Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Shaker

That's Christianity for you



Original sin and total depravity, anyone?
Ketty

That's the problem with religion for you.

According to Christ:

Christianity tells her that she is wonderfully made.
Christianity tells her she is loved so much Christ gave His life for her.  
Christianity tells her she has infinite worth.
Christianity tells her she can approach God with confidence and boldness.
Christianity tells her she's beautifully unique.
Christianity tells her she is loved without measure.
Christianity tells her she is great.
Christianity tells her she can be assured in Him and she needs no praises or approval of man.

The Boyg

Shouldn't your thread title be "Atheists exploit small child for propaganda purposes"?
The Boyg

And science says none of the things on the right.

Science has nothing to say about the worth of the individual.

Science tells her that she is simply a temporary receptacle for her genes and of no more significance than a tape worm.
Shaker

Ketty wrote:
That's the problem with religion for you.

According to Christ:

Christianity tells her that she is wonderfully made.

The picture doesn't reveal anything in that regard but of course it's always possible that the little one may have physical disabilities, defects and abnormalities. Millions do and are therefore not very wonderfully made at all. Which you can expect from and indeed explain by a partially random biochemical process such as genetics - it's those who think that there's an awful shade of some unseen power supervising everything (intelligently, so they say) who have some explaining to do.
Quote:
Christianity tells her she is loved so much Christ gave His life for her.
 
I doubt she can tie her own shoelaces as yet and probably likes things in the order of finger painting and dolls. What on earth (literally, you might say) did she do to merit such an outré (and indeed unsought and unasked-for) act?
Quote:
Christianity tells her she has infinite worth.
Christianity tells her she can approach God with confidence and boldness.
Christianity tells her she's beautifully unique.
Christianity tells her she is loved without measure.
Christianity tells her she is great.

Does it? Does it really? Where does it tell her that?

Are you denying, then, that Christianity regards her as sinful - arguably no more so and perhaps less than many others, but sinful nonetheless? Or is it the case, as we so often hear, that in God's eyes (metaphorical eyes, obviously ... which might lead one to ask why sin isn't metaphorical as well) all sin is sin, full stop (or 'period' as the colonials say) and that nicking a packet of Post-It notes from work is tantamount to assault and battery? On the basis that this religion's alleged founding figure regarded sexual thoughts - just thoughts - as morally on the same plane as actual adultery, I mean. Unless they've got rid of Matthew 5:27-28, which would be a decided improvement.

But back to sin. Have they removed Romans 3:10 and 3:23 as well these days? I'm truly delighted to hear it if so 
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Shouldn't your thread title be "Atheists exploit small child for propaganda purposes"?

No.

And even if that were true, which it isn't, given what's still coming out from County Galway at present I'd say that a photograph of a clearly happy and delightful young tot taken for an adult to make a serious point about the loathsomeness of Christianity and its mindset would be rather small potatoes - small on the virological scale in fact. Wouldn't you?
Ketty

Shaker wrote:
it's always possible that the little one may have physical disabilities, defects and abnormalities. Millions do and are therefore not very wonderfully made at all.


That's what science tells folk who aren't quite 'perfect'.  Christ tells all we are wonderfully made.

Shaker wrote:
I doubt she can tie her own shoelaces as yet and probably likes things in the order of finger painting and dolls. What on earth (literally, you might say) did she do to merit such an outré (and indeed unsought and unasked-for) act?


Yet it still happened.  Science sees is at worthless.

Shaker wrote:

Does it? Does it really? Where does it tell her that?


Throughout the Gospel.

Shaker wrote:
Are you denying, then, that Christianity regards her as sinful


Looking through your lens and understanding, yes!  She is beautifully and wonderfully made and if the Lord took her today, she will spend eternity in heaven.

Shaker wrote:
- arguably no more so and perhaps less than many others, but sinful nonetheless? Or is it the case, as we so often hear, that in God's eyes (metaphorical eyes, obviously ... which might lead one to ask why sin isn't metaphorical as well) all sin is sin, full stop (or 'period' as the colonials say) and that nicking a packet of Post-It notes from work is tantamount to assault and battery? On the basis that this religion's alleged founding figure regarded sexual thoughts - just thoughts - as morally on the same plane as actual adultery, I mean. Unless they've got rid of Matthew 5:27-28, which would be a decided improvement.

But back to sin. Have they removed Romans 3:10 and 3:23 as well these days? I'm truly delighted to hear it if so 


The Lord thinks you are wonderfully made too, despite the sin He can see.  
Shaker

Ketty wrote:
That's what science tells folk who aren't quite 'perfect'.

Science doesn't deal in the concept of perfect in any case, but it can certainly identify and explain such deviations from the statistical norm.

I wouldn't say that babies born with epidermolysis bullosa were "wonderfully made." (It has to be your own choice, obviously, but I'd advise against doing a Google Images search for this condition).

Quote:
Yet it still happened.
 
[citation required] as they say on Wikipedia

Quote:
Throughout the Gospel.

Can you be a little more specific?

Quote:
Looking through your lens and understanding, yes!  She is beautifully and wonderfully made and if the Lord took her today, she will spend eternity in heaven.

Why would that happen? She's not old enough to know or indeed have any real grasp on the concepts of Jesus, sin or redemption and the rest of it - so if she died, why would this result ensue?

There's no such thing as a Christian child or a Jewish child, obviously - the very idea is absurd - but she may belong to parents who are religiously observant Jews, let's say. According to Orthodox Judaism (only) a Jewish mother makes the child Jewish. What would be the result then?

Quote:
The Lord thinks you are wonderfully made too

On that point we are at one, then
Quote:
despite the sin He can see.

Should've gone to Specsavers
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Shouldn't your thread title be "Atheists exploit small child for propaganda purposes"?

No.

And even if that were true, which it isn't, given what's still coming out from County Galway at present I'd say that a photograph of a clearly happy and delightful young tot taken for an adult to make a serious point about the loathsomeness of Christianity and its mindset would be rather small potatoes - small on the virological scale in fact. Wouldn't you?


Tu quoque?

That's it?

That's your justification for the little girl being used like this?
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Shouldn't your thread title be "Atheists exploit small child for propaganda purposes"?

No.

And even if that were true, which it isn't, given what's still coming out from County Galway at present I'd say that a photograph of a clearly happy and delightful young tot taken for an adult to make a serious point about the loathsomeness of Christianity and its mindset would be rather small potatoes - small on the virological scale in fact. Wouldn't you?


Tu quoque?

That's it?

That's your justification for the little girl being used like this?

It's perfectly good enough for me. I don't consider that a photograph (evidently staged by adults, presumably parent or parents) of a beaming little girl holding a sign which she may not even be able to read or, if a little, understand compares in any way whatever to the depressing, deplorable and brutalising excuse for a creed which the photograph attacks and which has always led and still leads to so much utter misery, degradation and suffering the world over. The photograph exists to make a point - which it does, well (although not as well as it could do: the word 'religion' in the left-hand column should really be replaced by 'Christianity' for it to be maximally apposite and accurate. Wicca is a religion but says or implies none of those things, for example). I'm sure you like to think you're in high moral dudgeon and are ready to mount your high horse because the photograph uses a cute, smiling little girl to make its point - thank goodness we never, ever see the religious mob doing the same thing, eh?
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Shouldn't your thread title be "Atheists exploit small child for propaganda purposes"?

No.

And even if that were true, which it isn't, given what's still coming out from County Galway at present I'd say that a photograph of a clearly happy and delightful young tot taken for an adult to make a serious point about the loathsomeness of Christianity and its mindset would be rather small potatoes - small on the virological scale in fact. Wouldn't you?


Tu quoque?

That's it?

That's your justification for the little girl being used like this?

It's perfectly good enough for me. I don't consider that a photograph (evidently staged by adults, presumably parent or parents) of a beaming little girl holding a sign which she may not even be able to read or, if a little, understand compares to the depressing, deplorable and brutalising creed which the photograph attacks and which has always led and still leads to so much utter misery, degradation and suffering.


OK, so we've established that your comfortable with children being used by adults to promote a philosophical position. Thanks.
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
OK, so we've established that your comfortable with children being used by adults to promote a philosophical position. Thanks.

No we haven't.

Hopefully what we've established that I'm comfortable with children being used by adults (insofar as having a photograph taken of them constitutes being "used" (there goes the advertising industry!) to promote a philosophical position which attacks that which is silly, irrational, backward, ignorant, divisive and cruel.

It's a lot longer and doesn't scan so well, but it's far more accurate and to me, of course, that's what counts.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
OK, so we've established that your comfortable with children being used by adults to promote a philosophical position. Thanks.

No we haven't.

Hopefully what we've established that I'm comfortable with children being used by adults (insofar as having a photograph taken of them constitutes being "used" (there goes the advertising industry!) to promote a philosophical position which attacks that which is silly, irrational, backward, ignorant, divisive and cruel.


So you only agree to young children being used by adults to promote a philosophical position when it's a philosophical position that you agree with.

Therefore you are not uncomfortable with children being used by adults to promote a philosophical position, per se.
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
So you only agree to young children being used by adults to promote a philosophical position when it's a philosophical position that you agree with.


Correct.

Quote:
Therefore you are not uncomfortable with children being used by adults to promote a philosophical position, per se.

Yes, I am uncomfortable with children being used by adults to promote a philosophical position per se, just not as long as it's one I agree with. I thought we'd established that one? Agreeing with things you agree with and disagreeing with things you disagree with ... well, it's not really front page news, is it?
Ketty

Shaker wrote:
I wouldn't say that babies born with epidermolysis bullosa were "wonderfully made." (It has to be your own choice, obviously, but I'd advise against doing a Google Images search for this condition).


I'm aware of the condition.  It's dreadful.    However it doesn't diminish the intrinsic value and beauty of the individual, who is every bit as wonderfully made as others who do not have such horrible life-limiting 'challenge'.   Science sees the condition; Christ sees the human being.

Shaker wrote:

[citation required] as they say on Wikipedia


The Bible is the only citation you can have.

Shaker wrote:

Can you be a little more specific?


You'd need the Holy Spirit to help is about as specific as I can be.


Shaker wrote:

Why would that happen? She's not old enough to know or indeed have any real grasp on the concepts of Jesus, sin or redemption and the rest of it - so if she died, why would this result ensue?


Precisely because she's a child and for the reasons you have given.

Shaker wrote:
There's no such thing as a Christian child or a Jewish child, obviously - the very idea is absurd - but she may belong to parents who are religiously observant Jews, let's say. According to Orthodox Judaism (only) a Jewish mother makes the child Jewish. What would be the result then?


My understanding is that will not make a difference - we're all God's children.

Shaker wrote:
Quote:
The Lord thinks you are wonderfully made too

On that point we are at one, then


 

Shaker wrote:
Quote:
despite the sin He can see.

Should've gone to Specsavers


The God of Miracles and who can make the blind see (ref the Bible) doesn't need Specavers.  
Jim

Ketty wrote:
Shaker wrote:
it's always possible that the little one may have physical disabilities, defects and abnormalities. Millions do and are therefore not very wonderfully made at all.


That's what science tells folk who aren't quite 'perfect'.  Christ tells all we are wonderfully made.

Shaker wrote:
I doubt she can tie her own shoelaces as yet and probably likes things in the order of finger painting and dolls. What on earth (literally, you might say) did she do to merit such an outré (and indeed unsought and unasked-for) act?


Yet it still happened.  Science sees is at worthless.

Shaker wrote:

Does it? Does it really? Where does it tell her that?


Throughout the Gospel.

Shaker wrote:
Are you denying, then, that Christianity regards her as sinful


Looking through your lens and understanding, yes!  She is beautifully and wonderfully made and if the Lord took her today, she will spend eternity in heaven.

Shaker wrote:
- arguably no more so and perhaps less than many others, but sinful nonetheless? Or is it the case, as we so often hear, that in God's eyes (metaphorical eyes, obviously ... which might lead one to ask why sin isn't metaphorical as well) all sin is sin, full stop (or 'period' as the colonials say) and that nicking a packet of Post-It notes from work is tantamount to assault and battery? On the basis that this religion's alleged founding figure regarded sexual thoughts - just thoughts - as morally on the same plane as actual adultery, I mean. Unless they've got rid of Matthew 5:27-28, which would be a decided improvement.

But back to sin. Have they removed Romans 3:10 and 3:23 as well these days? I'm truly delighted to hear it if so 


The Lord thinks you are wonderfully made too, despite the sin He can see.  

- Yep.
And speaking from my personal pov, I know I am wonderfully made!
I have a quadroplegic friend whose faith bursts out like sunshine every time she opens her mouth.
Though disfigured in the eyes of the world, she wouldn't trade in her relationship with God for full mobility and a guaranteed Miss World crown.
She is wonderfully made, fully conscious of her LORD's love for her, and loves nothing more than to share that love at every opportunity.
Shaker

Ketty wrote:
I'm aware of the condition.  It's dreadful.    However it doesn't diminish the intrinsic value and beauty of the individual, who is every bit as wonderfully made as others who do not have such horrible life-limiting 'challenge'.   Science sees the condition; Christ sees the human being.

Hm, seeing, lovely.

Be that as it may or may it not be as it be not may, science is the only thing that can do anything about it. In that regard Jesus seems to be conspicuous by his absence.

Quote:
My understanding is that will not make a difference - we're all God's children.

So on this view following any religious tradition would seem to be superfluous?
Ketty

Shaker wrote:
So on this view following any religious tradition would seem to be superfluous?


From a Christian perspective there is only one Lord God Almighty, the Creator God; only one Christ Jesus, so yes, through that lens and perspective I guess you could say that the rest are 'superfluous'.
Ketty

Jim wrote:
- Yep.
And speaking from my personal pov, I know I am wonderfully made!
I have a quadroplegic friend whose faith bursts out like sunshine every time she opens her mouth.
Though disfigured in the eyes of the world, she wouldn't trade in her relationship with God for full mobility and a guaranteed Miss World crown.
She is wonderfully made, fully conscious of her LORD's love for her, and loves nothing more than to share that love at every opportunity.


 
Shaker

Ketty wrote:
From a Christian perspective there is only one Lord God Almighty, the Creator God; only one Christ Jesus, so yes, through that lens and perspective I guess you could say that the rest are 'superfluous'.


No, I meant all of them, Christianity included. You said that if the little girl in the picture died she'd be immediately whisked off to heaven, despite (presumably) never even having heard of much less have any awareness of the concepts of Jesus, heaven, sin, salvation, etc.

So why follow any religious tradition, including Christianity? What's it for?

Quote:
The God of Miracles and who can make the blind see (ref the Bible) doesn't need Specavers.


Never once known of any gods doing this, anywhere, ever.

Scientists, on the other hand ...
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
I thought we'd established that one? Agreeing with things you agree with and disagreeing with things you disagree with ... well, it's not really front page news, is it?


Yes, but this is not simply about agreeing with things that one agrees with. It is about agreeing with using small children to promote the things that one agrees with.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:

So why follow any religious tradition, including Christianity? What's it for?


You seem to regard religious faith as some sort of quid pro quo when most of the religious people that I am in contact with regard it as trying to understand (and at a personal level, maintain) a relationship between humanity and the divine.
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
You seem to regard religious faith as some sort of quid pro quo when most of the religious people that I am in contact with regard it as trying to understand (and at a personal level, maintain) a relationship between humanity and the divine.


No.

That comment was in response to Ketty's assertion that were the child to die, she would be welcomed into heaven by Jesus, backed up by the belief:

Ketty wrote:
My understanding is that will not make a difference - we're all God's children.


If that's the case, this or that religious adherence would seem to be superfluous and it would make no difference whatever whether one is a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or a Sikh or Zoroastrian or in fact anything.

I know that some Christians do indeed espouse that kind of universalism and that's lovely - it's a kindly belief held by kindly people. Those who hold it however are directly and explicitly going against the alleged words of their religion's central figure, whose words in this case were anything but kindly.

Which just goes to prove the truth of another quote by Dan Barker, as it happens, to the effect that so often, people are far, far better - kinder, more moral - than the religions they espouse. This should be obvious, really, because moral behaviour pre-dates religion by a very long, long, long, long way.

Religion is merely the Johnny-come-lately on the scene which has rendered itself parasitic on morality, spinning a line of bullshit so deafeningly for so long and so successfully that people now forget which actually came first.
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
I thought we'd established that one? Agreeing with things you agree with and disagreeing with things you disagree with ... well, it's not really front page news, is it?


Yes, but this is not simply about agreeing with things that one agrees with. It is about agreeing with using small children to promote the things that one agrees with.

Which I've already said is fine by me. I've no objection whatever to young children being used in posters or TV adverts against bullying and child abuse, for example. There's a serious and noble purpose for that.

Using kids to promote hateful and divisive ideologies ... no.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
I thought we'd established that one? Agreeing with things you agree with and disagreeing with things you disagree with ... well, it's not really front page news, is it?


Yes, but this is not simply about agreeing with things that one agrees with. It is about agreeing with using small children to promote the things that one agrees with.

Which I've already said is fine by me. I've no objection whatever to young children being used in posters or TV adverts against bullying and child abuse, for example. There's a serious and noble purpose for that.

Using kids to promote hateful and divisive ideologies ... no.


And I presume that this is according to your personal opinion regarding what is "hateful" and "divisive".
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
And I presume that this is according to your personal opinion regarding what is "hateful" and "divisive".

Of course.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
And I presume that this is according to your personal opinion regarding what is "hateful" and "divisive".

Of course.


So we come back to you agreeing with small children being exploited to promote ideas that you agree with and disagreeing with small children being exploited to promote ideas that you disagree with.

All of which gives the impression that you care less about the exploitation of children than the ideas that they are being used to promote, i.e. you are applying a double standard.
Shaker

Oh, humungous dangling bollocks: I've just realised with stomach-churning horror that I've just made a complete toilet of Ketty's earlier post by (as is so often the way) clicking on edit instead of quote. I've done this before (as have we all at one point or another) and I can only hope that Ketty will forgive me for a highly embarrassing but sheer unintentional slip of the fingers.

I will do my best to try to salvage the best of the post I fully intended to make by posting the following:

Ketty wrote:
I believe in Creator God, and so believe it's Him who gives the scientists the knowledge and power to use science for good (and evil).


But that strikes me as the most monumental cop-out - opticians, doctors and surgeons who've trained for years and years at great expense and considerable personal cost and who put the sweat in to learn this stuff and to do the operations actually do all the dirty, sweaty and bloody stuff, scrubbing-up, anaesthesia, latex gloves, scalpels and all - but bugger me, God gets the credit because he's the one really responsible?

This is a God who traditional theism regards as omnipotent (able to do anything, either with or without its being logically possible, depending on preference), omniscient (knows everything capable of being known) and omnibenevolent (entirely and perfectly good) who could do these things at a metaphorical snap of the divine fingers as it were but entrusts the job to fallible, easily-tired, short-supply human beings who get tired, lose concentration, have bad moods and are always operating with ever-advancing but still partial and imperfect knowledge?

Really? Come off it It's exactly this kind of desperate, barrel-bottom rationalisation why I'm not only an atheist but what I and a few other people, casting about for a suitable term, have provisionally called a meta-atheist - not only not believing in gods (that's just atheism) but very seriously doubting whether anybody else seriously does either, no matter what they claim. Pull the other one, in short

Ketty wrote:
But I didn't just mean 'see' as in eyesight, but also spiritual revelation.

So when you said:

Ketty wrote:
The God of Miracles and who can make the blind see (ref the Bible) doesn't need Specavers.


did you mean literal and straightforward blindness, as in, a person without the ability to see, or something more metaphorical and symbolic, or both?

End of original post, minus the usual foul language that myfreeforum.org puts edit and quote next to each other   " target="_blank">
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
So we come back to you agreeing with small children being exploited to promote ideas that you agree with and disagreeing with small children being exploited to promote ideas that you disagree with.

All of which gives the impression that you care less about the exploitation of children than the ideas that they are being used to promote, i.e. you are applying a double standard.

I don't believe that children are being 'exploited' in this regard. As I have pointed out previously, little girls of the age of the one in the photo in the OP are more bothered about dolls and (in the UK) CBBC than philosophical points. Their appearance in a photograph for what you would doubtless call ideological purposes is of no more moment than the appearance of very young children in well-known photographs for entirely non-ideological purposes (for example this and this). So do us both a favour and give over with the 'exploitation' bullshit, unless you think that any photograph of any baby/small child is 'exploitation', in which case your silence on the images I posted earlier of babies promoting Cow & Gate products and Pampers nappies looks like tendentious and partial bollocks based primarily on your desire to attack (via me) atheism and atheists, indeed anything critical of religious belief generally and yours specifically first and foremost, and by default to defend theism second.

If this is a double standard it's a double standard to which I'm happy to assent: the double standard which finds it fine to see young children being employed to promote anti-bullying, anti-child abuse campaigns but finds it abhorrent and repugnant when the Westboro Baptist Church employs small children to hold placards proclaiming "God hates fags" and "God hates America" and the like, or when I see small children wearing headbands bearing Arabic script and brandishing Kalashnikov AK-47s bigger than they are. One of those things is, all things considered and all other things being equal, conducive to human health, welfare, happiness and the general good whereas the other one isn't. Clue available for 50 points: it's not the religious one.

If that's a double standard I'll happily cop to that. Personally I put it down to my growing-by-the-year anti-theism, which sees religion/religious belief as a sad and sorry ball and chain dragged along by humankind which it would be vastly better off without and whose ultimate and final end is devoutly to be wished and to be brought about with all possible haste.

I trust that this clarifies matters.
Ketty

Shaker wrote:
Oh, humungous dangling bollocks: ...


Not a picture I want in my head first thing on a Monday morning!  

Meh!  The excuse used by all admins when they know they're on their back foot.  

God wins!    

PS  Re eyesight:  I meant both.

PPS  What you call a cop-out, is no cop out for those who know God is sovereign - but is a frustration to those who do not.   He created the world and everything in it.  He created man with intelligence and intellect - that includes the scientists and mathematicians and doctors et al who work tirelessly to fulfil their own curiosity about mankind, the world, and beyond.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
If this is a double standard it's a double standard to which I'm happy to assent: the double standard which finds it fine to see young children being employed to promote anti-bullying, anti-child abuse campaigns but finds it abhorrent and repugnant when the Westboro Baptist Church employs small children to hold placards proclaiming "God hates fags" and "God hates America" and the like, or when I see small children wearing headbands bearing Arabic script and brandishing Kalashnikov AK-47s bigger than they are.


Those are quite extreme examples that you cite there.

Would you object to photos of a small child holding up a sign saying "God loves me"?

(Yes, I know that you will object to the message, but this is not about the message but about whether you would object to the use of a small child to promote the message).
trentvoyager

Quote:
What you call a cop-out, is no cop out for those who know God is sovereign - but is a frustration to those who do not.  


I know you don't mean to be, but that really is quite patronising.

What you are saying is that you have special knowledge that I don't.

What you actually have is at best a guess, based on a book that is culturally embedded in our society allied with your feeling that this is correct and makes sense.

As I have pointed out many times before if you were living in India you would in all probability be a Hindu believing in their panoply  of Gods, in Saudi Arabia a Muslim, etc etc.
Ketty

trentvoyager wrote:
I know you don't mean to be, but that really is quite patronising.


Quite right, I don't mean to be and if you find it patronising then I'm sorry about that but I'm not in control of how you feel.

trentvoyager wrote:
What you are saying is that you have special knowledge that I don't.


Well, exactly!  

You have 'special knowledge' of the relationships that you have, yes?

trentvoyager wrote:
What you actually have is at best a guess, based on a book that is culturally embedded in our society allied with your feeling that this is correct and makes sense.


You haven't the special knowledge so you're bound to say that.  
Shaker

Ketty wrote:
Well, exactly!  

You have 'special knowledge' of the relationships that you have, yes?


Trent would doubtless say that his relationships are rather more ... well, demonstrable
Ketty

Shaker wrote:
Trent would doubtless say that his relationships are rather more ... well, demonstrable


Safest we don't go there.  

My relationship is demonstrable to those with whom I'm close and who've known me 'pre' and 'post' - however to others, and especially on a Message Board the most you can hope for is 'anecdotal'.    
trentvoyager

Ketty wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Trent would doubtless say that his relationships are rather more ... well, demonstrable


Safest we don't go there.  

My relationship is demonstrable to those with whom I'm close and who've known me 'pre' and 'post' - however to others, and especially on a Message Board the most you can hope for is 'anecdotal'.    


How is it demonstrable? I mean they may have seen a change in your attitudes, behaviour, outlook on life, hairstyle, choice of lipstick etc. but no demonstrable change can be proved to be attributable to God no matter how well someone knows you - that is still anecdotal because you are the person letting them know that the change is because of God.

So in essence it is still a claim of a special relationship you have that is not apparent or available to others.
cyberman

Re: That's Christianity for you

Shaker wrote:


Original sin and total depravity, anyone?


Whaddya mean "That's Christianity for you"?

That poster wasn't made by a Christian. That's anti-Christian bullshit for you!
Shaker

Re: That's Christianity for you

cyberman wrote:
Whaddya mean "That's Christianity for you"?


As I said earlier:

Quote:
The photograph exists to make a point - which it does, well (although not as well as it could do: the word 'religion' in the left-hand column should really be replaced by 'Christianity' for it to be maximally apposite and accurate. Wicca is a religion but says or implies none of those things, for example).


Quote:
That poster wasn't made by a Christian.

As far as we know. I'm always hearing Christians bemoan 'religion' on the basis that they disavow that their belief system is one  
cyberman

Re: That's Christianity for you

[quote="Shaker:119179"]
cyberman wrote:
Whaddya mean "That's Christianity for you"?


As I said earlier:

Quote:
[i][b]The photograph exists to make a point - which it does, well


But to claim that Christianity teaches us that we are "dumb" and that we are "nothing", etc. is not a point, it is bullshit.
Shaker

Re: That's Christianity for you

cyberman wrote:
But to claim that Christianity teaches us that we are "dumb" and that we are "nothing", etc. is not a point, it is bullshit.


Apparently not all Christians see it that way, not at all, by any means.
cyberman

Re: That's Christianity for you

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
But to claim that Christianity teaches us that we are "dumb" and that we are "nothing", etc. is not a point, it is bullshit.


Apparently not all Christians see it that way, not at all, by any means.


I'm not sure that finding such examples really proves anything.

I mean - if I were to find an example of someone describing himself as a scientist and arguing that all disabled children should be killed at birth, would that tell us anything at all about what science teaches us?
Shaker

Re: That's Christianity for you

cyberman wrote:
I'm not sure that finding such examples really proves anything.

It proves that your earlier comment was wrong.

If you want to retort that Christianity doesn't teach what the people in those few examples state (I found reams more, by the way, but they're immensely depressing and I posted a few just to give a flavour of the sort of thing I meant), where else did they get it from and why are they espousing such beliefs in the context of Christianity?

Quote:
I mean - if I were to find an example of someone describing himself as a scientist and arguing that all disabled children should be killed at birth, would that tell us anything at all about what science teaches us?

Science doesn't teach at all but shows, or describes, or reveals, or whichever word you care to use, but teach is the wrong one - it's a methodology, a tool if you like, for finding stuff out.

I thought Christianity on the other hand was supposed to be a teaching or a body of teachings?
cyberman

Re: That's Christianity for you

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
I'm not sure that finding such examples really proves anything.

It proves that your earlier comment was wrong.

If you want to retort that Christianity doesn't teach what the people in those few examples state, where else did they get it from and why are they espousing such beliefs in the context of Christianity?

Quote:
I mean - if I were to find an example of someone describing himself as a scientist and arguing that all disabled children should be killed at birth, would that tell us anything at all about what science teaches us?

Science doesn't teach at all but shows, or describes, or reveals, or whichever word you care to use, but teach is the wrong one - it's a methodology, a tool if you like.

I thought Christianity on the other hand was supposed to be a teaching or a body of teachings?


OK, Prof Pedanticus:

If I were to find an example of someone describing himself as a scientist and arguing that all disabled children should be killed at birth, would that tell us anything at all about what is the case "according to science"?
Shaker

Re: That's Christianity for you

cyberman wrote:
OK, Prof Pedanticus

That's me!

Quote:
If I were to find an example of someone describing himself as a scientist and arguing that all disabled children should be killed at birth, would that tell us anything at all about what is the case "according to science"?

Absolutely not at all. That belief held by that scientist would be an opinion which comes from somewhere else other than science, somewhere outside of science. Some scientists have undoubtedly held such beliefs, incidentally and independently. We know that science has been invoked - wrongly; illegitimately - in support of eugenic and, let's face it, basically racist ideas. At risk of invoking Godwin's Law the Nazis were very keen in the 1930s on the supposedly scientific, anthropological basis of their ideology.

But my use of that word is a telling thing: what drove and drives such beliefs isn't science, which is essentially a descriptive thing, but extra-scientific ideological beliefs from elsewhere, from philosophy and politics and religion. Science won't, doesn't, can't tell you that darkies and kikes are inferior and subhuman lesser races undeserving of the light of the sun and fresh air in their lungs, but a toxic mix of philosophy, politics and religion can.

And, unfortunately, did/has.

So. Are you saying that people who believe that they are nothing without Jesus are likewise getting such a belief from outside of Christianity?
IvyOwl

Ketty wrote:


You haven't the special knowledge so you're bound to say that.  


Ah but some of us here did used to have the 'special knowledge' of which you speak. Believe it or not I do know exactly where you are coming from. Been there done that, spoke to lots of people of all faiths and none, read books, learnt and inwardly digested all the data and updated my knowledge. Which of course is open to being modified in light of more info.


Please be aware that I'm not dissing your experiences /beliefs. They are 'true' for you and inform the way you lead your life. However I agree with Trent in that some (not all) Christians can come across as insufferable patronising in their insistance that their 'special knowledge' is somehow universally applicable and that those who don't share it are somehow lacking.

Pondering such questions as the 'divine' the source if you like, where did we come from, is there an intelligence that called the universe into being, etc etc I find the god of the bible spectacularly lacking. Neurocience and quantum physics are far more informative and helpful. But that's me I'm not saying that's the right way to go about it it's just the way that suits me. I don't spend time hoping that one day you or any other Christians of my acquaintance will 'see the light' and come over to my way of thinking. Well only if they go into 'evangelising one trueway mode'.

I have to say it was rather satisfying to have this omnipotent judgmental figure (albeit one that had forgiven my sins and loved me really) that had been so sucessfully implanted in my psyche shrink to nothing. To have him out of the way and no longer blocking my view of the glory and wonder of the universe!
Shaker

That's a lovely, touching, heart-warming post, IO  
Powwow

Interesting, many atheists like to go around telling us that we lack common sense, reason, the ability to think for ourselves.
Now what was that about Christians saying the non Christians are lacking? Too funny

Yes Shaker I agree, Darwin's The Descent of Man, was not science but a toxic evil philosophy.
Shaker

Run along powsers, the grown-ups are talking.
Powwow

The grown up may be talking but the peanut gallery is posting.That would be your little gallery Shaker.

Yes, it is a fact many atheists accuse the Christian of lacking and The Descent of Man is a Toxic unscientific book.
cyberman

Re: That's Christianity for you

Shaker wrote:
We know that science has been invoked - wrongly; illegitimately - in support of eugenic and, let's face it, basically racist ideas. At risk of invoking Godwin's Law the Nazis were very keen in the 1930s on the supposedly scientific, anthropological basis of their ideology.


Another rather desperate attempt to blame religion for..well, everything!

I'm afraid it doesn't hold water. You used the example of racism instead of sticking with my example of eugenics regarding disability.

A scientist might state that all seriously ill and/or disabled children should be killed for the good of future generations. She might argue this because of what she has learned about genes and heredity. what is your rationale for claiming that these ideas come from 'not-science'?
Shaker

Re: That's Christianity for you

cyberman wrote:
Another rather desperate attempt to blame religion for..well, everything!

Although I mentioned religion as a source of such ideas, I also mentioned philosophy and politics. The fact that you ignore these without a passing word and always zero in on religion - as you did in another discussion recently, IIRC - shows how touchy you are on the issue when anybody criticises the ideology to which you happen to adhere.

Quote:
I'm afraid it doesn't hold water. You used the example of racism instead of sticking with my example of eugenics regarding disability.

A scientist might state that all seriously ill and/or disabled children should be killed for the good of future generations. She might argue this because of what she has learned about genes and heredity. what is your rationale for claiming that these ideas come from 'not-science'?

Because she's committing the classic fallacy of deriving an ought (a philosophical belief, a moral prescription) from an is (a statement of scientific discovery, a description). You can't get from a factual description of genetic conditions (science) to all seriously ill and/or disabled children should be killed for the good of future generations. That's a philosophical belief that science just can't give you. It's a category mistake to think that it can. It's like using a stick of celery to try to open a tin of beans: it's the wrong tool for the right job or the right tool for the wrong job, but either way, you're misapplying either one thing or the other.

For example: science (and epidemiology, and statistics) can tell you that if you smoke tobacco, there is a certain statistical likelihood that you may contract lung cancer. However, the decision to smoke or not smoke can't come from science - that's something you can only decide for non-scientific reasons because the bare bones of the science, the mere facts and figures and numbers on a page, can't give it to you. You might decide the risk is worth the short-term pleasure and go on smoking anyway, or you may simply not care. (In philosophical jargon this makes it a hypothetical imperative).
cyberman

Re: That's Christianity for you

Shaker wrote:
she's committing the classic fallacy of deriving an ought (a philosophical belief, a moral prescription) from an is (a statement of scientific discovery, a description). You can't get from a factual description of genetic conditions (science) to all seriously ill and/or disabled children should be killed for the good of future generations.   .


OK, I shouldn't have used the word "Should" is describing her view.

What if she simply publishes "Killing all disabled children at birth will have a positive impact on the healthcare budget, productivity and genetic robustness of this country, and will reduce the incidence of chronic pain within our population by X% within 50 years."?

Would this tell us anything about what is the case according to science?
Shaker

Re: That's Christianity for you

cyberman wrote:
OK, I shouldn't have used the word "Should" is describing her view.

What if she simply publishes "Killing all disabled children at birth will have a positive impact on the healthcare budget, productivity and genetic robustness of this country, and will reduce the incidence of chronic pain within our population by X% within 50 years."?

She would, as they say, have to show her working. She would have to demonstrate, clearly and precisely and explicitly, why she believes this, on what basis. That statement is a testable prediction and science is in the testable prediction business, but it's also in the business of demanding that those who frame hypotheses - especially such an extreme one as this, which wouldn't be tested of course - account for their views.

And then of course she'd be torn to shreds by people pointing out that such measures have already been tried on a widespread scale about eighty or so years ago, without the results she foresees.

Quote:
Would this tell us anything about what is the case according to science?

Nope.
cyberman

Re: That's Christianity for you

Shaker wrote:


Quote:
Would this tell us anything about what is the case according to science?

Nope.


Then why do you feel that the people misrepresenting Christian thought, who may well be "torn to shreds" by the other Christians, tell us something about what is the case accordig to Christianity?
Powwow

Shaker can you please provide a list of countries that were murdering all disabled children 80yrs ago?

Dear God, these poor babies. It's the ones calling for the murder of preborn and born babies that the world can do without. Vile, evil, selfish devils every one. I hate the fact they live and the babies are being snuffed.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/...-babies-not-people-can-be-killed/
trentvoyager

Quote:
It's the ones calling for the murder of preborn and born babies that the world can do without.


Can you give examples of who is "calling" for this?
Shaker

Don't worry trent, he won't
Shaker

Re: That's Christianity for you

cyberman wrote:
Then why do you feel that the people misrepresenting Christian thought, who may well be "torn to shreds" by the other Christians, tell us something about what is the case accordig to Christianity?

Not at all sure what you're even trying to say here.

We seem to be going round in circles. Science is a methodology and, in popular understanding anyway, a body of disparate facts about the world. You can't get a 'teaching' out of it.

On the other hand I always thought that Christianity was, is, by its adherents is considered to be a teaching or groups of teachings which it's incumbent on those who label themselves as Christians to believe, if the word is actually mean something at any rate.
cyberman

Re: That's Christianity for you

Shaker wrote:
Science is a methodology and, in popular understanding anyway, a body of disparate facts about the world. You can't get a 'teaching' out of it.


Then how does the poster in your picture say that there are things which are the case "according to science" (and subjective things, too; not hard provable facts)?
Shaker

Re: That's Christianity for you

cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Science is a methodology and, in popular understanding anyway, a body of disparate facts about the world. You can't get a 'teaching' out of it.


Then how does the poster in your picture say that there are things which are the case "according to science" (and subjective things, too; not hard provable facts)?

At least some of those things on the list are not wholly subjective. There are standard metrics for assessing intelligence (things like the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, etc.) and a great many anthropologists believe that there are objective criteria for assessing female pulchritude relating to the proportions between various facial and bodily features.
cyberman

Re: That's Christianity for you

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Science is a methodology and, in popular understanding anyway, a body of disparate facts about the world. You can't get a 'teaching' out of it.


Then how does the poster in your picture say that there are things which are the case "according to science" (and subjective things, too; not hard provable facts)?

At least some of those things on the list are not wholly subjective. There are standard metrics for assessing intelligence (things like the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, etc.) and a great many anthropologists believe that there are objective criteria for assessing female pulchritude relating to the proportions between various facial and bodily features.


Are you serioursly seeking to defend the proposition that "According to science I am beautiful" and "According to science I am full of wonder" are experimentally verifiable scientific findings?
Shaker

Re: That's Christianity for you

cyberman wrote:
Are you serioursly seeking to defend the proposition that "According to science I am beautiful" and "According to science I am full of wonder" are experimentally verifiable scientific findings?

No. I doubt if the person who made the poster thingy and presumably took the photo was, either. Maybe he was aware, as I am, that those things are possible, however, and can be done and it was in light of that that I was replied to your question. Take it or leave it.

Serioursly.

Look, you can either do the unthinkable and accept that Christianity from the ground up has always had a fundamentally ugly, poisonous, warped, obnoxious view of the human mammal and that creature's natural drives, inclinations and motivations which has caused untold and entirely needless misery, grief, guilt, shame and perversion for millennia for absolutely no reason whatsoever, which is essentially what the picture points up, or not. The latter is vastly more likely because that would entail being critical of the abhorrent ideology to which you've somehow attached yourself and we both know that that isn't going to happen.

Every time I've said that such-and-such a mentality can be fostered by political beliefs and/or philosophical beliefs and/or religious beliefs, you completely ignore the politics and the philosophy and zero in on the religious aspect - at least twice in the last couple of weeks or so this has happened -, because seemingly that's the only one that presses the big red button, like Professor Pavlov dinging his bell before feeding the dogs such that eventually just ringing the bell without giving them food causes them to salivate at the mere prospect. Get a bloody grip, man.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum