot of mankind.

 

These are strong words to pass between thoughtful people; I've offered them primarily as a balance to the blame put upon Christianity for the ills of the world, and certainly not as a personal attack.

 

Buddy

TBH, I could do the same exercise (taking single lines of texts as representative of an overall stance of an author without original context) with Christian writers who dismiss humanity as little more than sin ridden worms, incapable of wiping their arse without god. I don't see that as terrible elevating, or intellectually honest.

 

The Roman Church, using just fire and the sword exceeded Hitler in virtually every way in any 10 period up to the enlightenment. When they weren't killing people who weren't Christian, they were killing or being killed by other Christian sects. The History of Europe is largely the history of the Christian religion eating itself. Hell, I'm British. My last sectarian 'war' was Northern Ireland, and that has only just petered out.

 

In 1999, a Vietnam Vet turned Buddhist did a 'Peace walk' - taking in 35 active war zones, 32 of which were sectarian (religious) based... (Not just Christians, but it says a lot about what people will do for their imaginary friend)

 

To claim that Christianity has elevated man overall is just a bald lie... At best it's elevated some people, and they are hard to find...

 

Mother Teresa is the usual example for ALL Christians. Feet of clay. Yet people were calling her a saint before the first blow fly had laid it's eggs on her cooling flesh...

[Evolution_beyond]

To balance that a bit, the church hasn't managed anything to equal Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, Hitler, et al. The 20th Century has been the bloodiest century in all of history, and humanism has proven to be the most destructive religion of all time. Far more people have been killed in the name of atheism than by all other religions combined.

 

To correct this slightly: The 20th Century has been the bloodiest century in all of history, and communism and fascism have proved to be the most destructive religions of all time. Far more people have been killed in the name of politics than by all other religions combined.

 

Communists and fascists are most definitely not humanists. And atheism is not what is responsible for those horrors - but the politics of either fascism or communism.

[BuddyFerris]

To balance that a bit, the church hasn't managed anything to equal Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, Hitler, et al. The 20th Century has been the bloodiest century in all of history, and humanism has proven to be the most destructive religion of all time. Far more people have been killed in the name of atheism than by all other religions combined.

 

To correct this slightly: The 20th Century has been the bloodiest century in all of history, and communism and fascism have proved to be the most destructive religions of all time. Far more people have been killed in the name of politics than by all other religions combined.

 

Communists and fascists are most definitely not humanists. And atheism is not what is responsible for those horrors - but the politics of either fascism or communism.

EB,

Perhaps I misspoke. Did I lump all atheists together regardless of underlying political motivation? Did I brand humanists as atheist equivalent? Did I ascribe all of the evil done under the various ideological banners to a single root source? Dang, I did didn't I.

 

In previous conversations, we've (the collective we here) had difficulty differentiating Christianity from the usurpation by political ideologues. The shotgun approach to criticism is easiest; blast all who look suspicious. The baby/bath water problem requires a finer discrimination. In the process, we have to be attuned to our own emotional disposition on the subject matter. For instance, pure communism has much to commend it, but we gag at such a statement because of what we've seen by way of implementation in our own lifetimes.

 

I would hope that the simple truths of Christianity viewed against the backdrop of history would differentiate those who live by those truths from those who did not. To do otherwise negates every counter-defense one might make for atheism and humanism.

 

Perhaps we have made the point together. This is offered in hope of better understanding, not as an attack. I'm not interested in widening the gap between people.

Buddy