Merry Christmas Rick Perry

[s_stabeler]

I'm pretty sure that at this point, we have debated religion far more than the actual topic of the thread.

As for Hell, I'm 99% sure that Lucifer (who was an angel) tried to take over Heaven, got his ass kicked by the Archangel Michael & slung out of Heaven, and hurried off to find somewhere with no god, which became Hell. I.E. God had nothing to do with creating Hell. Fire & brimstone is not, as far as I am aware, a description of Hell used in the bible. It could easily be interpreted that Hell is considered so bad because there is literally no God there- the idea is that the eternal punishment is primarily there being no god where you are going, wheras the faithful would be ever in His presence. (which would be awkward when you need the loo, I suspect) In short, the punishment wouldn't actually BE a punishment for a true non-believer, because why would they care if there was no God?

and Rapscallion, the reason for the legislation is to allow people to celebrate a tradidtional celebration without some ass trying to ruin it for everyone. (to whit: you can call it a christmas celebration, jst don't force people to take part if they don't want to) It does NOT endorse Christianity, and I persoalyl would slightly extend it. ( specifically, there have been various issues about people wearing crosses at work. Assuming the cross is unobtrusive, they should be allowed.)

[Panacea]

The point here for me is not that people are arseholes with or without religion - it's that many faiths bind their followers together by persuading them that there's an enemy, and that in turn teaches arseholery. It trains arseholes. If they don't get out of that way of life, they train more.

That is NOT what religion does. You continue painting all religions with the same broad brush, never specifying who or what you really mean when you use the word religion.

There are a wide varieties of religious faiths; most of peaceful and teach love, tolerance, and acceptance of others. If you want to focus on specific religions that you believe do not teach these things, you should specify them by name.

I should know. My grandparents were out and out racists. I broke my training in certain ways of thinking, and I'm much the better for it. I didn't know better, I learned, and I am not the same person as when I was in my early teens.

That's your grandparents. It's not everyone. My mother grew up in a part of Massachusetts where the local racism was not against blacks, but against Catholics.

She's never said one bad word about Catholics. Not ever. When my Catholic friends as a child invited me to church, she encouraged me to go. Years later, as an adult, when I told her I was converting to the Catholic Church, she congratulated me and supported my decision 100% even though she had no interest herself.

A faith should be able to stand on its own merits - I think we may be approaching this from different angles. To me, a faith should be consistent, meaning the teachings. They should defend themselves. I think you're more talking about the movement?

Faiths defend themselves all the time. It's not faith's fault that you are more familiar with Mr. Hitchens than you are with folks like William Craig. Do your research.

As per earlier, the religions we're familiar with in the west have taught separation and tribalism. It's been their main tool. Protestant versus catholic, sunni version shi'a, muslim vs christian, and so forth. They teach that there are those you should be wary of or hate, and that is then taken by successive generations to mean whoever they particularly disliked.

NOT ALWAYS. There are always extremists who will teach this sort of thing.

I know plenty of Muslims who are tolerant of other Muslim sects. I have never heard a Catholic tell me to be suspicious of Protestants, or vice versa (though I have had Protestants question the tenets of my faith, which is another issue). You present things in absolute terms, but we don't live in an absolutist world.

Atheism does not teach people to do that. It simply is a world view that there is no reason to live as if there is a deity giving instructions. There are atheists who are democratic, republican, gay, straight, and so forth. There is no compunction to be nice or nasty - it's not rocket science.

NB: Raps was responding to Nekojin's description of atheists who have been responsible for historical atrocities.

There are two flaws to Raps's response. First of all, religion does not teach people to commit atrocities. In fact, religion teaches the opposite.

The problem begins when people begin to dehumanize other people who hold a different point of view. When you dehumanize someone else, you begin to see them as sub human. Once you see someone as subhuman, it is easy to deprive them of their rights, imprison them, and eventually kill them. We have prime examples of this kind of behavior on both sides of the theological equation: atheists and theists. On the side of the theists, I would offer the Spanish Inquisition. On the side of atheists we have the purges of Stalin and the Khmer Rouge.

Remember that Karl Marx described religion as the "opiate of the masses." By referring to it as such, it creates the perception that those who follow religion are indulging in a sort of self-denial of the real world when the atheist stands on superior ground because he sees the real world "correctly."

There are two kinds of atheist and theist. There is the militant/fanatic and there is the live and let live type. The militant atheist is the sort along the lines of Karl Marx, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hutchins. They show contempt for the belief systems of others and systematically make efforts to ridicule and mock those systems, thus bringing believers down to the status of subhuman. The more they place their own beliefs on a superior plane, the easier it is to say and do destructive things against the lessors who continue to believe.

Theists do this to: whenever a theist tries to defend his positon by telling the non-believer they are going to hell they are engaging in the same sort of behavior.

It doesn't matter who does this: it is a logical fallacy (a sophisticated form of ad hominem attack), it is rude, condescending, and wrong.

Live and let live atheists do not engage in that sort of behavior. They make their arguments strictly from a perspective of reason and rational thought and do not seek to diminish people who disagree with them. A prime example of this kind of atheist is Carl Sagan. Live and let live theists are out there as well; I think Ghandi makes a great example.

[Panacea]

I don't believe I ever said that atheists couldn't be nasty. It's simply that if they are, they don't blame their actions on a deity.

Maybe. But I don't see a lot of them take personal accountability for their actions, either.

What I asked was if the good done by religion outweighed the bad. That in itself is acknowledges that religion has done good. Water is not held by that claim.

No. You do not acknowledge that religion has done good until you actually say it. You don't get to claim credit for admitting religion has done good with a left handed remark. Your previous tone was so antagonistic that for you to claim you said religion has done good is simply unbelievable.

As I've said previously, my concern is with background indoctrination.

OK, this is an example of why I classify you as a militant atheist. You're choosing words that are provacative (indoctrination) and applying it with a broad brush to all situations.

Religious teaching is not indoctrination. It is teaching. Allowing for religious expression is not indoctrination. It is protecting First Amendment rights to practice ones faith. If you want to call something indoctrination you need to describe how this is happening.

The real issue with religion in schools wasn't that Christians were trying to indoctrinate students. It was that students of other religions (or none) felt marginalized and left out of school life because they were not Christian. Their freedom to be who they were was impinged.


[QUOTE=Rapscallion;140620]I didn't say that religious belief was tied to a particular political ideal.]

But then you go on to say it with your next breath.

Social conservatism is tied too closely to the republican fortunes for the comfort of pretty much everyone. Quite possibly it's inexorably linked.

Other religious groups are not politically affiliated that I know of, though the split amongst christians would be, more closely aligned to those thinking the old testament being a good thing being conservative and those favouring the new testament to be liberal.

This is not a great analogy, although it does bring up another point for me to address.

As you have noted, there are two distinct tones within the Bible. The God in the Old Testament is more stern, even angry. The attitudes of the prophets towards their own people is often critical and blaming, even while offering reconciliation with God in the same breath.

Militant theists find the Old Testament a great resource to support their extreme views because of this tone.

The New Testament is one of peace and reconciliation. Much of what Jesus talks about in the Gospels is critical of the overly strict, judgemental, hypocritical views and actions of the politically powerful of his day; the Pharisees, scribes, and religious elite of the Temple. Jesus urges a different path, one of acceptance and social justice.

We keep the Old Testament in the Bible to remind us of Jesus's roots, because he was a devout Jew. Unfortunately, that has had unintended costs.

What would be a reasonable expectation of time here? You do realise that atheists are trusted in the US about as much as rapists?

I've read the study. I'll address it in a bit.

Despite wingnuts such as her on the team, 4%. That's frighteningly close.

Others have addressed this very well. She didn't get anywhere near that. Romney's who you are thinking of, and he didn't rely on religiosity in his campaign. He argued from a fiscal conservative POV, and focused on criticisms of Obama's administration.

If they're following the christian religion (or some variant thereof), that's debatable as to whether or not they're actually following that faith at all.

NB: Raps is responding to one of my comments with this. I was pointing out to him that there are great variations in how Christians approach their faith.

Raps, Jesus gave us one new commandment: love one another.

Christians have been arguing about what it means to be a Christian for 2000 years. There is no clear consensus on what Christians should believe. Catholics argue Protestants have it wrong, Protestants argue Catholics have it wrong. Both take issue with Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses because neither believe in the Trinity and JW's deny the divinity of Jesus.

But even within a religious faith, even the most hierarchical, Christians do not always walk in lockstep with one another. Faith is not mind control. Even if the Church teaches one thing, there is room for disagreement. You seem to have a very difficult time understanding this simple concept, but that's OK, I know theists who have a hard time with it, too.

Jesus tells me "Love one another." Strip away everything else, and that's what makes you a good follower of Christ . . . or not.

I think this related to an answer I gave earlier. When I say a faith should be able to protect itself, I mean by that that it should be logically consistent and not easy to take apart. I wasn't referring to a faith-based organisation, more the core beliefs itself. Make more sense?

Well, the problem here is those trying to take it apart cherry pick their own data, and refuse to look at the picture from more than one angle. When you take a handful of verses out of the Bible, and take them out of context to prove religion "bad", you are missing the big picture of what religion is really about.

The core beliefs of Christianity aren't that complicated. Christ arose from the dead on the third day, and told us to love one another.

I still believe in the right to have beliefs, but also in the right to point out the fallacies put forward.

Yes, you do. But if you do it in a rude and condescending manner, expect to be called out on it . . . as you have been of late.

[Panacea]

Er, what? When the leader of a rather massive faith states that condoms are bad to Africa, backing up the claims of the faith as per the last few decades, that's continuing the same standards as previously preached. I don't see how that's to do with disliking Americans.

I can't defend Pope Benedict on this, nor the bishops who went along for the ride. They speak for the Church, but they don't speak for me on a personal basis.

Remember, that the Church is made up of human beings, and human beings sometimes say stupid and insensitive things. Stuff like this is a big part of why Benedict had to retire; the blowback was obscuring the rest of the message when he said stuff like this.

While the Pope is infallible on matters of doctrine, what he spoke about there was not a matter of doctrine. It was a matter of Church teaching. Not everything the Pope says is beyond contestation.

Trial for genocide - I think that's where this ought to go.

The Church takes such a hard line on condoms, along with most birth control, because the Church teaches that sex is only to take place within the context of marriage: Man and Woman becoming one flesh. Promiscuity is the real target here. The Church is not trying to spread AIDS, it's trying to stop the spread of AIDS by reducing promiscuity.

The Church has said that use of condoms by people with STDs with their spouses is OK to prevent disease transmission only.

The Church is taking a very rocky and high ground here in order to support a larger point. Unfortunately, they really don't make a good argument on this.

For me, the point is that the main western religions tend to have an approach that offers forgiveness for crimes, within the boundaries of the church. This leads to people not trained in the capacity trying to work within the limits of their religion and being judge and jury, without doing much more than move the guilty around. They decided that they were above the law. They took the view that the separation of church and state meant that the law didn't apply to them.

Why did this failure take place?

The failure took place for two reasons. The first reason is because human beings were making the decisions here, and human beings are fallible. They make mistakes, sometimes with the best intentions, and we all know what the road to Hell is paved with.

The second reason is historical and deals with the differences between civil and canon law. Traditionally, priests and other officials of the Church were under canon law and not subject to civil law unless the Church said so. The Church preferred to deal with its own bad actors with an eye both towards reconciliation and forgiveness, and also to protect its members from civil authorities who might be acting out of petty or personal concerns.

The modern church understands that times have changed, but the tradition of fixing problems in house hasn't gone away. I'm not condoning it; it is a major thing the Church has GOT to reform, and now.

So, belief in a god blinds someone to common decency?

NO! It does not. People who do the wrong thing, even if they think it is for a good reason, commit a grievous sin.

The fatal flaw is not mine. This is something I raised earlier. Whenever the christian faith is raised on here, there usually comes a challenge to one doctrine or another, and then you usually get a number of people saying that they follow that religion, sort of, but not that exact part, so the argument doesn't apply to them.

The fallacy is yours. You are insisting on a black and white view of the world that simply does not exist. I don't live in your black and white world. You treat all religions as if they were exactly the same, and they're not. Religious people are not clones. We're individuals, and we interpret our faith all of us a little differently from the other . . . because we are human beings and no two humans are exactly alike. Religion is about the personal relationship we build with God, and the relationships he builds are never exactly the same between one person and the next, anymore than the friendships I build with one friend are the same with another friend.

I freely admit that some of my personal beliefs are not consistent with the official teachings of the Catholic Church. I don't try to hide it. I understand what the Church is trying to get at, but the teachings conflict (to my mind) with Christ's commandment for us to love one another. So I'm forced to make a choice. I often ask God for guidance on this. I'm not ignoring the fact that Church teachings are what they are.

There are some in the Church who would tell me I'm committing a grievous sin, but there are others who would rather have a conversation about the matter, and try to get me to see their point of view.

The bottom line is this: I'm not throwing out the baby with the bathwater just because on a couple of points I struggle with the official teachings. Now you can call me a bad Christian if you want to, but it's not really up to you. It's a matter between me and God.

A broad brush approach is required in such circumstances, and that's why I usually have to go back to basics and point out that there's no evidence for the core beliefs.

Let's not mix apples and oranges here. It's one thing to talk about the subject of the existence of a supreme deity. But that's not what the original discussion was about. Rather, that discussion was about the practitioners of faith and the inherent goodness or badness of religion. You applied broad generalizations to all people of faith as to their goodness or badness based simply on their association with a particular faith or creed. What you've done (or attempted to do) is subtly move the goalposts.

If you're going to talk about the behaviors of the faithful, which is what we were originally talking about, then you cannot apply those broad generalizations to everyone.

If you're going to talk about whether or not God exists (which we have NOT been talking about at all), then you need to make the change of subject plain.

Not fair? I think it quite fair to point out that the core beliefs the cause an issue are based more on fable than fact.

That's your belief. It's not mine, nor that of many people here. But again, you're trying to move the goal posts. I was talking about your making assumptions about behaviors that are wrong, not the issue of belief in God itself.

Generous of the christians. right? It's a day or five off (we tend to take a week off over here, and I usually work as much of it as possible).

Taking time off for major winter holidays is hardly anything new. Christmas is not the first holiday of this time of year. It was, for much of Western Civilization, something that was observed with varying degrees of intensity over the centuries.

But hey, if you really object that much to religion maybe you should tell your boss that you'll be on the job M-F next Christmas. No point in giving you the days off since you think it is all bunko anyway.

When a religion starts to affect people directly, then I would consider the evidence to be very, very necessary.

Not as a matter of US Constitutional Law, which was what I was talking about. And again, you are operating from your blanket assumption that everything religion does is bad, while ignoring the good.

Um, it's a pretty obscure message, actually. There are hundreds of denominatins of christianity each one claiming to have the real message behind them. So many versions of the same thing.

"Love one another," really isn't that obscure. It's pretty clear, actually. You find it obscure because you make it so. That's ok, the Apostles didn't understand what Jesus was telling them half the time anyway, so why should you be any different?

Baskin Robbins has 31 flavors of ice cream. No matter what the flavoring, it's still all ice cream. I like chocolate chip mint best. You might like strawberry best. There's something out there for everyone, and I personally believe that people need that variety.

That love doesn't really stand up to scrutiny, though. If god created everything, then he created hell and the rules by which we go to hell. He basically says that we either love him or burn. That's not love. That's terrorism.

Do you know what hell really is? It's the absence of God.

In any case, many religions don't even have a concept of Hell. There you go with that broad brush again. Why don't you just be honest and say Christianity where you use the world religion, because that's what you really mean.

It does matter if that's the reason for real effects on real people. If the foundation of that can be shown to be false, then the whole reason for this legislation is gone.

You can't show it to be false any more than I can show it to be true. Issues of faith are very personal.

And not all of the effects are bad. You are still operating from the unproven supposition that religion = evil, and you haven't made a case for that.

Religion is about a lot more than just that which can be measured. It's closer to things like liking chocolate more than vanilla. Defend your choice of favorite flavor of ice cream. The fact that you, personally, cannot comprehend why religion would enrich other people's lives is your own issue.

I just realized I stole your idea.

I've been trying to find the original study, but I will point out that it had a rather small sample size (only 350 ish people from what I've read) and we don't know the makeup of the people involved, only that they were religious to some degree--we don't know if they were xmas/easter people, or hardcore fundamentalists, or somewhere in between.

Here's a link to the original study: http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~will/Gerva...20Distrust.pdf. It's the study that Raps referred to that claims that religious people view rapists as more trustworthy than atheists.

I've read it. It was very interesting. It is a compilation of six studies done previously by the authors; not a meta analysis because it consists only of the authors own works, but the same principle. The authors are trying to tie together some general conclusions based on the topics of the individual studies.

The sample size is actually 770: 350 Americans and 420 Canadian students. That's actually a very good sample size for scientific, especially quantitative studies; this is not a poll like a Gallup poll but actual scientific research. This sample only applies to Study 1 in this article.

My issue with the sample is not with the size of the pool, but the pool itself. The authors don't specify whether their method is quantitative or qualitative, but I infer qualitative from the fact no Institutional Review Board approval was obtained, and the fact these are social scientists. Social scientists are more prone to use the qualitative method. It could be a quasi quantitative study, however. The discussion of the method does not make it clear.

My issue with the pool is how subjects were chosen. Rather than choosing criteria by which participants could be included or excluded, the authors chose to use a professional polling company that uses a paid pool of subjects. While it is not unethical to pay subjects for participation (small sums are actually quite common in research), the lack of controls over who was included or excluded makes me question the reliability of the method. The authors argue this leads to greater homogeneous approach, and that their estimates are if anything conservative. I disagree; the lack of control leads to, if anything, an over emphasis of the result.

The authors should have put the time into obtaining their own pool of subjects to ensure diversity of racial, cultural, and gender identity groups, so I question the validity of their results. The failure to control diversity of the sample means the results could be skewed if the participants are all of the same ethnicity, gender, or culture. If they were trying to claim validity based on a single one of those groups, they should name it.


Study 2 was the one that addressed the "atheist less trustworthy as a rapist" issue. The same size there was 105; still respectable for size. All participants were college students participating for extra credit. Again, no controls for diversity are discussed. The authors deliberately used the conjunction fallacy to obtain their results.

It's a version of the classic Linda problem:

Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations.

Which is more probable?

Linda is a bank teller.
Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.

The problem with using the conjunction fallacy in a study like this is the questions are filled with loaded statements and terms that can produce a predetermined results; sort of like the confirmation bias. In fact, the Linda problem has been heavily criticized for years for this very problem. Therefore I don't find the results to be reliable or valid.

Raps: this is the second time I've dissected a scientific study you've referenced to via a media outlet, and the second time I've pointed out major flaws in either the study itself (this one) or your interpretation of the results (the last one). I think that if you are going to cite scientific research in the future, you should take the time to read the original source and make sure it says what you think it says before you proffer it as evidence.

Just sayin'.