The Atheist Bus Campaign
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:39 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
A New Zealand minister has given his support to an atheist campaign asking people to question the existence of God.
Archdeacon Glynn Cardy, vicar of St Matthew-in-the-City in Auckland, says NZ Bus’s decision last month to stop the display of paid adverts showing atheistic slogans is regrettable.
“Many in the Christian community welcome a debate about issues of the existence of God and, also, I don’t think there’s anything to be afraid of in that debate,” he said.
The NZ Atheist Bus Campaign has raised nearly $23,000 from public donations for the ads that read: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”
Rev Richard Randerson has also said NZ Bus should not have censored the signs.
“Free speech should be the norm, censorship the exception. I don’t see it as a negative thing at all. I think it brings God into public debate.”
He said bus advertising was used to promote a whole range of products from clothing to alcohol.
“How refreshing it is to see advertising that is not asking us to buy anything, aspire to be slim, or sell us a lifestyle we can’t afford.
A good point.
My view is in two parts. The first is that NZ Bus has the absolute right to decline adverts they do not want to display on their property.
The second is that I think they have made the wrong call, and incidentally deprived their shareholders of some revenue for no gain.
Related posts:
- Direct-to-the-consumer drug advertising
- Election Campaign Funding Poll
- Atheist censored
- Trying to suppress free speech
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:43 am
I can’t help wonder how many food parcels I could buy for genuinely needy people with $23,000 while these fools indulge themselves.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 10:55 am
I can’t help wonder how much good I could do for genuinely needy people with all the time I spend commenting on Kiwiblog while these fools indulge themselves.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 10:56 am
So like if some group wanted to put a sign on a bus deeply offensive to Muslims then the bus company should be forced to do that too?
Or even better… homosexuality is un-natural. “No bum-bandits” etc
The wailing and gnashing of teeth would be extreme
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 10:57 am
Sorry Adolf but that is a crock. It is about the same as saying “How many hip operations is Labour depriving needy people of with their Axe the Tax super bus tour, party balloons, flags and “T” shirts” It is not as if it is wasting public funds …… no wait ….. there is a fatal flaw in my logic.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 10:59 am
Well how many food parcels did you buy for needy people recently, Adolf?
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 10:59 am
If they’re asking people to question the existence of God, isn’t it an agnostic bus campaign?
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 10:59 am
A lot of people waste a lot of money on a lot of things without caring about needy people. Anyone who buys a $60k car instead of a $40k car that would be as adequate are “indulging themselves”.
But I do wonder what the heck this campaign is trying to achieve. It might amuse a few, offend a few, but I can’t see it doing anything beyond that.
Maybe a decision maker at NZ Bus is Christian and doesn’t like the message? Up to them, and of little real consequence.
RRM may be right, it’s Atheists with an agnostic message/question.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 11:00 am
So Adolf, do you spend all your spare money on food parcels, or do you indulge yoursel?
Atheists are amongst the biggest donors to charity, many of the world’s largest charities are secular, not religious, eg Red Cross, Medecine sans Frontiers, Oxfam, etc. And, unlike xian charities, secular charities don’t go into disaster areas and steal children.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 11:03 am
Why is the bus campaign offensive to you? And if it is, how come it is offensive to you, but not to a Muslim?
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 11:06 am
david, you’re on to it.
eszett, more than you think.
Let them run their ads in Riyadh.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 11:08 am
Lance (10:56am) – sorry, but the current PC rulebook allows harrassment of only a select few religions. Both mainstream Christians and Jews are fair game, but don’t hold your breath waiting to see “Mohammed was a Paedophile” plastered on a bus any time soon.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 11:09 am
We don’t live in Riyadh.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 11:11 am
Ugh, why did they even bother to ask Cardy? That’s typical of the media; they want to stir things up and create controversy so instead of asking an everyday Pastor or someone else in the church they go for controversial fringe figures.
Good on NZ Bus for refusing. As you say, they have a right to put what they like on their buses.
As far as the slogan, it’s a bit strange – “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”
Well, as a Christian, I can tell you that I’m not worrying at all and am enjoying life very much so far, thankyou. You’d most likely get the same response from other Christians. If anyone is ‘worrying’ about God it seems to be the Atheists who came up with the slogan. The putting up of the sign would seem to indicate an undercurrent of unease – why mention ‘worrying’ if not? Maybe they’re not sure God exists or not themselves? Maybe it will help convince themselves and ease the conscience.
Jeff Talon in a piece in the Herald puts it this way about the ‘worrying’ Chrisitans –
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 11:23 am
Doeesn’t necessarily have to be Christian though, does he? A lot of people seem to think it’s specifically having a go a Christians – seems more like ‘monotheists’.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 11:27 am
These atheist nutters are just giving all atheists a bad name with their smug campaign.
And yes Fletch, they are presumptuous too thinking that God believers worry about it, my guess is that people believe to try and reduce worry, especially about after life.
If people like hymns or rap or Tom Jones that’s their business, I’d rather “worry” about what I enjoy and leave them to it.
Fair enough Stephen – maybe they are really targeting Agnostics? Actually I think they are more likely just trying to stoke their own “unholier than thou” egos.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 11:32 am
Yet another attack on traditional Western values and beliefs with the usual suspects out in support.
Indeed if the slogan was anti Moham,then those supporting this nonsense would be oppossing it, they cant help themselves.
Note Leftrightout ‘s outragously exagerated comments about Christian aid groups above. He is neither rational nor logical.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 11:34 am
Yet another attack on traditional Western values and beliefs…
Is rationalism a traditional belief too?
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 11:36 am
You seriously think that “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” is on a par with “Mohammed was a paedophile” in terms of offensiveness?
You won’t see “Mohammed was a paedophile” plastered on a bus any time soon. Nor will you see “Jesus was a paedophile” plastered on a bus any time soon.
“There’s probably no God” is as offensive to Muslims as it is to Christians.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 11:37 am
no we don’t Malcolm
Vote:But it won’t be on a bus here even if it is true that Mohamed was a paedo.
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:38 am
“Free speech should be the norm, censorship the exception. I don’t see it as a negative thing at all. I think it brings God into public debate.”
Man I’m so sick of these damn brain dead liberals and their failure to understand this is no threat to free speech. From the Ditsy Chicks to Barbra Streisand, who told an audience member to shut the fuck up when he asked her to forget lecturing on politics and just sing, they have no damn idea what they’re talking about.
Listen up you turnip heads- GOVERNMENT REGULATION ATTACKING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS THE ONLY REAL MEANS BY WHICH FREE SPEECH CAN BE RESTRICTED.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 11:42 am
2x Redbaiter posts I agree with 100% on the same day. Holy sh*t!
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 11:42 am
Archdeacon “Cardy” – surely a joke name?! Are his colleagues Rev. Handwringer and Canon Kneejerk-Liberal?
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 11:43 am
zactly.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 11:50 am
I believe the the NZ Bus Company is perfectly within their rights to accept or reject any advertisement they so please. The right to free speech doesn’t mandate private organisations must publicise anything they like.
The text of the advert is a reflection of the laws around advertising in NZ. Proving there is no God is impossible, hence a claim that there is no God would not be proved- thus adjudged truthful.
I’m unsure why it has stirred up Xtian sentiment. The God of Abraham is the same God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. From an atheist perspective, it’s the same imaginary sky-daddy the credulous are attached to.
LRO’s comments are bang-on. Secular aid organisations are large and growing. And western civilisation grew often by fencing-off Xtian authority from various realms (science, medicine, war, politics)- not by perpetuating dark-age superstitions.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 11:50 am
The number of posts saying they wouldn’t do this to Muslims shows two things.
1. The jihad envy that christians are getting these days.
2. That they have already discounted Allah as a god anyway.
Oh and as requested 3- coil here is the new bus logo design http://bit.ly/axLLCh
Redbaiter is right it is only when government regulation gets involved. I am sure he will support moves to remove the prayer form parliament every morning and funding for faith based programmes.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 11:52 am
So the organisers of this campaign asked for donations without actually determining they could do what they proposed. I wonder if Destiny Church has done the same in hoping to put Tamaki on TVNZ as they say.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 11:52 am
” 2x Redbaiter posts I agree with 100% on the same day. Holy sh*t!”
As wisdom slowly comes to you, you’ll find that event occurring with gradually greater frequency.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 11:55 am
Yvette,
If you read the articles you will see they had approval of the ad before they asked for donations. It was then pulled after complaints from people who believe in the supernatural.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 11:56 am
And what about the many scientists who are Christian? And many, many of them are/were, especially in the fields of science and medicine. Science and religion shouldn’t be separated into different areas – and scientists shouldn’t be afraid of religion. If there is a God, then he created science as well, and both should align.
The Catholic Catechism says –
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Fletch,
As the bible contradicts science over and over again it is impossible to do justice to either your faith or science if you choose both mistresses.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Mike, the “oh they wouldn’t dare say that to a Muslim” refrain is weak and confused. As has been pointed out above, this message is just as applicable to Muslims. Christians needs to get out of their bubble and then they might see that their persecution is mostly in their minds. Secondly, that there exists another religion which shares many of the same beliefs as Christianity and which is good at whipping it supporters into a murderous rage is hardly a great argument for an all-knowing and all-loving God.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:09 pm
I think Left Right out is losing his mind. His comments that secular people are among the biggest donaters to charity and the secular nature of most charitable organisations is completely at variance with the facts. Actually most secular people don’t give very much to anybody on any regular basis. All of you secular people — how much do you give to charity a year? Is it 10%? I bet you it’s not. Why should you give? What is there about atheism or secularism that causes you to give anything to anybody?
I would suggest to you that the very notion of charitable giving is based on Christian principles. You may not be a Christian now, but the idea of giving to the poor comes from Christianity. Giving to the poor makes sense because of Jesus concern for the poor.
I wish left right out wouldn’t make such ridiculous provocative comments. Honestly you are losing your mind. And I agree with whoever said you are sounding like Billy Borker.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:09 pm
The slogan will not be seen as equally offensive to Muslims and Christians. Muslims will look at it and see it as more western weakness ,infighting and insecurity.
Leftrightout and Chtonid are wrong ; OXFAM founded by QUAKERS
Vote:RED CROSS by a Swiss CALVINIST Stop trying to deny the role of Christianity in our history,heritage, values and traditions…….it”s part of our culture and you dont like it. Just grow up and accept it ,its part of what we are. No ones asking you to like it or be a Christian or to impose their views on you ,relax,enjoy the wealth and benefits the west bestows ,stop hating your heritage.
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Yes they should, they are completely different things.
Many scientists are Christian, but in their scientific endeavours they need to apply scientific principles. Submitting a paper to a scientific journal based on what a voice in your head told you would not be acceptable to any scientists, Christian or not.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Scott,
Giving money to a club you go to every weekend is hardly charity. Figures I have seen show that churches use less than 10% of tithing for charitable purposes.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:18 pm
You’re showing your bias towards the Christian notion that people are essentially bad and must be told how to behave. I would suggest that it has nothing to do with atheism or secularism and everything to do with simply wanting to to help people. Scott, can you really see no reason to help someone other than because your religion instructs you to?
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Your statement is just as unsupported by facts as his.
I guess I’m secular, and I regularly give to charity (direct debit monthly), I also make one off charity donations. And none of that goes towards large buildings and fancy clothes and baubles and other un-Christ like symbols like that.
If all religious monuments were sold and the money used for charity how many people would that help?
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Michael — the churches for your information are the backbone of charity in New Zealand. More than a club you will find, if you care to look, that churches have for centuries in New Zealand looked after the poor, provided accommodation for drunks (Salvation Army), provided childcare facilities and kindergartens (many denominations), are often the volunteers in hospitals, Trade Aid Shops, provide programmes for troubled youth etc etc.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:25 pm
No kowtow, the antecedents of such organisations are not evidence that they are not secular today.
This isn’t about denying the contribution of Christianity to the West, this is an exercise where some people are attempting to peacefully exercise their rights to express their views.
Western culture was born largely out of the Renaissance, by people drawing heavily on classical philosophy, science & politics. A world view that condemned heliocentrism as a heresy was incapable of giving birth to the institutions and rights we have in Western society.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Its not free speech, its evangelical atheism. If chruches used the same agressvie techniques there would be hysteria for breakfast. Unless they were Muslim then its multiculteral celebration time.
I give to three organisations on a regular basis. Magan David Adom, Soldiers Angels and the SPCA, which box classification do I get put in?
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Malcolm — for what it’s worth, and I know I won’t change your mind, but for open-minded people out there — why try and help people? There is no reason to in atheism.
But Christianity provides a reason. It helps us to get out of our natural selfishness. The Christian concept of original sin and the badness of humanity can be empirically verified any time you pick up a newspaper.
We love others because God loves us. Because we love we want to help people and see the best for them.
But anyway when there is a disaster, like in Haiti, Christian organisations mobilise and send help. Oamaru Baptist Church for example is sending out a medical team to work in Haiti. They volunteered to do this. They are not paid to do this.
Anyone who is fair-minded can see this.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Yes, let us not forget the lessons of the 2005 God Billboard riots.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Pete George — the man who blogs far too often. Not everything is about you Pete. Not everything is about your example. We note however for the record that you are a shining example of charitable agnosticism in action.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Scott,
1. Do you believe that atheists are incapable of feeling compassion?
Vote:2. Do you not believe that feeling compassion compels people to help others?
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:31 pm
” You’re showing your bias towards the Christian notion that people are essentially bad and must be told how to behave.
..and your showing your uneducated state of mind and your resulting absolute utter knuckle dragging incapability of ever understanding any Christian “notion”. Some of the greatest scientists that have ever lived have been Christians. Why is that Malcolm?
(Don’t answer. The question is rhetorical. I would never assume that someone possessed of such insular and limited viewpoints as yourself could ever provide any kind of challenging or informative answer to such a query.)
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Chthoniid — again you are incorrect. Western civilisation was Christian for two millennia. That is a fact — you may not like it, but let’s not let our personal preferences cloud the issue.
We should of course acknowledge the contribution of Greek thought to Western civilisation. Indeed Christian apologist Dinesh D’Souza would point to the two cities that are the foundational influences of the West — Athens and Jerusalem.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:35 pm
What a silly slogan “There is probably no god …..”
Of course there’s a god.
In fact there are thousands of them scattered all across the world, the heavens and history.
Most, good or bad, are pretty decent chaps letting people get on with their lives and just asking the odd tribute.
The one (the only one) who demands all the action and non-stop worship is seriously repugnant, very much like the area he was invented for but not to worry, I simply found another one who suited me.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:36 pm
“I think Left Right out is losing his mind.”
I don’t. You’ve got to possess something before you can lose it.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Scott (499) Says:
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Chthoniid — again you are incorrect. Western civilisation was Christian for two millennia. That is a fact — you may not like it, but let’s not let our personal preferences cloud the issue.
Scott, your telling fibs again.
Please desist.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Scott, that doesn’t help your argument. I’m an atheist, so how do you explain why I give to charity and help people with things?
You didn’t really answer my question. Can you really see no reason to help someone other than because your religion instructs you to?
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Scott,
And these same religious organisations have received huge amounts of money from the government. You use the salvation army as an example. This is the same group that used millions of dollars in donations fighting the equal opportunity employment laws in the US so they did not have to hire homosexuals.
The catholic church is the US has been pulling out of homeless care as funding was tied to equal treatment of homosexuals.
Trade Aid uses money raised to convert people in developing countries. How is this respecting religious beliefs and cultures?
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:39 pm
You are not an atheist so how could you know that? I can tell you it’s quite easy for atheists to want to help people. Godless animals and birds and fish will help – their own kind and people. Seeing eye dogs don’t do their work because a priest told them they should.
I acknowledge that religious organisations provide a lot of charity and help. But they are not the only ones.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Proud, arrogant Christians like you, Scott, are the reason I left Church. Every Sunday was just pastors giving their own Pentecostal congregations big pats on the back for their ‘awesome weekend youth event’, ‘we have almost reached our fundraising goal for the new sound stage’ or some similar bullshit – anything but modest, meek and humble. Take a hint Scott – let your actions speak for themselves, don’t judge non-Christians and shut the fuck up.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Ryan — Atheists may feel compassion and may help other people. The basic humanity is in all of us because I believe we all created in God’s image — whether we acknowledge it or not.
To take an example — a small child drowning in a river. I would expect that any person in this country, regardless of their religious viewpoint, would jump on in and try and get that child out.
But let’s take a child dying in Haiti. Countries in the West send help. They do this because they are based on Christian principles. Countries like India are always silent. Why should they care — it’s just Karma.
But to your point — will atheists care? They might — but to do so would be acting above their philosophy. There is no God, no obligation to others, life is just death and survival of the fittest. Why should a person who believes this help anyone else?
As I’ve stated previously atheism is in my view an evil philosophy that takes us away from God, who is the source of what is good.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Jaime Raine — I am sad that you have left church. However I am not trying to be arrogant, I am pointing out what I consider to be the essential facts of atheism and I am defending Christianity.
However your comments are very troubled. Perhaps you should go find a quiet place and talk to God. Talk to him about these things. Perhaps God wants to talk to you?
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Pete, why do you so casually dismiss the efforts of all those people who pray for the seeing-eye dogs and for God’s generosity and foresight in creating such a wonder animal?
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Because they feel compassion. And you have agreed that they feel compassion and because of this compassion will help other people. Nothing in their “philosophy” – believing that no gods exist – prevents them from feeling compassion, or compels them to act contrary to their compassion.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Scott, why can’t you believe that people of different beliefs can work side by side trying to do good?
I see more evil in calling other people’s beliefs (or lack of beliefs) evil if they don’t agree with your beliefs. Repugnant conceit. Not like the many good Christians that accept others.
Malcolm, dogs, and horses, and dolphins, and falcons, none of them read the bible, nor understand if someone reads the bible to them. Wanting to do good is inherent in many things, and peoples.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Sheesh – it was only after reading all these comments DPF that I realised you weren’t blogging about Phil Goff and his Magical Taxpayer-Funded Mystery Tour
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Michael — and this is my last comment for a while. One can look at that situation two ways. The organisation’s you describe are being forced into a particular view and practice regarding homosexuality. The organisation’s beliefs preclude them from believing homosexuality as anything other than sinful. So the issue is one of religious freedom in my view.
I have no knowledge about your claims of proselytising regarding Trade Aid — so can’t comment sorry.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:51 pm
I have been quite happy in the past to argue on KB that Christianity has been a positive influence to Western Society. I’m not the one manifesting a narrow preference.
What I simply do not understand is the unwillingness of the religious here, to accept there were other positive forces and that Christianity was also a negative factor.
The Dark Ages and the medieval period where not high points for European Society. Arab writers wrote in disgust at the Xtian couples copulating in holy places. They were horrified by trial by combat. The Church endorsed torture as a means of interrogation. Blasphemy was punishable by death.
Western civilisation began in the Renaissance as a reaction against the absurdities and cruelties of theocratic societies. And its intellectual launchpad was classical philosophy, not theology.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Clint go somewhere else please with your pissant concepts born in Progressive propaganda. You’re a complete fucking yawn.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Scott, you’re creating a caricature of what you want an atheist to be, in order to fit with your Christian ideas about people being bad and only knowing good when it’s pointed out to them by God. You say “no obligation to others”. How does that follow from the simple fact that I find your evidence for God to be unconvincing? Not believing in God isn’t my philosophy to life. You are making the mistake of thinking that because God and Christianity is your philosophy of life, that atheism must be a competing philosophy. It’s not. It’s simply an absence of belief in your God. My philosophy of life isn’t nihilism. You’re letting your religion inject unscrutinised and nonsensical notions into your brain.
Back to the helping others question. I do this because I want to live in a society where this happens and because I think we all benefit from such an arrangement. For that reason I practice what I preach. I got to that conclusion without reference to God or Christianity.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Re: charity… Jeff Talon makes the point in that same Herald piece –
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Redbaiter go somewhere else please with your abuse and zero-content comments. You’re a complete fucking yawn.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Thanks for your comments Malcolm. I think the core of the argument appears to be “I can be good without reference to God”. That is our central disagreement. Christianity says we are bad because of original sin (Adam and Eve sinning in the garden of Eden) and therefore we are not good.
Now you may choose to give to charity. You may try and help others and be a good person. But the central Christian message is that without God all of our efforts are futile. We cannot be good through our own efforts. Have you lied, have you cheated, have you ever been selfish, have you ever been deceitful? All of us I think can say at some point — yes to most of those questions.
So we cannot be good with our own efforts. The promise of God is that we are forgiven through the blood of Jesus Christ when we ask for forgiveness. We are put right with God and we have the power of God through the spirit to overcome our selfish desires.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 1:34 pm
” You’re a complete fucking yawn.”
Being as comatose as you already are, would you notice? Shallow pretentious fuckwit with your ponderous sermonising crap. You’re as bad as any of the Christian preachers you hold in contempt.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Chthomid
Vote:The inspiration of those organisations is Christian. Leftright was foolishly trying to place the secular over the sacred,perhaps ignorant of their origins but more likely as in your case willfully ignorant. Irrespective you cannot separate Christianity from the history of the West.
You cite the renaissance and heliocentrism. The renaissance as you know was a “rebirth” of Greek and Roman classicism. Where , Catholic Italy, major patrons ,the Popes ,art largely Christian.Participants Catholics.Many were scholars fleeing the Fall of Constantinople and the emergence of those friendly ,kindly Turks in Europe.
Anti Christians often cite the Pope/ Galileo business, fair enough…… but whose work inspired Galileo? Yep a Roman Catholic monk called Copernicus.
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:37 pm
“NZ Bus has the absolute right to decline adverts they do not want to display”
So it has the absolute right to discriminate to whom it sells its services? Do you think it could stop the gays from getting on the Link in Ponsonby too??
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 1:44 pm
“So it has the absolute right to discriminate to whom it sells its services?”
Actually yes, they do. It is called freedom.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Scott, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. I would suggest that when you see evidence of non-religious people doing good things you should stop and question your original premise. You seem to gloss over this counter-evidence and then move sideways into “…without God all of our efforts are futile.”
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 1:48 pm
But Scott, you are missing an important point. As an atheist I have no connection with the Adam and Eve story, nor with the original sin concept. I was born with a clean slate, without taint by any ancients, or colonists, or parents. I have since made mistakes, and “sinned”, but as I am inherently capable of doing bad I am also also inherently capable of doing good.
I hope by the end of my life the good I have done outweighs the bad. I don’t need a god to help me with that, or judge me on that. I am able to take responsibility for myself. Without guilt.
It’s funny how a topic that started on a mild form of intolerance of a belief has converted into a strong expression of intolerance of the majority of people on earth.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Chthoniid@1251
Your argument is too simplistic, To state the renaissance was a reaction to theocracy shows your prejudice. Classical phlosophy is indistinguishable from theology ,the 2 went hand in hand ,were inextricably linked.
“Arab writers”……trial by combat,torture and blasphemy are you describing modern Saudi Arabia?
The Dark Ages and medieval Europe hardly high points……. agree ,but then nor was WW1, WW2 or the Soviet Occupation of East and Central Europe and we had already had the benefit of your renaissance by then.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Scott,
As I said above, you have already admitted that a non-Christian can feel and act on compassion to help others.
Is helping others good?
If so, being Christian is not necessary for being good, nor does atheism prevent one from being good.
Your comments only make sense if you draw a distinction between helping people and “being good”.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 2:09 pm
That is not to say that people can’t be ‘good’ without God, but that it isn’t based on any objective values. If there isn’t a God then we only have different people’s opinion as to what is moral.
William Lane Craig explained the Christian moral argument for God in The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality:
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Good post Fletch, interesting, thought provoking. Something reasonable to debate.
If there is a god we only have different people’s opinion (and there are many) on what it’s moral message actually is. Not much different?
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Copernicus’s writings of course, were also heretical and had to be secretly circulated by scholars. Giordano Bruno was burned to death as a heretic for advancing the Copernican model not too long before Galileo’s trials.
Edit- and the inspiration for the Copernican model owed more to the powers of reason and observation, using algebraic techniques from the Arabic & Indian worlds- than it did from Christianity.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Are you seriously trying to argue that the Dark Ages or the Soviet Empire are exemplars of Western civilisation?
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Hang in there with that new medicine, Red. I think it’s starting to work.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 2:57 pm
“RRM may be right, it’s Atheists with an agnostic message/question.”
There is no such thing as an agnostic…..there can only be Theists….and Atheists,that is those with a belief in a God and those lacking such a belief.As Agnostics cannot be said to have a belief in a God they are actually Atheists by default.
“That is not to say that people can’t be ‘good’ without God, but that it isn’t based on any objective values. If there isn’t a God then we only have different people’s opinion as to what is moral.”
Not true.What is required for a moral code is a standard by which to measure what is “moral…and what is not, against.We have that standard…its called mans life (and the requirements of it if he is to survive and prosper as a man should in accordance with his nature AS man).It is the universe about us that is the ONLY starting point for all subsequent study and determination re man and morality….not an unproven God “revealed” only through the utterances of various people with their own agendas.
Ahh say the godders….”But what caused this universe to come into existence?There must be a first cause…being God”….to which the answer is “So what caused this “God” in the first place?Another preGod?….unless you are claiming the possibility of a causeless first cause in which case that same logic also applys to the Universe itself….it just is…an axiom…no prior cause required.
Most of the Worlds scientists are Atheists….surveys show this over and over.The more religious you are the dumber you tend to be.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Moral values change over time, even with the reference to God. Take slavery for example, which today is considered immoral, but was considered morally okay for quite a while.
Seperation of races was also considered morally acceptable for even longer.
The intepretation of a so called God’s moral was always through human eyes. It is not an objective morality by some devine code, but merely a reflection of the human subjective morality of that time.
Atheism only removes this fake justification for morality. Humanistic values and religious values seldom differ when it comes to how we treat each other.
Where religious values go astray are on some absurd and morally irrelevant issues such as blasphemy and which god you believe in.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Actually agnostics are “weak” deists, but for all purposes they might as well be atheists.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Bullshit
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Fletch, that’s not survey data. Eszett is correct on the survey point.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 3:25 pm
ps, James, no matter how you try to argue it, any ‘yardstick’ you may have for morality is subjective and therefore can’t be considered to be a yardstick, which is an objective standard.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Man’s moral values might change, but God’s don’t.
Vote:Slavery was tolerated in society but that doesn’t mean that it was moral or that it was God’s will.
Abortion is tolerated in today’s society and people of the future will probably call us crazy for killing our own offspring but it is tolerated in today’s society and even encouraged. That doesn’t mean it is moral (it isn’t) or God’s will.
March 2nd, 2010 at 3:41 pm
ps, James, no matter how you try to argue it, any ‘yardstick’ you may have for morality is subjective and therefore can’t be considered to be a yardstick, which is an objective standard.”
Ahhhh well duh! We live in an objective Universe….to paraphrase the wise sage Madge from back in the day….”Objective reality…you know you’re living in it?”
Re-read my previous post Fletch….Morality IS objective and the standard is mans life as man.That does not change as long as the species man is man.Real morality is not subjective because human life is not subjective… consistent objective fact and the requirements to remain alive of the latter sets the former.Slavery was always immoral against the standard of mans life and his nature as man.Man had to DISCOVER morality to realise that slavery was wrong.
As a side note it was the Christian churchs who advicated slavery and fought for it while secular abolutionsts opposed it…yes there were exceptions to this rule but its a fact that the church endorsed slavery because the Bible said it was ok.
Where you and I disagree is on the first cause and what it was…you say a God….I say the universe about us.Its a difference of one step in the process…
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Isn’t religion just a form of socialism for the masses?
Brainwashing by wealthy, powerful “leaders” to follow a doctrine with no reliable evidence to support it’s core philosophies.
We all believe in god > we all go to heaven and our sins are forgiven
We are all equals and should we share everything equitably > Everyone will be happy and plentiful.
There is evidence to suggest that the whole concept of “gods” arose from mans conscience (i.e. his “god” talking to him) and steering him down the path of “good”, being defined by actions that are beneficial or equitable to all parties with no party being disadvantaged against their own free will. “Good” deeds leading to a stronger society and more successful outcome for all involved.
One man’s “god” just so happened to end up being everyman’s “god” as societies developed around leaders, military or spiritual.
But spank me with a bible and call me a heretic if it pleases you!
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Interesting discussion guys. Thank you fletch and others for your help — I was feeling a little overwhelmed by the multitude of unbelievers for a while there.
I guess I would go on to say — regarding the point about atheists living good lives — that the whole concept of good and the whole concept of morality and being kind to others in the West anyway comes from a Christian base. Where religion is destroyed and atheism becomes the official ideology of the State, then that’s when the killing starts. Atheism was imposed in China and Russia and they would be two good examples of a state at war with its own people.
On the personal level I would point to New Zealand Society. 50 years ago the 10 Commandments were broadly accepted throughout New Zealand. We had a very small police force in comparison with today, woefully underequipped, and with very little to do. The main public problem was drunkenness. The crime rate was a fraction of what it is today. A policeman could count on the fingers of his hands the number of murders in any given year.
Today in New Zealand, where I would characterise most people as practical atheists, our society is deteriorating. We have around 80 murders a year, our police force is a lot more computerised and better equipped, and yet they are overwhelmed by a rising tide of crime. Try calling for a police officer in South Auckland. Unless there is a murder, or a burglar on your premises, or you have smacked a child, you will be very lucky to see a police officer arrive in any timely fashion.
Now I would argue the problem is we have young people being raised with no respect for anything — not the law, not the police, not the community — nothing. They have no concept of right and wrong. I would argue it is because they have no knowledge of God and his commandments. They just simply don’t know how to behave, they have no reason to be “good” and raw human nature does not help them.
On the other end spend time with Christian youth. They have a reason for hope, they have a reason to behave well, and they are generally in my experience much nicer to be around. The parachute music Festival is a good example. Very few police, very light security and a great family atmosphere.
I believe with God there is hope for our nation. Without God our society is rapidly going down the drain.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Isn’t religion just a form of socialism for the masses?
Well spotted.Socialism just picked up the baton dropped by a tiring religion and grounded it in the promise of heaven on Earth rather than a other worldly paradise waiting after death.Both dogmas expoused altruism…the creed that man exists not for his own sake and happiness but as the means to the ends of others….being the “community’,”society”,the “nation” the “volk” the”people etc….anyone or group OTHER than onesself.
Both dogmas understood that when you eliminate the concept of self in a man and replace it with the idea of self sacrifice for anyone other than himself you can pretty much do anything with him….and history shows what a bloody murderous mess that results in…
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 4:00 pm
So how do you know what God’s will is, Fletch? Where do you get God’s moral code from? The bible? There are lots of references to slavery in the bible.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Scott – I suggest that you are wrong when you claim “— that the whole concept of good and the whole concept of morality and being kind to others in the West anyway comes from a Christian base”
ma’at predates christianity by millenia
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 4:05 pm
This is the list that says you should be stoned to death for working on the sabbath (hmm) or blasphemy (gulp), but rape only gets you an arranged marriage correct?
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 4:06 pm
” De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was published at the earnest solicitation of two distinguished churchmen,Cardinal Schomberg and Tiedeman Giese,Bishop of Culm. It was dedicated by permission to Pope Paul III.”
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Scott: “I guess I would go on to say — regarding the point about atheists living good lives — that the whole concept of good and the whole concept of morality and being kind to others in the West anyway comes from a Christian base.”
Not so….there were “good” people in existence long before Jesus is ever supposed to have lived.That there were florishing communities and trade for centuries between them gives the lie to your claim.That trade presupposes the virtues of honesty,benevolance,trust,respect,kindness etc….all traits humans have had in their natures since they arose as a species.
” Where religion is destroyed and atheism becomes the official ideology of the State, then that’s when the killing starts. Atheism was imposed in China and Russia and they would be two good examples of a state at war with its own people.”
Oh so there was no killing in Christian societys then Scott? The inquistion never happened?The Crusades? The witch burnings? Give it up buddy…you embarass yourself.And in those so called “Atheist societys” (not true as most Russians still belived in God during Soviet time as did most Germans in the Nazi 40′s,Hitler himself being a Catholic in good standing and not excommunicated by the Church.%25 of all SS men were Catholic too) Most Chinese people were superstitious, poor peasents who prayed so Scotts flim flam falls flat again.) it was actually a small educated elite that,having positive beliefs in the creeds of Marxism and Maoism,proceded to impliment them to the mass detriment of their peoples.
As Atheism is simply the LACK of a belief in a God, a negative with no “meat on its bones” to sustain positive actions resulting from it, it is wrong to try and ascribe the crimes of POSITIVELY held beliefs to it.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 4:16 pm
De revolutionibus orbium coelestium
Yes, because that was a common device to escape being prosecuted for heresy, and it did not prevent heliocentrism being classed as a heresy. (Aristarchus had a heliocentric view worked out in the 3rd C BC, so we’re a bit slow off the mark even then).
Anybody with a decent knowledge of geocentrism knew it was false. It meant at perigee, the moon had to be twice as close to the earth as at apogee. It just wasn’t the sort of thing you wanted to discuss a lot because it could mean a short, swift trip to the top of the bonfire.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Sorry the slavery thing doesn’t work for me .The leading abolitionists in Britain and the US were ardent Christians.
Funny how the secular,humanist modern scientific advocate of slavery was none other than the revolutionary, human rightist Napoleon Bonapart.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Very well said kowtow,
The origins of the Progressive Women’s movement and the Black Civil Rights movement in the US were also created by the influence of Christianity, not to mention the welfare structure and better rights for employees.
But then again, no one likes a show off.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Not only were the leading abolitionists in this era Xtian, so were most of the defenders of slavery.
Guess where we find evidence of the first anti-slavery advocates? That’s right, the classical Greek world. Slavery was also opposed in the 1700s by atheists- e.g. Thomas Paine. Congratulations, some Xtians finally caught up.
Classifying Napoleon Bonaparte as a secular humanist strikes me as more than a little overly credulous.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 4:28 pm
This is misguided at best. As I outlined before, morality is not based on Christianity or any other religion, but rather religion occupies basic human values as morality and is then used as a justification.
No problem with that per se, only religion adds it’s own little moral values such as you cannot question religion and you should not believe in any other god. That’s where it get’s problematic and the killing of people starts.
As pointed out earlier, western values come mainly from renaissance, philosophy, science & politics. Where that overlaps with Christian values, christians love to make claim to them. And where it doesn’t they conveniently ignore it. Freedom of religion is quite a good example. That is not a Christian value, but a hunmanistic one. If it were up to christians (or any other religion) they would happily outlaw anything that doesn’t fit their views.
To conclude that atheism is the root of Chinas and Soviet Unions problem (Russia is actually quite religious these days) is equallly uninformed and shallow. It is merely based in your own bias.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 4:29 pm
You conveniently forget that the secularism of greater Europe is a fairly recent phenomenon. At the time of slavery’s destruction, atheism was a very small and insignificant minority.
The comparison is therefore void.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Yep, that’s when the killing started. Europe was just a happy clappy church picnic from 313AD to 1949.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 4:35 pm
James — I don’t expect to change your mind, but for the benefit of those following the blog I will reply to some of your claims –
The fact of the matter is that every person killed in the Inquisition, by the Star chamber, at the Crusades etc — if you added them all up they would not amount to what the atheist regime of the Soviet Union, or China for that matter, killed in a week.
I am sorry if you do not feel that the Soviet Union and China are representative of atheist regimes. The fact is they were officially atheist. The fact is those regimes were at war with their own people and murdered millions. Those are the facts.
I am tired of atheists arguing that atheism has no content, apart from the assertion there is no God. This appears to me to be a convenient hiding place in which to retreat. Actually atheism can also be described as anti-theism. The atheist or anti-theist is very consistent when he comes to power. He normally starts torturing and shooting the priests and nuns, closing the churches, and enforcing anti-biblical morality wherever he can. For example the atheist Soviet Union deliberately tried to break up the family, as it saw it as a powerful threat to the socialist utopia it was creating. So anti-theists normally promote laws and values that are the opposite to Christian biblical morality. From atheism godless values and actions naturally flow.
Not going into Hitler as an example — hopefully we have reached general agreement on this blog that he was neither an atheist nor Christian. More of a pagan I would think.
But once again we come to the point, which I think Fletch has persuasively argued, that the whole concept of “good” has no objective basis unless there is some source outside of ourselves. The source of good is God. God was there at the beginning and revealed himself through the nation of Israel. He then chose to come to Earth himself in the form of his son Jesus Christ. So I believe that God has revealed to us what is good and how to live good moral lives.
I appreciate you believe that good moral lives can be lived outside of God. I respectfully disagree and I believe that any glance at the newspaper shows us that actually human nature is not good. That’s where you and I, and others such as Malcolm, fundamentally disagree.
But look if you are right then as religious belief declines in New Zealand then things should get better.
If I am right then the decline in morality which is manifestly present (see for example the thread about truancy on this blog) will continue as religious belief continues to decline.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Sorry the slavery thing doesn’t work for me .The leading abolitionists in Britain and the US were ardent Christians.”
Some were…true.But many most certainly wern’t.And those that were were acting against the offical line of the Churchs who justified slavery thanks to biblical interpretation.Indeed they are probably doing what Richard Dawkins has discribed as using a higher natural morality to determine that the Church teachings were immoral and failed the decency test.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 4:49 pm
About sixteen million people were killed in WWI, a war fought between exclusively Christian nations (with the exception of Turkey). That’s not as bad as Stalin’s terror or the Cultural Revolution but it ain’t chicken feed.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Not it is not. I don’t claim atheism led to the abolishment of slavery.
It only shows that morality cannot be deduced from religion or God. Religion was used to jsutfy slavery over millenia and then that changed. As you pointed out, there was now a different interpretation of what is moral and what is not. Soreligiously based morals do change over time.
Why is that if the will of God does not change?
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 4:57 pm
eszett,
I believe it is the will of God to facilitate what is known as the “end times”?
Why atheists continue making baseless assumptions about certain religions (often Christianity) that they tend to have no business and/or interest in interpreting is beyond me.
By reading the Book of Revelations you might be able to pick up on what I’m inferring here.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 4:57 pm
“The source of good is God. ”
For you it is, for most people, now and over history, it isn’t.
Wouldn’t it better to work towards promoting universal good? So most people will aspire to be good, or better?
That makes more sense to me than claiming your group represents good and anyone that disagrees fundamentally isn’t good.
FAL, the “end times” don’t sound very good. At the very least I would expect substantial collateral damage.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Chtoniid. Wrong about the bonfire ,even Galileo wasn’t burned.
The dedication was to protect Copernicus from the ridicule of renaissance mathmaticians, his ideas being so radical.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 5:01 pm
So like this god guy could lob a new tablet at some bearded guy or have a burning bush moment…and change some rules. Like making puppy eating ‘good’ or mandating the sacrifice of your firstborn to him or (horrors) letting women speak in church. He has the final say on goodness so he would be right, right? Gee and here I am left in moral ambiguity…
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Why the Book of Revelations? Why not Daozang, The Kojiki, Svetambara or the Qur’an.
Vote:What has that got to do with morality?
March 2nd, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Danyl — I think you are getting a little obscure in your reasoning there. I have never heard anybody claim that World War I was a religious war or inspired by religion. Generally historians point to nationalism, technological developments resulting in an arms race, economic and political rivalry, colonialism etc as causes of World War I.
I’m not sure that Christianity can be held responsible for the casualties of World War I, and to be honest you are the first person I have ever heard of that has argued that it should.
Generally in Christian thought there are two lines of argument with regard to war — pacifism which the early church practised in the face of particularly Roman persecution and the idea of “just war”. The concept of “Just war” normally refers to ideas such as war being a last resort, war being justifiable, minimising civilian casualties, humane treatment of prisoners of war etc.
In other words in this sinful and fallen world, war is sometimes necessary but it is never desirable.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 5:20 pm
I just cannot resist jumping in here. Unfortunately, as an agnostic (and yes, one really does exist, and I am quite consciously one), I can see a bit from both sides.
First of all, about the original posting: I cannot see the point of putting such a sign on a bus. As one person pointed out (there are SO many posts I cannot recall who) Christians won’t be swayed, and atheists and agnostics are already there. So what WAS the point of the campaign?
Secondly, there are theists (there is a god/God), atheists (there is NO god) and agnostics (we cannot know, so I’m not going to worry about it). I was in my teen years a theist (even considered going into the ministry) but the blatant fund-raising campaigns and hypocrisy drove me away. At some point I decided I was an atheist, but a few years later realised that that was as much a dogma as any religion. So when a colleague of mine a few years ago commented that “all good scientists must be atheists”, I replied “Sorry but I can’t make that leap of faith”.
Lastly, the “moral” imperative to help our fellow humans is rooted in evolution. (I can just see the creationists out there revving up to reply!
) Chimpanzees help their tribe. Crocodiles help their young. Many animals act in a way for the greater good of their kind, to the detriment even of the individual. It is part and parcel of being in the “herd”. Acting together, supporting each other, strengthens the entire herd/tribe/species. We can, if we wish, dress it up in religious clothing to help us justify what we do, but many of us would help regardless.
Oh, and one of the groups to which I donate are Salvation Army, because they care first about the people, and then they hope the rest will follow. In WW II, the Nazis banned them from POW and concentration camps, because the Red Cross would swallow the shams and the lies but the Sallies wouldn’t. In Toronto, where I grew up, there was a big old pub, The Brunswick House, frequented by university students and the down-and-outers because it had cheap beer. The Salvation Army band would play, and then in the breaks they would fan out and talk to those who were in trouble, of whatever sort. I may not agree with them on religion, but they have my respect.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 5:22 pm
P Kiwi — I think you are getting on to the idea of God’s character — are God’s moral laws good? And are God’s moral laws consistent and reliable?
I would say yes they are. God is good and his law and his commands are good. Don’t worry — he is not capricious or inconsistent — he doesn’t change like the weather.
So when you put your faith in God you can trust him to look after you. He isn’t going to “lob a new tablet” as you put it. We have his revelation in the form of Jesus Christ. I think he is worth putting our faith in.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 5:23 pm
” About sixteen million people were killed in WWI, a war fought between exclusively Christian nations (with the exception of Turkey). That’s not as bad as Stalin’s terror or the Cultural Revolution but it ain’t chicken feed. ”
Haha. What desperate pathological and deceitful shysters inhabit the halls of leftdom.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 5:25 pm
@Scott: “The organisation’s you describe are being forced into a particular view and practice regarding homosexuality. The organisation’s beliefs preclude them from believing homosexuality as anything other than sinful. So the issue is one of religious freedom in my view.”
Are we not all sinners (given your apparent belief in “original sin”)? Why single out one type of sinner?
“if you added them all up they would not amount to what the atheist regime of the Soviet Union, or China for that matter, killed in a week.”
“The fact is they were officially atheist. The fact is those regimes were at war with their own people and murdered millions. Those are the facts.”
Athiesm is not incompatible with religion. (Religion does not necessarily have to involve God, a god, or gods.) A good argument can be made that the Soviet Union and China, instead of embracing rationalist principles and doing what worked, embraced religious precepts, particularly important was the precept of faith, as shown through the embrace of Communism despite its persistent failure to work: Communism became the religion of the masses. So please do not suggest that the massacres in the Soviet Union and China were because of atheism. One could just as easily suggest that the murders were down to unquestioning faith in the religion of Communism. I believe that this would be a gross oversimplification, but claiming it was the atheism of these states which lead to the murders of millions is probably more disingenuous.
Furthermore, the inquisition, crusades and witch burnings happened well before the advent of much of the technology which made mass murder so much easier. If the technology had been available the murder count would probably be relatively comparable (at least on a proportional basis). So the comparison between the mass murders of the athiest, but not non-religious states, and the mass murders which were religiously backed is again disingenuous.
I do not blame religion for these murders though. It may have provided the excuse, but I don’t think it was the motivation in any of these cases. I suspect the motivation in all of the cases mentioned above came from desire for power, fear of the unknown/the other, mob mentality (conformity) and a large variety of other reasons.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Eszett,
I’m offering the Christian perspective here (or attempting to) because I actually identify with the Christian faith, raised as a Samoan Presbyterian through what is often known as the EFKS church.
I can not offer you the perspective from the Kojiki, Svetambara or the Qu’ran but I’m sure other kiwiblog users who identify with these religions can.
As you have asked, I will attempt to address the relationship between morality and the “end time revelations” through the eyes of a 20 year old Presbyterian.
II Timothy 3:1-5,7 “But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of god; holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
I Timothy 4:1-3 “But the spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons. By means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.”
These scriptures are not from the Book of Revelations but they shed some light on the moral changes that are said to occur when the end-times take full flight.
Now I don’t expect you not to be skeptical about such assertions but I do expect you to try and understand where some of this is coming from: the institution of marriage is changing, policies around the structure of family are changing, the issue of abortion is becoming more liberal, the government is overstretching its influence into the walls of every home, religion is often a scapegoat both socially and historically, etc, etc.
These are only some of the examples, supported by end-time related scripture.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 5:30 pm
David in Christchurch — “Lastly, the “moral” imperative to help our fellow humans is rooted in evolution.”
You see — there is a truth claim. So you are agnostic about theism but you are a believer in evolution. So there you are — you do believe in something.
However you do have a hard case to make. The essence of evolution is survival of the fittest. Only the fittest survive to pass on their genes in increasing numbers to those that are unfit. The fittest must pass on their genes, the unfit must die out. If the unfit live to have offspring then evolution will not succeed. Evolutionary progress will be diluted. Evolution is just as much about death as it is about life.
So evolution would not predict altruism. Evolution would predict selfish behaviour. That’s why Richard Dawkins writes books with titles like “The Selfish Gene”.
Vote:Anyway must go — thanks for an interesting discussion. Scott — out.
March 2nd, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Gotta admire your cynicism. How well you can defend the killing of people? A just war, yeah right. Now how was WWI a just war?
And how were the atrocities that you described in China and Russia motivated by atheism?
It is your reasoning that is obscure, Scott.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 5:34 pm
The NZ Atheist fuckers should get their asses out there and campaign for tax cuts which was promised by the National party before the last election because that hurts people in the pockets rather than campaigning against Christians and their beliefs who don’t violate the rights of NZ Atheist members at all.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 5:42 pm
I don’t “believe” in evolution. It is a well-supported scientific theory. The main arguments are about HOW it happens and how quickly. Some years ago, a NZ mathematician showed that evolution was indeed a scientific theory (in the sense that it can be tested, etc.).
Also, I don’t use the word “believe” in my personal conversations anymore. I have largely excised it from my vocabulary. As a scientist, I prefer to let the repeatable verifiable results of observations and experiments guide my thinking and conclusions. And if better and more reliable results indicate that the current paradigm is wrong, then I will alter my thinking accordingly.
My behaviour – well that’s more complicated, but some of it can be explained relatively readily as altruism for the benefit of the “herd”, the community. Now of course, there is also behaviour that is for MY benefit, so long as it doesn’t harm someone else. Live and let live.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Scott:
“The fact of the matter is that every person killed in the Inquisition, by the Star chamber, at the Crusades etc — if you added them all up they would not amount to what the atheist regime of the Soviet Union, or China for that matter, killed in a week.”
Better technology….only difference.Both Religious and non religious tryannys get their motiovation from POSITIVE assertions and beliefs…..of which Atheism has none.
“I am sorry if you do not feel that the Soviet Union and China are representative of atheist regimes. The fact is they were officially atheist. The fact is those regimes were at war with their own people and murdered millions. Those are the facts.”
Part facts….but the Atheist claim falls over…see above.Go on Scott.List the motivating postions,the values contained in atheism,the lack of a belief in a God, that lead to tryanny and mass murder.I can name many amoung the positive ones expoused by religion.The creed of altruism and the self sacifice of the individual (shared by the Soviet and Chinese regimes…as well as Hitllers Nazis)that leads to treating humans as faceless cogs in collective machines being the most fundermental.
“I am tired of atheists arguing that atheism has no content, apart from the assertion there is no God. This appears to me to be a convenient hiding place in which to retreat.”
Its not a reatret…its the simple fact of the matter.
“Actually atheism can also be described as anti-theism. The atheist or anti-theist is very consistent when he comes to power. He normally starts torturing and shooting the priests and nuns, closing the churches, and enforcing anti-biblical morality wherever he can. For example the atheist Soviet Union deliberately tried to break up the family, as it saw it as a powerful threat to the socialist utopia it was creating. So anti-theists normally promote laws and values that are the opposite to Christian biblical morality. From atheism godless values and actions naturally flow.”
Where in the Atheist position (and no Scott, not the Marxist position,nor the maoist nor Nazi postions.I mean the ATHEIST position as I described) do you find the POSITIVE position that families are bad and should be broken up?Where?Show me the line of thought that makes that valid.Sorry Scott but its you who is in retreat.You keep trying to ascribe to atheism positions and actions that cannot be founded on its negative state.You are in the position of trying to press yourself off the ground by pushing against…nothing….an immpossibility.
“Not going into Hitler as an example — hopefully we have reached general agreement on this blog that he was neither an atheist nor Christian. More of a pagan I would think.”
Still makes him a NON-atheist…meaning he was a beliver in something supernatural so hes closer to you buddy.Sorry if that bums out your day.;-0
“But once again we come to the point, which I think Fletch has persuasively argued, that the whole concept of “good” has no objective basis unless there is some source outside of ourselves.”
Agree….but its the universe about us that spawned us that is that source…unless you can stump up with a prior cause…which you cannot seem to do other that make claims as to what you say this cause wants and thinks…which according to the Bible is a blasphemy.
“The source of good is God. God was there at the beginning and revealed himself through the nation of Israel. He then chose to come to Earth himself in the form of his son Jesus Christ. So I believe that God has revealed to us what is good and how to live good moral lives.”
Belive that if you like…..but don’t try and force it on the rest of us.
“I appreciate you believe that good moral lives can be lived outside of God. I respectfully disagree and I believe that any glance at the newspaper shows us that actually human nature is not good. That’s where you and I, and others such as Malcolm, fundamentally disagree.”
Again what you are seeing in the papers is people acting from positive assertions and beliefs…very misguided and destructive they may be.But there are also many more people living decent moral lives…and they aren’t Christians either.And no its not because they may be atheists that they are doing so…it can’t be as atheism has no positive asssertions to “press off ” from…its that they have thought about ,concluded and then applied good positive values to their lives.
“But look if you are right then as religious belief declines in New Zealand then things should get better.”
For the most part it has.Women are now treated as equals,Gays are recognised as human beings with rights,Children are not mera objects to be bashed by their parents etc…..no its not perfect and some things have gone too far but at least these can be debated and changed thanks to free speech.Religious control would not have allowed this.Remember that Religious dogma was the Political Correctness of most of our history….and millions suffered and dies if they questioned it.
“If I am right then the decline in morality which is manifestly present (see for example the thread about truancy on this blog) will continue as religious belief continues to decline.”
Not if man actually DISCOVERS morality….as I described above.Not in the supernatural as revealed by men claiming to speak for it but by applying reason to reality and devining the objective good que man from it.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Oh, and P.S., I did predict, didn’t I, that my comment about evolution would bring out the creationist comments. I recognise that I won’t convince them, and I hope they recognise that they won’t convince me (although the way they trot out chapter and verse – literally – makes it look they are trying to do so). Anyway, I am out of here. Time for dinner.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Bzzt, wrong.
There are both kinship menchanisms (Hamilton) & non-kinship mechanisms (Trivers, Axelrod) that explain & predict altruistic behaviour in evolution. Altruistic behaviour is common in many species. Indeed, we would predict- on the basis of Hamilton- quite successfully that altruism will be more common in organisms with haploid males, and it will be more commonly manifested with respect to closer relatives than strangers.
Dawkins does not argue that organisms behave selfishly. His text is an argument that genes behave ‘as if’ they are selfish. That certainly does not preclude such genes ‘needing’ the organism to act altruistically to pass on the genes.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 6:09 pm
I’m sorry but WTF. There is no campaign against Xtians and their beliefs. There is an attempt to put a rather inoffensive ‘there is probably no God’ poster on a bus as a way of exercising some free speech.
We live in a society where Xtians stand on street corners and in squares preaching, one where churches have billboards up advertising their services and making claims, about faith, where the national anthem is overtly Xtian. People wear crosses and put fish symbols on their cars. Hotel and motel rooms include bibles. Primary schools provide a religious instruction option.
…and you can’t cope with some bus poster. What is your problem?
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 6:22 pm
David in CC: “I just cannot resist jumping in here. Unfortunately, as an agnostic (and yes, one really does exist, and I am quite consciously one), I can see a bit from both sides.”
Sorry Dave but that doesn’t wash.
“Secondly, there are theists (there is a god/God), atheists (there is NO god) and agnostics (we cannot know, so I’m not going to worry about it).”
The agnostic position is a false alternative.The “Agnostic” cannot be said to have a positive belief in a God…correct?So by default they are A-theist”….meaning without belief.
A common theme used by Scott et el is that Atheists by being Atheists must therefore must all think X.But this is the same falsehood Christians complain about when some Atheists make the same claim about them.Now its easier for the Atheists to make this claim as the Christian has a set of required positions to align with if he is to qualify as a Christian.The Atheist only needs to lack a belief in a God….nothing more.He can either otherwise be a Capitalist or a Communist,Honest and upright or decietful and crooked,gay or straight.Right or Left wing,Belive in Dawinian evolution…or not know or care two cents about it,Millitant in attacking Theists or laid back and Libertarian about the whole matter….or totally ignorant of any clash at all.So to point to an Atheist and claim that “Hes and Atheist and therefore thinks and does X” is an obviously false nonsense.Everyone arrives on Earth as an Atheist….the concept of God being learned later on.There are people on the planet right now who have never heard of God…and they are as Atheist as Richard Dawkins…in that both lack a belief in a God.Every subsequence difference between Dawkins and them spings from the positive positions and values they personal accept.
I am an Atheist…outside that Im a Capitalist supporting,straight,pretty honest,objective morality supporting,evolution believing,tolerant Libertarian.I can’t get too thrilled about the bus campaign although I agree with the sentiment of it.I disagree with the campaigners claiming discrimination as they never had a right too the side of those buses and the bus company should do what it like.There are other Atheists here who would differ from me on many of the other positions…..and so they should as the shared atheism is irrelvant to any of the positive positions we may otherwise hold to.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 6:26 pm
“I’m sorry but WTF. There is no campaign against Xtians and their beliefs. There is an attempt to put a rather inoffensive ‘there is probably no God’ poster on a bus as a way of exercising some free speech.
We live in a society where Xtians stand on street corners and in squares preaching, one where churches have billboards up advertising their services and making claims, about faith, where the national anthem is overtly Xtian. People wear crosses and put fish symbols on their cars. Hotel and motel rooms include bibles. Primary schools provide a religious instruction option.
…and you can’t cope with some bus poster. What is your problem?
Well said.Why are the true belivers sooooo unsure of Gods truth that a few ads get them all weak kneed?Freedom for me but not for thee it seems…
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Scott,
You said, “Why try and help people? There is no reason to in atheism.”
I appreciate that you are talking to a lot of people, but my questions are very simple.
Do you agree that atheists have reason to do good?
This question can be broken down to sub-questions.
1. Is it good to help those in need?
Vote:2. Does compassion compel people to help those in need?
3. Are atheists capable of feeling compassion?
March 2nd, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Chthoniid, your problem is that you think that you’re (or pretending to be) pro-freedom but you’re nothing of the sort. There are more policies that your beloved National socialist party that should be rolled back which are hurting citizens of this country such as tax cuts for example, and here you’re debating an issue that doesn’t hurt anyone. Redbaiter is correct in his comment above. The bus company was also correct in refusing the approach from NZ Atheist.
Can you show me on a blog post here at DPF, that you have argued vigorously (as you do here) against the ETS that National party is supporting? I would be delighted if you can point me out to one. I just simply pointed out here that the so called right wingers here are hypocrites. Issues like tax cuts, ETS, and more, should be their passion in debating vigorously against them. But no, it is something that’s got nothing to do with fighting for freedom like questioning if there is God or not, which is pointless.
PS : I am an atheist, but as long as religious people don’t hurt me, then I don’t give a fuck if they pray to a tree or some non-existent entity out there, somewhere.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 6:43 pm
It doesn’t work that way. If it was strictly the survival of the fittest mothers would not care for their less fit offspring. They have to nurture unselfishly. That often expands to wider communities of animals.
Greater good often overrides individual selfishness. Packs of wolves, prides of lions etc etc pool their power and share their food.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 7:05 pm
I’m not saying that Christianity was responsible for WWI – just that it was a war fought by Christian nations. and that at the time it was the most terrible war ever fought. You’ve made various claims that Christians are more moral than atheists, so my point is that Christianity was the state religion of every major combatant in this war of mass-extermination.
WWI wasn’t ‘about’ Christianity, but the Cultural Revolution and Stalin’s terror weren’t ‘about’ athiesm, either. But if you want to claim that state atheism was somehow ultimately responsible for the Cultural Revolution then you have to accept that state Christianity was ultimately responsible for WWI.
So just to make myself clear, I don’t think Christianity was responsible for the First World War, but neither was atheism responsible for Mao/Stalin.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Your understanding of evolution is over 150 years out of date.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 7:09 pm
That is your personal interpretation, nothing more. Those things change all the time, marriage, relationships, families and government are different today from what they were 30 years ago, that was different from what they were another 30 years ago, etc., etc.
You choose to interpret them as something bad, just because those changes do not suit you, whereas I don’t.
Vote:Maybe you should try to see the other perspective, that those changes are not all bad, that the world is not getting worse, that things are not coming apart at the seams, just because they are changing.
March 2nd, 2010 at 7:19 pm
It’s funny how you say that Eszett, allow me to give you a small taste of the deterioration of families in the Western world:
The breakdown of the nuclear family structure, resulting in an influx of solo parenting and adoptive parenting has often resulted in restricted outcomes for the children concerned.
It is no hidden secret that most international studies prove that children have access to the most adequate outcomes (in terms of growth, development and success across the spectrum) when they are under the ceiling of a two-parent structure. This is known as the the traditional fabrication of family.
As this structure slowly began to deteriorate in the early 21st century, the Western world witnessed change. Change in student achievement and success through the education system, change within statistics concerning criminal activity, change in the number of welfare dependents and low socio-economic citizens, etc.
The fact is that children are often disadvantaged or threatened when they are raised by the hands of a solo parent or under foster care, adoption, etc.
This is a sociological theory that is weighted down and supported by facts, figures and other empirical data.
This has nothing to do with what I choose or what you choose, this is about the benefit of all New Zealander’s and the fact is that society is disadvantaged by these social concerns and our economy stands to loose out the most.
Now you can assume that this is the voice of religious intolerance or you can accurately depict that this is the voice of a realist: influenced by sociological theory.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Greater good often overrides individual selfishness. Packs of wolves, prides of lions etc etc pool their power and share their food.”
With humans there is no conflict between “individual selfishness” (self interest) and the common good….the common after all only being an abstraction from the individual.Whats in the self interested good for the individual is by default good for the “common”.Its when this non-existent “common” is used as a higher purpose or pre-eminant value above the rights of the individuals comprising it that we get tryanny and mass death.(see Ayn Rand’s writings for greater explanation)
Ever dictatorship and tryanny in history ran on some varient of “the common good”….and the need for the self sacifice of the individual to it.Think of Kennedys warped and fundermentally anti-American appeal to “think what you can do for your country”as at the milder end of this creed with Hitlers,Mao and Stalins/Lenins etc at the bloodier other.
No mass murdering regime ever stood on a platform of individual rights,limited Government,free speech and free markets and the rule of objective law….gee….I wonder why?
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 7:58 pm
It’s all so clear now: “Humanity can have no happiness without Islam. Humanity can enjoy no goodness, unless the sun of monotheism, the Koran, and the Sunna shines upon it. The world without the sun of the divine revelation is a place of eternal darkness, as we can see today – a world of frustration, collapse, injustice, arbitrariness, and wrongdoing. The world today is a jungle – a world of barbarism of all kinds. People in many parts of the world are not happy, because they do not walk in the path of Allah.”
http://freethinker.co.uk/2008/08/19/satan%E2%80%99s-behind-all-that-bare-olympic-flesh/
Former athiests, insert phrases appropriate to whichever religion you decide to choose.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Malcolm @12.09pm
You are referring to the state religion of Israel?
I think DPF has got it on the button, NZ Buses of course can refuse advertisements, but that does not preclude a public campaign to pressure it to change its mind. If one can be bothered.
Personally, I object to the word “probably.” It reads better with that word omitted.
And why raise the Muslim red herring? If Muslims have serious objections to such a discussion, then we would need to respect them, while insisting on our freedom of speech. My understanding is that it is attacks on the Prophet, such as in the unnecessary Danish cartoons, which Muslims find highly objectionable. Just as most Christians were angered by the “Virgin in a Condom” exhibit a few years ago.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 9:48 pm
adoptive parenting? how so?
two-parent structure? Does that go for same sex parents?
traditional fabrication of family? What exactly is that? Married only or de-facto?
Society changes. Mores change. Families change. To say there were no problems before and there problems now because of these changes is a very narrow point of view.
What you are saying “oh it was so much better in the old days”, the apocalypse is coming, the end is nigh.
Vote:I say, there were also problems in the past, there are different problems today, it’s not the end of the world, just deal with it.
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Just back for a brief visit.
James – every (and I mean EVERY) atheist I know takes it to mean “There is NO god”, not that there MIGHT be no god – that there IS no god. That is belief. That is “end of story”.
The “a” means “no”, and “theism” indicates a divine being. Hence, from one of many online dictionaries:
“An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.”
On the other hand, an “agnostic” means “a”=not and “gnostism”=knowing. Thus someone who DOESN’T KNOW. Hence:
“An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.”
I am an agnostic, not an atheist. Why do believers, whether religious or atheist, insist that I MUST “believe” one or the other? I _insist_ on the intellectual right to say FU. I do not, cannot, “believe” that there is a god, nor that there is NO god. To me, as a scientist, both statements are meaningless because both are outside what I can test or experience (and it’s nice to know that someone will shortly come along and tell me that THEY have experienced it – well bully for them but that isn’t me).
So James, get off your high atheist horse. I am a _staunch_ agnostic, who acknowledges that he is willing to admit that he cannot KNOW. Maybe some of you (James included) can. I cannot.
And I frankly feel positive and very comfortable about my agnosticism.
And James – next time, try consulting a few dictionaries before you start telling people what is and is not.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 10:07 pm
@David in Ch Ch: Your most recent comments re: atheism/agnosticism made me wonder if anyone had any thoughts on ignosticism?
Also, http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Also, there is actually academic debate about the distinction between the terms atheist/agnostic despite what a dictionary might tell you. I don’t really care. Call yourselves what you want.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Besides me you mean?:-)
And I admit I’m pretty vocal.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Man, so many posts since I went out and came back – not sure where to begin, or even if I should…lol
I have to answer James’ statement anyway.
Believers aren’t threatened by such ads on buses, or unsure of God’s truth. If you believe in God (as we do) then you also believe we are in a war for souls between the powers of light and darkness. It is the Christian duty to evangelize – to bring the Good news to everyone so that they may be saved (for want of a better word).
I believe that signs like this can influence people who are undecided in a negative way. In other words, the people who put up this sign or supported it are going to have to answer for the souls they have influenced away from God.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 10:15 pm
I have had discussions for years with various people, and in essence it boils down to the Greek sources of the roots of the words atheism/atheist and agnosticism/agnostic.
So for example the Gnostics were a sect of believers whose name comes from the Greek “to know”.
Thus I am one who does not “know”, and in fact go perhaps a step further and claims that we cannot “know”, without any doubt, that there is or is not a divine being.
Oh, and I still agree about the bus signs. Pointless really and a waste of money.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 10:16 pm
ps, regarding what David_in-ChCh said, yes the bus ad seems more to be written by Agnostics than atheists. If it were written by Atheists there would be no “probably” in their slogan – ‘There is PROBABLY no God’ – in other words, they don’t really know. If the slogan was written by a true Atheist it would be ‘There is NO God’.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 10:18 pm
sigh “goes a step further”.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 10:19 pm
Thanks for the credit Fletch, I agree, BUT unfortunately it wasn’t me. Hard to keep track, though, isn’t it. sigh
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Anyway, must away kiddies. Early start tomorrow. TTFN
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 10:41 pm
@David in Ch Ch: “Besides me you mean?:-)
And I admit I’m pretty vocal.
”
Oh, no, didn’t mean it like that. Your comments inspired the thought.
@Fletch: “If it were written by Atheists there would be no “probably” in their slogan – ‘There is PROBABLY no God’ – in other words, they don’t really know. If the slogan was written by a true Atheist it would be ‘There is NO God’.”
I think somebody has already dealt with this criticism, but one cannot categorically prove there is no God, so it would potentially be grounds for breach of one of the acts which deals with advertising. (I think this is why we have adverts for antibacterial soap which claim to get rid of 99.99% of bacteria instead of 100%?) That said, I think they could probably have phrased it in a better way, e.g.. “There is no valid evidence for the existence of God”, although that’s probably too wordy.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 10:42 pm
“So James, get off your high atheist horse. I am a _staunch_ agnostic, who acknowledges that he is willing to admit that he cannot KNOW. Maybe some of you (James included) can. I cannot.”
Changes nothing….its not dictionary definition that counts…its non contradictory reality.As an “agnostic” cannot be said to have a belief in a God then he’s an A-theist,one lacking a belief in a God….play word games all you want but thats the unavoidable,non-contradictory fact.
You posted…”“An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.”
….and that makes him an A-theist…..because the opposite Theist position is not open to him.Just as one can’t be a little bit pregnant or slighty dead one either has belief…or one doesn’t.
“And I frankly feel positive and very comfortable about my agnosticism.
Whatever….wasn’t interested in a fight…just clarifing objective facts.
And James – next time, try consulting a few dictionaries before you start telling people what is and is not.”
Again….dictionary definitions are irrelavant…..objective fact isn’t.Im not the one pulling you up….reality is doing that…Im just the messenger.
Fletch:ps, “regarding what David_in-ChCh said, yes the bus ad seems more to be written by Agnostics than atheists. If it were written by Atheists there would be no “probably” in their slogan – ‘There is PROBABLY no God’ – in other words, they don’t really know. If the slogan was written by a true Atheist it would be ‘There is NO God’.”
Why…? There could be a God out there some place.One can never say with certainty that something doesn’t exist somewhere….unless you could actually look everywhere to check.Its the assertion that there is a God without offering any proof that pisses the rest of us off.As the Theist is making the positive assertion that there is indeed a God the onus of proof is on him to produce evidence to back up the claim.The Atheist….simply lacking a belief, is under no such obligation as he is not making a positive claim to anything existing without evidence.As you can’t prove a negative the Atheist is left waiting for the Theist to stump up with a God.
And is there any chance of that happening anytime soon guys? We have lives to get on with you know.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 10:46 pm
@David in Chch
What’s your position on Santa?
And the Spaghetti Monster?
Zeus and Jupiter?
Alien abductions?
All agnostic?
So when I say there is no Zeus, Jupiter, Spaghetti Monster or Santa Claus is that also a belief statement?
It is impossible to prove something doesn’t exist. But you can say that something is highly improbable, or almost certainly doesn’t exist.
Vote:March 2nd, 2010 at 11:26 pm
Amen.
Vote:March 3rd, 2010 at 12:30 am
James, once you start changing the definiton of words to suit your argument, you have admitted you have no argument.
Vote:March 3rd, 2010 at 1:11 am
“James, once you start changing the definiton of words to suit your argument, you have admitted you have no argument.”
How so….?I defined my terms.A Theist is a beliver in a God….no?,an A-thiest lacks a belief in a God…no?.A so called Agnostic claims not to know either way…..no? Just what have I changed?
I am pointing out that the “Agnostic” position is actually a false alternative to the other two.A =A….a thing is something…it can’t be something else at the same time.If the Agnostic says “I cannot know if theres a God” by default he cannot claim a belief in a God so is an Atheist by default…..get it?
Vote:March 3rd, 2010 at 6:47 am
For the definitions it depends on what “god” is.
I have seen no indication or evidence that God exists. I accept that others, without evidence, believe in a god, so it is a concept that exists in their minds. So I don’t believe in God but know that many people do.
I don’t know what label that makes me and I don’t really care, for debate purposes (except for pedantic definition debates) it’s usually just easier to identify as agnostic or atheist because most arguments are between the “I believe in God”-ers and the “I don’t believe in gods”-ers.
Vote:March 3rd, 2010 at 7:19 am
James.
You are creating a false Yes/No position. The agnostic does not say there is no god, nor do they say there is a god. They say that it is impossible to know.
The atheist states categorically that there is NO god.
You can try to alter dictionary definitions all you want. You can try to categorise statements made by people as saying something other than what they say all you want. It doesn’t change the fact that agnostics see themselves in the middle – not willing or able to deny the existence of some supreme divine being, and nor willing or able to confirm or affirm such a being.
You say an atheist lacks a belief in a god. That is much softer than the usual atheist statements and the standard definitions, in that the atheist _denies_ the existence of such a being. That is a stronger and more definitive statement.
And eszett – exactly. That sounds like an agnostic statement at the end.
Vote:March 3rd, 2010 at 7:22 am
Now off to work.
Interesting to see what people added overnight. There are obviously a few insomniacs.
Vote:March 3rd, 2010 at 7:54 am
When I was much, much younger, a surfie, a young father (probably in that order of importance, at that age) I was certain two things would occur in the future, like by now:
1. The world would be atheist. Science would have won.
2. At our beaches and pools, at the very least, women would be routinely topless; perhaps even people routinely nude.
Instead, the world is rife with fundamentalism in all three strands of the Abrahamic religions, and our beaches are notable for their restraint.
Damn, damn, damn.
There is a moral in there somewhere!
Vote:March 3rd, 2010 at 8:51 am
Exactly.
Like the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming belief structure.
Just a blatant thread hijack attempt
Vote:March 3rd, 2010 at 9:06 am
I gotta side with James on this one.
It’s impossible to prove that unicorns DON’T exist. Does that mean that we all have to be ‘agnostic’ on the existence of unicorns? Does it mean that people who state ‘I don’t believe in unicorns’ are making a statement of belief equivalent to those that say ‘I do believe in unicorns?’
Vote:March 3rd, 2010 at 9:23 am
It’s also impossible to prove that unicorns DO exist. So yes, I am an agnostic, although I would lean towards the 99.99 % level of confidence that unicorns do not exist but are mythological representations of the rhinoceros. I consider “belief” and “faith” not to have confidence levels. They are black and white, yes and no, 0 % and 100 %. I am talking about science and “religion” (broadly defined), wherein the scientific statement is one that can be _tested_ and can potentially be found to be false, whereas religious statements are faith-based, and have nothing to do with observation, hypothesis testing and falsifiability. I think confidence levels are somewhat irrelevant in that case. I prefer testable vs untestable. But that’s just me and my personal view.
Also, I think when we get into the realm of mythological creatures and beings, then we step into a different style and level of discussion from the existence or non-existence of a supreme divine being. Adding the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus sort of trivialises the argument, IMO.
Vote:March 3rd, 2010 at 9:28 am
Oh, and Luc, I don’t see it as Science vs Religion (and I capitalised those words quite deliberately). I see it as science working with the tools it has at its disposal (which change and grow all the time) on the problems that can be addressed with those tools, whereas religion deals with what is within the purview of religion. As I am not a religious person, I cannot make general (or even many specific) statements about religion, except to note that it has had both positive and negative effects on the societies in which religion has played a role, and that I suspect is ALL societies.
Vote:March 3rd, 2010 at 10:07 am
Eszett,
You’re clutching at broken straws again: clearly out of desperation.
The fact is that I have never stated that we are currently living in the end times, I have put across some of the signs and examples of how this period might be near but I haven’t once argued that today is one of the last.
Because this day will come “like a thief in the night”, no one knows the exact time and date – only the Father.
Vote:March 3rd, 2010 at 10:40 am
The father of gravity, Isaac Newton worked it out – he estimated that the world would end no earlier than 2060. In predicting this he said, “This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail.”
Vote:March 3rd, 2010 at 2:24 pm
To assert a belief that there is no God, or even that there is “probably” no God, seems awfully narrow-minded. There’s an almost infinite number of definitions of “God” out there to explore, and to say all of them are an impossibility seems… well… unscientific. It’s certainly not something any good philosopher could ascribe to. Atheism is more about finding a smug sense of superiority than any serious study of the question of God.
The Bus Company are stupid for not taking the advertising revenue. Nobody has the right not to be offended, not even deists like myself (and I do find it offensive).
Finally, I get sick of the media going to St Matthews for comment, when those people don’t bloody well believe in God either.
Vote:March 3rd, 2010 at 4:06 pm
# Scott (510) Says:
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Jaime Raine — I am sad that you have left church. However I am not trying to be arrogant, I am pointing out what I consider to be the essential facts of atheism and I am defending Christianity.
However your comments are very troubled. Perhaps you should go find a quiet place and talk to God. Talk to him about these things. Perhaps God wants to talk to you?
Scott Mackay, you have obviously forgotten who I am as we used to go to the same Church together when you were still based in Christchurch.
Thank ‘God’, for lack of a better phrase, that I no longer subscribe to the whole idea of having to have a quiet chat with God in private anymore. Thank God that over the years I have shed the skins of Christianity, along the lines of this list:
2003: fear of alcohol.
2004: religious exclusivism.
2005: creationism, homophobia.
2006: belief in human depravity, belief in moral absolutes, belief in human separateness from ‘nature’.
2007: possessiveness in relationships, fear of sexual expression, fear of using naughty words.
2008: theism, reliance on self-denial as a self-concept, prejudice against mind-altering substances, prejudice against feminism, belief in the ‘purity’ of my own motives.
2009: monogamy-ism, assumption of own heterosexuality, prejudice against causing pain to others, belief that motives can or should be ‘pure’.
2010: reliance on alleged physical inhibition and perpetual ‘observer’ status as a self-concept, desire for marriage.
I think that it’s a bit of a shame you’re still caught up in Christian subculture. Most of us Canterbury Christians have since grown up and matured a bit more, stopped believing in the fairy tales we were raised to believe. I think this sums it up well:
I’m talking about doctrine and theology, as well as subcultural attitudes. In terms of doctrines, doctrines such as the notion that church dogma is from God, and therefore questioning it, and using your own mind is in essence an act of rebellion. Merely holding a view that differs from ‘what God has ordained’, is sinful, and requires repentance. And if you aren’t repentant, there is the doctrine of hell; that all those who are outside the church are destined to burn in eternal torment. Put these together, and and there is the threat; agree with us, or face the consequences. This means christians can be scared to ask questions, not wanting to be a rebel against God. At the same time, this means christians can treat non-believers with contempt, as by holding a different view, they must be in active rebellion against the Lord.
In terms of sub-culture, it can be a little more subtle (and often overlapping with theology). There is the separation of christians and non-christians, often fueled by christian disapproval of non-christian activities. Combined with a tendency for christians to marry only christians, this means christians are often ‘locked into’ christian subcultures, making it difficult for them to ever question the status quo, and making life outside of the subculture seem foreign and off-putting should anyone ever consider leaving christianity. And then again, there is the mixture of sadness / betrayal / contempt that christians express towards those who are on the outside, for those who refuse to accept christianity.
What’s my problem with it? Well, I have a number of reasons, which I have already hinted at. First, it can cause christians to treat non-christians badly, by treating them as rebellious for simply holding a different view. Especially christians who have ‘drifted away’, who are viewed with much sadness. Second, it can cause christians themselves a lot of unnecessary difficulty when going through life, it requires them to hold onto views that they may feel aren’t quite right, which can create an internal conflict. It also causes fear and worry if they question, and causes sadness and betrayal if anyone they know question and decide to become non-christian. Thirdly, it gets in the way of the truth, as christians are required to put their better judgment aside and accept whatever doctrine a particular church teaches. So christians can get in the habit of accepting things without proper evidence, and can become obsessed with what is right or wrong, and fail to make decisions based on what is best.
I’m a bit too lazy to address what you’ve written but you might recall this conversation we had with Ryan Sproull a few years back on Ian Wishart’s blog:
> Why love God if God is One who is not worth loving?
>
> Years ago I received a pamphlet called ‘Why Jesus’? And basically it =20=
> was a pamphlet full of testimonies of random people of random ages, =20=
> races, professions, etc. Talking about how finding Jesus has brought =20=
> them peace, freedom and forgiveness, and how basically to accept =20
> Jesus was the best decision one could ever make in their lives. I =20
> used to believe this.
>
> But as the years went on, I realised that the thriving Churches on =20
> Sunday mornings where one could witness the joy of worship, the =20
> bands, singing and hand clapping that at first appeared to be =20
> empowering started to bring gloom and anxiety when the suffering =20
> outweighed the joy of going to Church. It’s like how watching a =20
> movie might cheer you up sometimes, but not if your friend just died =20=
> in a car accident.
>
> GOD: So, what’s on the agenda today?
>
> ANGEL: Well, there are people watching their kids raped and starved =20=
> to death in Darfur.
>
> GOD: Africa bores me. What’s going on in New Zealand?
>
> ANGEL: Spousal and child abuse are rampant.
>
> GOD: Ugh. Don’t even want to think about it. What about… I know! =20
> Back pain! Does anyone need one leg to grow longer than the other?
>
> ANGEL: God, you’re in luck.
>
> What is good and evil? You have to define ‘good’. Here are a few =20
> presumptions:
>
> 1. God exists.
> 2. God is good.
> 3. God is all-powerful and all-knowing.
> 4. God intervenes in the world.
> 5. Child sexual abuse is evil.
> 6. Allowing an evil thing to happen, when you have the power to =20
> prevent it, is evil.
> 7. Child sexual abuse occurs.
>
> Basically, one of those statements must be false. They can’t all be =20=
> true. Denying (3) and (4) can be handy, but it’s not available to =20
> anyone who believes in miracles like healing a leg that has been =20
> causing back pain. Now of course the standard reply to such an =20
> argument is that it’s because we humans were created with ‘free =20
> will’. Without it we’d just be ‘robots’.
>
> Basically what that implies is that evil is a logical necessity in =20
> order for good to exist – although by the same logic God can’t exist =20=
> unless He Himself is created.
>
> If God wanted humans to choose love, doesn’t it seem contradictory =20
> that the tree Adam and Eve were forbidden to touch was said to offer =20=
> that very thing – the knowledge of good and evil? God says: “If you =20=
> eat from it you will surely die”. So of course God’s original =20
> intention must have been for us to be robots. Unless it was His plan =20=
> for Adam and Eve to eat the fruit.
>
> So if God had wanted the Garden of Eden to stay perfect and let Adam =20=
> and Eve remain untainted by good and evil, why put the tree there? =20
> To give them the ‘choice’? But if they’re better off without that =20
> choice, isn’t that kinda stupid?
>
> Perhaps God knew all along that they’d take the fruit, and put it =20
> there intentionally, so that they’d take it and learn some important =20=
> lessons – painful though it would be for all concerned – which would =20=
> ultimately be to humanity’s betterment with Jesus’ eventual =20
> atonement and our salvation.
>
> So why does He forbid them to touch it then? Is it even plausible to =20=
> say we’re somehow better off in a post-fall world? If it wasn’t so =20
> much that He was forbidding them, but just that He had to warn them, =20=
> in all fairness, that it would be a path of suffering, even though =20
> it would ultimately be the best, why not just say: “Adam and Eve, =20
> you have the following two options – to eat from the tree or not – =20
> you decide”. Instead, He says: “You must not eat it and that is not =20=
> a choice”.
>
> And then one could blame the fact that evil entered the world =20
> because Adam and Eve were tricked by Satan so God’s not responsible =20=
> for evil, Satan is – but who created Satan? If the Garden of Eden =20
> was perfect, why was Satan allowed in?
>
> But then putting aside whether free will is a valid argument, assume =20=
> that it is – and that the suffering in this world is just a result =20
> of our exercision of that free will. If that is the case – wouldn’t =20=
> it have been better for God not to have created at all?
>
> My mum works with disabled people and one of the teenagers she looks =20=
> after has multiple sclerosis. She can=92t move anything but her head =20=
> and some fingers on her hand. She=92s severely overweight and has to =20=
> be fed through a tube and takes a shit out of a tube. Her mum is a =20
> marriage counsellor and divorced and tells other people to be =20
> optimists but brought her daughter in party pills (legal nos) when =20
> they were still legal in order to cheer her up because she gets =20
> depressed all day. she looks forward to having sex with her mentally-=20=
> retarded boyfriend but has recently contracted some form of HIV =20
> which gives her much pain. This is just one of the tens of people my =20=
> mum looks after each day.
>
> She frequently asks mum to kill her. She goes to my old Church, =20
> Annesbrook Community Church, on Sunday, but the healings never =20
> worked and she’s actually sick of going because she isn’t happy and =20=
> on fire for Jesus like everyone else – she just goes because her =20
> Sunday carer is a Church goer and takes her in the hope of cheering =20=
> her up. She goes psycho if my mum tries to brush her teeth or give =20
> her an enema, resulting in her having all her teeth pulled out due =20
> to decay and being severely constipated and sick on a regular basis.
>
> And this might not be her fault. Maybe it’s Adam and Eve’s fault for =20=
> exercising free will and allowing evil to enter the world. =20
> Regardless, God has decided it was worth creating. When Job went =20
> through suffering and God allowed Satan to kill his wife and =20
> children just to prove that Job would remain faithful, Christians =20
> claim that this shows God is good because He ended up healing Job =20
> and giving him a new family. But I don’t actually see how that =20
> justifies the killing of his old family as if they were just mere =20
> objects in a grander scheme.
>
> I asked my pastor what the point of our existence was when some of =20
> us are lucky enough to have able bodies while others don’t. And he =20
> said to me: =93Our questions here, He=92ll answer there=94. Despite CS =
=20
> Lewis saying that the purpose of logic is to make us understand some =20=
> things are illogical, there’s nothing logical about being satisfied =20=
> with that kind of answer – we wouldn=92t trust anyone else to that =20
> degree. For example, if a Nigerian scammer asks for your money, you =20=
> don’t say: “I don=92t know if you=92re faithful with paying back money =
=20
> but I=92ll trust you by giving you all my money” – because that’s the =20=
> degree of trust we supposedly put in God while it is evident that =20
> suffering is all around us and the result of a plan that allowed =20
> free will gone horribly bad.
>
> Does God have the right to do whatever He likes with His creation? =20
> Does a mother have the right to do whatever she wants with her baby. =20=
> Presumably has a responsibility to take care of someone she =20
> voluntarily brought into the world. Perhaps she has the excuse of =20
> rape to justify an abortion – so if God made us and didn’t intend =20
> for sin to enter the way it did – then that is forgivable. But that =20=
> goes against the idea that He is all powerful.
>
> A just God would have at least ask for our consent before having us =20=
> be created into this world. If someone points a gun at you and says =20=
> you have two choices, either to deny his love and have him shoot you =20=
> and kill you, or accept his love and live with him forever. Because =20=
> that is a choice the non-Christian faces – to love and accept Jesus, =20=
> or end up in eternal separation from God (a nicer phrase for ‘where =20=
> the fire does not burn out and the worm never dies’). But the point =20=
> is – the victim never chose to have the gun pointed at them in the =20
> first place. We did not ask to be created by God. A victim has no =20
> obligation to accept the gunman. We have no obligation to love God. =20=
> It’s not free will, our de facto position is to either choose Hell =20
> or coerced love. There is nothing selfless about Jesus dying for our =20=
> sins – if you think about it critically, God is angry at us humans =20
> so must become a human to sacrifice Himself to Himself in order to =20
> satisfy His anger. It’s duress to say we must love Jesus because He =20=
> died for us, otherwise God will not be able to forgive our sins.
>
> Jesus said in John 9 the reason the man was blind wasn’t because =20
> anyone sinned, but so that He could show off His healing abilities. =20=
> That’s fine if you were that man, but not if you’re living in a =20
> disabled people’s home all your life. I used to take the bus from =20
> Christchurch to Nelson and it was 7 hours of absolute boredom. I =20
> could do it for a day, but these people have to do it all their =20
> lives. And most of the time they don’t have many friends, and are =20
> just lonely because they just sit in a wheelchair all day watching =20
> TV. One of my friends burnt herself to death ‘cos it had been over =20
> 40 years and she couldn’t take it anymore. Another one I knew =20
> committed suicide only after one year of being disabled (he got the =20=
> brain injury after playing basketball). If the injury happened to me =20=
> when I used to do Karate I don’t think I would have lasted a year =20
> before killing myself. All this suffering in the name of free will.
>
> Christians argue that God doesn’t force anyone into a relationship =20
> with Him – but He has effectively done that already. Anyone who =20
> believes the Bible to be the literal truth has no other option, =20
> unless they are into sado-masochism and the idea of being punished =20
> for their sins turns them on.
>
> Sometimes I sit in Church services and it seems the pastors think =20
> that the reason people don’t want to become Christians is because =20
> they love sinning too much – fornication or drugs or just the idea =20
> of not having an authority figure over them. That’s not why I’m not =20=
> a Christian. I didn’t leave the faith because I was too lazy and =20
> couldn’t put the effort into trying or loved lust too much and =20
> didn’t want to give it up.
>
> So why Jesus? One doesn’t need Jesus to be good or be happy so it =20
> seems the only reason to turn to Jesus is because there’s no other =20
> way God will give you any ‘grace’ and allow you into Heaven.
>
> Mark 9:47 states that if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It =20=
> would be better for you to enter into the Kingdom of God half-blind =20=
> than remain in possession of two. So in conclusion:
>
> 1. Why did He create imperfect angels that would fall.
>
> 2. Why did He allow a fallen angel into a good garden.
>
> 3. Why did He make Adam imperfect and weaker than temptation. It’s =20
> like giving a knife to a baby.
>
> A rich man says to a woman, marry me or I will kill you. The woman =20
> has no choice but to love him. But you cannot force someone to love =20=
> you just because they are rich and can provide you with lots of money.
>
> God says love me or I will destroy you. That’s not a real choice. A =20=
> real choice would be for the rich man to say: “If you don’t love me, =20=
> that’s fine – I’ll let you go”. Likewise God ought to say: “If you =20
> don’t love me, that’s fine. You don’t have to go to Hell”.
>
> I’ve been watching a lot of movies about the war recently, like =20
> Schindler’s List and The Pianist. A Jew is born in Nazi Germany. He =20=
> will be sent to a concentration camp simply for not having blond =20
> hair and blue eyes. Hitler should have said, if you are not perfect =20=
> I won’t torture and kill you. God should have said, if you aren’t =20
> Christian I won’t torture and kill you.
>
> So basically there are hundreds of NZers committing suicide each =20
> year. They don’t WANT the life they’ve been given. They didn’t ask to =20=
> be born, they didn’t ask to be in the circumstances they are in. Are =20=
> they in Hell if they aren’t Christian? Why should they be? Why =20
> should a Jew be killed when they didn’t ask to be in Germany? It’s =20
> not their fault they were there. Likewise God created us and has =20
> authority over what happens to us without our consent.
>
> A just God would not send us to Hell for not loving Him. He ought to =20=
> either: a) Allow us into Heaven, or: b) End our existence. According =20=
> to Luke 16, the afterlife is a place of eternal torment for non-=20
> believers (see Lazarus and the rich man).
>
> The Book of Job basically shows that life isn’t fair. So therefore =20
> God, the Creator of life, isn’t fair. People always ask, ‘Why did =20
> God create evil?’ They’re missing the real question: Why did God =20
> create anything at all?
>
> My friend who has multiple sclerosis is living death each day. For =20
> the past 21 years of her life her daily schedule consists of waking =20=
> up, taking an enema, sit and exist. Talk to carers, but mostly =20
> listening to their full able-bodied lives since you don’t really =20
> have a life to share. Maybe have family and friends visit for a =20
> couple of hours a day but that’s rare – and there’s still the other =20=
> hours of the day that have to be filled. Be showered, bedtime. =20
> Repeat for rest of life. Will God reward her when she dies? Perhaps. =20=
> But it’s not as black and white as just saying: “Oh, it’ll be sweet =20=
> when I die”. That downplays the incredulous amount of depression and =20=
> pain while here on earth. I can’t last a day on a bus.
Vote:>
> I think I’ve come to the point where I have to just be honest with =20
> myself and say: “I can no longer justify loving a God who is not =20
> worth loving if this is the creation He allows”. I have to stop =20
> defending Him for all the inconsistencies and brush them off as: =20
> “God knows best, sometimes we just don’t understand.”
March 3rd, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Actually Jaime Rainie I can think of one counter argument to the “if there is a god how can bad things happen” question. as a kid your parents might have denied you something like a lolly, something so obviously good that there can be no reason but spite to deny you it, or punished you for something you didnt think was wrong. But of course the parent is simply trying to protect you from harm, instil good dietary habits or whatever, but the child’s perspective is too narrow to see the bigger picture so all they see is the harm “if you love me why do you let/make bad things happen or prevent good things from happening?” could be the question a kid asks their parent.
Now if you subscribe to god the all knowing and all powerful (and not the bratty childish god of the Old Testament) then it could just be that on a bigger plane child abuse (or people starving or whatever) isn’t evil or bad, but necessary for our development/good etc, our view is just so limited we cant see the big picture.
Of course that all seems like crap to me but I’m sure passing the bottle or the bong around might help it make sense
Vote:March 3rd, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Jaime Rainie, why do you blame church for your naivety or gullibility (entirely your own fault for going to church)? Who forced you to go to church? Did the church minister come around to your house and forced you with a gun? Or perhaps, your own volition? How about blaming yourself for being a sucker and don’t blame the church. Was there force being used against your will by the church , then I believe you have a right to rant against them.
Vote:March 3rd, 2010 at 10:42 pm
David in CC: “It’s also impossible to prove that unicorns DO exist.”
No it isn’t…just find one and show us.I will accept the evidence of a real unicorn trotted out in front of me if someone can produce one,ditto God.Is it impossible to prove Lions exist?…or planets?….or…..Komodo Dragons? No…..someone at sometime found them and showed everyone else……the same is possible for a Unicorn.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 12:17 am
Falafulu Fisi – it’s called child abuse aye. I mean, you can raise a kid to believe anything – racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. Takes a lot of time to grow out of unfortunately and yes I am certainly ashamed that it took me as long as it did.
Per Dawkins: As long as children are young, vulnerable an in need of protection, truly moral guardianship shows itself in an honest attempt to second-guess what they would choose for themselves if they were old enough to do so.
Vote:Then he lists a whole bunch of detailed examples of American kids being raised in Christian families not using contraception ‘cos it’s been taught to be a sin, abortion, not giving their children medical help because of what the Church teaches about it (e.g. Jehovah’s Witnesses believing in prayer over blood transfusions), etc.
Whether or not there are shit parents out there – teaching children bullshit applies whether you are a good or shit parent.
If you are a good parent, you shouldn’t be teaching your children that God is real if He is not, or that horoscopes are real when they are not. If you are a shit parent, you shouldn’t teach those things either. You have good teachers and shit teachers at school too – that doesn’t mean the curriculum should teach fake things as well as real things. The curriculum should only teach education regardless of whether a teacher is good or bad.
Sure there are shit atheist parents out there – and good Muslim ones. Whether or not they are good or bad – neither should be teaching their kids about Islam being the one true religion unless it truly is the one true religion, which has as much validity as Christianity, Scientology or Greek mythology as being the one true religions.
You could have an excellent Exclusive Bretheren parent who gives their kids clothes and food and a shit atheist parent who beats their kids. On what grounds does that make what the Exclusive Bretheren parent teach right?
Is it OK for an Exclusive Bretheren to teach their kids that the rest of the world should be shunned so long as they do a good job at looking after their kids?
Well, perhaps on a physical level. But on a mental level – they’re just as deluded as Destiny Church members who want out but can’t because they think freedom from the Church is a sin.
March 7th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Well this thread has gone waaaay off topic anyway so here goes –
Jaime Raine – Christian parents have a moral duty to bring their children up Christian. Like other irresolvable disputes (abortion, etc – which I’m not going into now) you simply have two communities acting consistently with their beliefs. a good parent acts as they see to be moral. A (typical) Christian parent believes that Christianity is the one true faith. When it comes to bringing up their children, why would they care if you don’t?.
I for one am sick of online forums being swamped by Dawkins-wannabees demanding things of Christians so here’s one for them – its the problem of naturalism, which Dawkins made an absolute hash of last time he was asked about it:
Here’s one variant. Its easiest to imagine for a Newtonian (deterministic) universe but the same conclusion is reached with indeterminist physics too.
Assuming atheism, the state of physical systems are governed exclusively by the laws of physics.
Our bodies and brains are physical systems.
The state of our brains is determined exclusively by the laws of physics.
Our actions are determined by the state of our brains.
Our actions are determined exclusively by the laws of physics, as manifested in our brains.
Your actions are going to happen if the laws of physics say they will. Noone really has any choice in the matter (in the sense that they can change what physical laws demand must happen). As are the actions of Richard Dawkins, Jerry Falwell, Moqtada Al-Sadr, me, and everyone else who’s posted here.
So why, WHY would you want Christians to stop believing? If atheists are right, you and us are equally pathetically helpless to change how you act, even what you believe. Perhaps more importantly – if people are going to do what physical laws demand they do, why on earth would they be morally responsible for anything at all?
I am a Christian and a scientist (an inorganic chemist). I’ll take militant, forum-hijacking atheists seriously only when they can answer this rationally. To discourage teenagers clutching their copy of the god delusion from getting too fired up here, please note Dawkins himself acknowledges the argument (e.g. from 2 mins onwards into http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kCxn7lHnBc&feature=related)
Vote: