Not forcing religion.

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by Job_38
Simpletons way of reading. I showed how atheism can cause terrorism. I showed how humans cause terrorism

Exactly how did you show how atheism causes terrorism? 

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by Job_38


 

 What we see is that perverted versions of religions popping up. Such as the Waco incident, where the leader was telling then we was Christ. Or the 9/11 attacks.

 

 

How would one objectively tell the difference between perverted religions and nonperverted religions? 

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by Job_38


 

 What we see is that perverted versions of religions popping up. Such as the Waco incident, where the leader was telling then we was Christ. Or the 9/11 attacks.

 

 Also, does that mean that the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland are following perverted religions?

 

[Starscream]

Hi Crazyfingers!

(you probably know me better as TollHouse)

How would one objectively tell the difference between perverted religions and nonperverted religions? 

In my experience it goes something like this:

- my religion is the non-perverted one

- all other faith systems are perverted

Simple!

 

[crazyfingers]

Hey Starscream !

I was wondering if I knew you from somewhere else!

 

[Brimshack]

"Simpletons way of reading. I showed how atheism can cause terrorism. I showed how humans cause terrorism"

Ah so we are back to slinging insults along with everything else. And I went so far out of my way to indicate that I was open to a clarification, but you found it necessary to use the word simpleton in the process didn't you. Oh well. As a matter of conversational implicature I take your statement that atheism cuses terrorism to be a comparative statement, indicating that atheism is at least a more significant source of terrorism than anything coming from theism. Your argument in the first quote indicates that belief operates to keep such actions in check, but then the second quote indicates that beliefs are not sufficient after all. If this is not an outright contradiction, then it is an overlyqualified thesis, i.e. one that asserts nothing after all.

 

[Brimshack]

Your argument that atheism 'causes' terrorism is in any event a complete miss. It's the same line we hear about atheistic immorality all the time, and it's always a bit of a red herring. You are essentially saying that atheists are missing a constraint which would prevent them from doing such things. But of course this is really an attempt to establish the absence of a mitigating factor. It leaves open the question of why one would want to do such a thing at all. (In this sense it completely fails to demonstrate that atheism CAUSES terrorism.) One isn't natyrally inclined to such behavior, and people don't do it because of what they don't believe. Terrrists, dictators, ect. do such things on behalf of what they DO believe. Many, NOT ALL, seem to find such a warrant in their religious beliefs, and when they do, the moral constraints that supposedly come with religion, are never sufficient to stop them.

 

[Job_38]

Originally posted by crazyfingers


 

How would one objectively tell the difference between perverted religions and nonperverted religions? 

 If in the name of one religion they commit acts of [insert what they are doing] they do not follow the doctrines of that religion.

 

 

 

[Brimshack]

"If in the name of one religion they commit acts of [insert what they_are doing]_they do not follow the doctrines of that religion."

Quite often there are messages that appear to condine violence in the great world religions. Whether or not these are sufficient to warrant the acts of terrorism may be debated by the adherents, but to say that anyone who does such things is violating his religion by definition is a circular argument.

 

[coastie]

Originally posted by Brimshack
"If in the name of one religion they commit acts of [insert what they_are doing]_they do not follow the doctrines of that religion."

Quite often there are messages that appear to condine violence in the great world religions. Whether or not these are sufficient to warrant the acts of terrorism may be debated by the adherents, but to say that anyone who does such things is violating his religion by definition is a circular argument.

But it isn't. For instance an otherwise devout Christian decides to bomb an abortion clinic in the name of GOd is absolutely not doing God's will. That is nothing short of murder and is not anywhere near what the Bible teaches. This guy (who we will call a domestic terrorist for all intents and purposes) is more wrong than the doctors who do not know that what they are doing is wrong since he knows he is breaking God's commandment.

Not that I want to get into a debate about the morality of abortion, this was just a convenient scenario.

However, on a broader scope, you have various interpetations of many religious books and teachings, and knowing which one is the right one isn't easy, but I'll tell you this, if someone thinks that a religion promotes murder or terrorism, they probably are not right.

I can see how, possibly to you, that there is no absolute religion since the fundamental basis of religion in usuaully theistic in some way, and you do not believe in God. So how do we know which religion is correct? You think that it's closer to a value assessment than fact, which is exactly where our differences come to light.

I know God, I know he's here, and I know that he doesn't tell people to go out and bomb abortion clinics and blow up their neighbors because they are Catholic.

I probably didn't help clear anything up at all, lest to say that this argument will not actually accomplish anything because the actual disagreement boils down to... "Do you believe in God? Why?"

Zach

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by Job_38


 If in the name of one religion they commit acts of [insert what they are doing] they do not follow the doctrines of that religion.

 

 

Given how ambiguous many religious texts are, for example the bible, it seems that it is simply a matter of opinion and interpretation what the doctrains are.

The bible says to kill the witches and up until a few hundred years ago christians did kill witches. Who is right, Christains from a few hundred years ago or christians today?

 

[Caffeine Socialism]

And you can't say that the abortion doctor killers were absolutely not doing God's will just because you want to maintain a good image for yourself. Other Christians support this, why shouldn't God?

More evidence that religion is too human to be true. If I were God, I wouldn't bless humanity.

 

[coastie]

And you can't say that the abortion doctor killers were absolutely not doing God's will just because you want to maintain a good image for yourself. Other Christians support this, why shouldn't God?

Because killing an abortion doctor is still murder. Because killing a desperate mother for having an abortion is still murder. Even though the abortion itself is atrocious, murder is murder. And murder is against God's law and the nation's law.

More evidence that religion is too human to be true. If I were God, I wouldn't bless humanity.

Me niether. We will never really understand God's motives for his promises.

 

[Brimshack]

Hi Coastie. The argument I was actuallt responding to was a simple statement that if Christians committ attrocities they aren't doing God's will. Your own argument is an improvement, but the original remains circular. What bothers me is the use of easy disclaimers, such as the original argument. When you add actual reasons stated from within the scope of Christianity, then you have an actual position to assess. But there are still a cuple problems)

1) 'Murder' begs the particular question by assuming that the particular killing in question is not legal or morally permissible. Another might might argue that any particular killing (of abortion doctors, say) could be morally permissible under 'God's law'.

which brings me to

2) Even if when properly understood Christianity would not lead to attrocities, its various 'misinterpretatins' remaina potent historical force. This doesn't undermine the spiritual value of 'True Christianity', assuming there is such a thing, but it does mean that a number of political concerns about Christianity as a whole survive the 'not true Christians' defense.

and

3) There are sufficiently contrary themes in the Bible, that citing certain texts of themes which point in a direction I would consider positive, provides me with no assurance that others may not point to other passages and claim they provide a warrant to commit attrocities.

 

[coastie]

if Christians committ attrocities they aren't doing God's will.

I do not disagree with this statement. What you want to know is How we know which interpretation is the correct one.

There are some very good laws in the Bible that cannot be misinterpretted. There are also some ambiguous ones that need clarification and further study. As for permissable murder, Jesus very adimently states that we will be judged how we judge others thus leading to the conclusion that if someone murders someone based on a judgement that that person is a murderer, then they are guilty of the same thing and will be held to the same standards.

Even if when properly understood Christianity would not lead to attrocities, its various 'misinterpretatins' remaina potent historical force. This doesn't undermine the spiritual value of 'True Christianity', assuming there is such a thing, but it does mean that a number of political concerns about Christianity as a whole survive the 'not true Christians' defense.

First of all, it is not up to us to decide whether or not someone is a "true Christian", though that term is conveniently used in the heat of a debate due to rhetorical simplicity.

However, we can denounce sin, but must allow justice to be handled lawfully. You can see how frustrating the topic of abortion is to christians that some would fly off the handle and murder a doctor or an expectant mother for themselves doing murder. Logically thinking people would realize that it makes no sense.

As for how to know your Christianity is the true Christianity is best left to a pastor to answer. While many people seem to have valid points, there are benchmarks in scripture, and if their particular point of view does not fall within those guidlines it cannot actually be Christian.

. Another might might argue that any particular killing (of abortion doctors, say) could be morally permissible under 'God's law'.

I can't think of where someone would pull that from, but for the sake of argument I will take that as being the case.

For a person to obtain that from a scripture and then act so irrationally, they did not study enough of the Bible to make an informed, spirit-lead decision.

There are sufficiently contrary themes in the Bible, that citing certain texts of themes which point in a direction I would consider positive, provides me with no assurance that others may not point to other passages and claim they provide a warrant to commit attrocities.

YEs, people interpret thing to mean what they want. If scripture is aproached objectively and not with someone with their own intentions and motives in mind, and also with prayerful meditation, the scripture will not be misinterpretted.

I probably missed something in there... I'm a little distracted right now. I'll be back to this topic later.

 

[Mid]

I think that evolution is very important to study in schools. So what? If you cant study evolution in school, you most certainly CANNOT studdy creationism. There is FAR more proof on evolution than creationism. Plus not all groups of people by far believe in creationism. So what do you do? Teach nothing except math, language, and history?............ waiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit a second you wouldnt even be able to teach history now would you? Some people would disagree on that too. so you have your language and your math. and SOME science? Where do you go with that?

 

[coastie]

I think that evolution is very important to study in schools. So what? If you cant study evolution in school, you most certainly CANNOT studdy creationism. There is FAR more proof on evolution than creationism.

That in itself is debateable. Why can't both be taught?

Plus not all groups of people by far believe in creationism.

And not all groups believe in evolution. By all means, find a study somewhere that says any different, unless you prefer to make broad claims without proof thus nullifying your argument.

Teach nothing except math, language, and history?............ waiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit a second you wouldnt even be able to teach history now would you? Some people would disagree on that too.

You are being ridiculous. Nobody said anything about history. I have no problm with facts being taught, but I do have a problem with a theory being taught as fact...

Do you understand now?

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by coastie

That in itself is debateable. Why can't both be taught?

Because one is science, provable and testable.

The other is not.

We don't teach the flat earth concept in geography, so there's no reason to teach creationism in a science class.

And not all groups believe in evolution. By all means, find a study somewhere that says any different, unless you prefer to make broad claims without proof thus nullifying your argument.

The only thing that matters is which is provable.  The decision to teach something does not rest on whether it is popular with some percentage of people, or not.

You are being ridiculous. Nobody said anything about history. I have no problm with facts being taught, but I do have a problem with a theory being taught as fact...

Do you understand now? [/B]

Yes.  I understand that you are another creationist that thinks the word 'theory' means a good guess.  Here's something for you to read:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html