Does this explain why atheists post here?

PDN

The other day I lurked on the atheist and agnostic board (strange that they share a board. I would have thought that's like grouping Fine Gael with the "don't knows" in an election opinion poll). It was an interesting experience to see how some people's minds work.

I noticed that atheists themselves were debating why they keep coming to the Christianity forum, while far fewer of them frequent the Islam board. I remembered this little piece that John Piper wrote back at the time of the cartoon controversy. I thought it might shed some light. Basically, it proposes the idea that Christians are more likely to interact and discuss with those who mock them, rather than wanting to kill them, because being mocked is actually an essential part of Christ's mission, and indeed of the Church.

Thoughts and responses are welcome from any faith perspective.

Being Mocked: The Essence of Christ's Work, Not Muhammad's
By John Piper February 8, 2006

What we saw this past week in the Islamic demonstrations over the Danish cartoons of Muhammad was another vivid depiction of the difference between Muhammad and Christ, and what it means to follow each. Not all Muslims approve the violence. But a deep lesson remains: The work of Muhammad is based on being honored and the work of Christ is based on being insulted. This produces two very different reactions to mockery.

If Christ had not been insulted, there would be no salvation. This was his saving work: to be insulted and die to rescue sinners from the wrath of God. Already in the Psalms the path of mockery was promised: “All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads” (Psalm 22:7). “He was despised and rejected by men . . . as one from whom men hide their faces . . . and we esteemed him not” (Isaiah 53:3).

When it actually happened it was worse than expected. “They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on his head. . . . And kneeling before him, they mocked him, saying, ‘Hail, King of the Jews!’ And they spit on him” (Matthew 27:28-30). His response to all this was patient endurance. This was the work he came to do. “Like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth” (Isaiah 53:7).

This was not true of Muhammad. And Muslims do not believe it is true of Jesus. Most Muslims have been taught that Jesus was not crucified. One Sunni Muslim writes, “Muslims believe that Allah saved the Messiah from the ignominy of crucifixion.”1 Another adds, “We honor [Jesus] more than you [Christians] do. . . . We refuse to believe that God would permit him to suffer death on the cross.”2 An essential Muslim impulse is to avoid the “ignominy” of the cross.

That’s the most basic difference between Christ and Muhammad and between a Muslim and a follower of Christ. For Christ, enduring the mockery of the cross was the essence of his mission. And for a true follower of Christ enduring suffering patiently for the glory of Christ is the essence of obedience. “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account” (Matthew 5:11). During his life on earth Jesus was called a bastard (John 8:41), a drunkard (Matthew 11:19), a blasphemer (Matthew 26:65), a devil (Matthew 10:25); and he promised his followers the same: “If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household” (Matthew 10:25).

The caricature and mockery of Christ has continued to this day. Martin Scorsese portrayed Jesus in The Last Temptation of Christ as wracked with doubt and beset with sexual lust. Andres Serrano was funded by the National Endowment for the Arts to portray Jesus on a cross sunk in a bottle of urine. The Da Vinci Code portrays Jesus as a mere mortal who married and fathered children.

How should his followers respond? On the one hand, we are grieved and angered. On the other hand, we identify with Christ, and embrace his suffering, and rejoice in our afflictions, and say with the apostle Paul that vengeance belongs to the Lord, let us love our enemies and win them with the gospel. If Christ did his work by being insulted, we must do ours likewise.

When Muhammad was portrayed in twelve cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, the uproar across the Muslim world was intense and sometimes violent. Flags were burned, embassies were torched, and at least one Christian church was stoned. The cartoonists went into hiding in fear for their lives, like Salman Rushdie before them. What does this mean?

It means that a religion with no insulted Savior will not endure insults to win the scoffers. It means that this religion is destined to bear the impossible load of upholding the honor of one who did not die and rise again to make that possible. It means that Jesus Christ is still the only hope of peace with God and peace with man. And it means that his followers must be willing to “share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death” (Philippians 3:10).

Footnotes

1 Badru D. Kateregga and David W. Shenk, Islam and Christianity: A Muslim and a Christian in Dialogue (Nairobi: Usima Press, 1980), p. 141.

2 Quoted from The Muslim World in J. Dudley Woodberry, editor, Muslims and Christians on the Emmaus Road (Monrovia, CA: MARC, 1989), p. 164

Zombrex

The reason we (well I, and I assume others) don't go to the Islamic board is two fold

1 - Islam, as yet has far less impact in Ireland. This is though changing
2 - They would ban us

The second point is the main one, the charter in Islam is far less .. er ... accommodating to discussion that the Christian forum's charter

I would also point out that the article is nonsense. Christians have responded to "insults" such as "The Last Temptation of Christ", "The Life of Brian", and "Jerry Springer The Opera" not with calm turn the other cheek love and acceptance that Jesus will always be insulted, but with vocal outrage and calls for these insults to be banned and destroyed. And often they are successful. The Life of Brain was banned in Ireland and most cinemas in the UK refused to show it because of pressure from religious groups. Both the book and the film version of The Last Temptation.. were banned in various places and the author was excommunicated

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

The other day I lurked on the atheist and agnostic board (strange that they share a board. I would have thought that's like grouping Fine Gael with the "don't knows" in an election opinion poll). It was an interesting experience to see how some people's minds work.

I noticed that atheists themselves were debating why they keep coming to the Christianity forum, while far fewer of them frequent the Islam board. I remembered this little piece that John Piper wrote back at the time of the cartoon controversy. I thought it might shed some light. Basically, it proposes the idea that Christians are more likely to interact and discuss with those who mock them, rather than wanting to kill them, because being mocked is actually an essential part of Christ's mission, and indeed of the Church.

It's undoubtedly part of it. On the other hand, the way Christians can't resist blowing their own trumpet also has a terribly tempting effect...

amused,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

It's undoubtedly part of it. On the other hand, the way Christians can't resist blowing their own trumpet also has a terribly tempting effect...

amused,
Scofflaw

LOL ... was just about to say something along those lines

I'm not a fan of Islam, but I'm also not a fan of this rather smug idea Christians in the west have convinced themselves of, that their religion some how prohibits and protects against the kind of radicalism that a major concern in the Muslim world at the moment.

What actually protects the West (sometimes not very successfully) is the sense of secular liberal democracy that emerged from the Enlightenment.

This was influenced by Christianity, but not in the way that most Christians would expect. The continuous religious wars and persecution on religious grounds that dominated Europe for over 1000 years lead people to the conclusion that state and society should be free from the influences of religious groups, that individual freedoms and individual rights transcended religious ideas. This is demonstrated best in the US Constitution, that specifically separates the State and religion.

DinoBot

PDN wrote:

.... because being mocked is actually an essential part of Christ's mission, and indeed of the Church.

Thoughts and responses are welcome from any faith perspective.

Interesting post, sheads some light on the whole "suffering" thing christians hold so dear. Ive never really understood that aspect of your faith.

But to answer your question, from someone who does post more on the Islam board than the christian one, It is because of the rules in the charter of the Islam board that prevents people posting.

If the christian and Islam pages had the same rules you would see just as many people posting there as well IMO.

robindch

PDN wrote:

Does this explain why atheists post here?

Well, the article talks about mockery being essential to christianity and while I believe that christianity mocks itself quite effectively without much help from me, I can't immediately see why you would think that this article would explain why I post here.

I also note that in his rush to feel "bashed" -- a commonly-expressed emotion around here of late -- he can only produce three examples of this mockery, one of which says that Jesus was a normal human being (er, wasn't he?), and the other two of which go back twenty years. Compared, for example, to the enormity of the burning of witches or the trivial-by-comparison 1957 Fethard-on-Sea church-organized boycott, I must say that Piper's feelings of persecution seem a trifle over-wrought.

PDN

DinoBot wrote:

Interesting post, sheads some light on the whole "suffering" thing christians hold so dear. Ive never really understood that aspect of your faith.

But to answer your question, from someone who does post more on the Islam board than the christian one, It is because of the rules in the charter of the Islam board that prevents people posting.

If the christian and Islam pages had the same rules you would see just as many people posting there as well IMO.

So, do you think the different charters are as a result of the differing attitudes expressed in Piper's article?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

The other day I lurked on the atheist and agnostic board (strange that they share a board. I would have thought that's like grouping Fine Gael with the "don't knows" in an election opinion poll). It was an interesting experience to see how some people's minds work.

Sorry for sounding analy but arguing by analogy is a classical logical fallacy.
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic6.html

Anyway, usually huge confusion, discussion, disagreement over the meaning of the words agnostic and atheism and not over participating in Fine Gael and not knowing who you vote for.

PS
I find Christians with theological opinions commit more logical fallacies in their arguments than anyone else

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

So, do you think the different charters are as a result of the differing attitudes expressed in Piper's article?

I would imagine (and I'm just guessing here) that the Islamic charter reflects that fact that in the current political climate far more people have "issues" with Islam than simply a bunch of bored atheists with nothing better to do have with Christianity

DinoBot

PDN wrote:

So, do you think the different charters are as a result of the differing attitudes expressed in Piper's article?

Well no. I have had many discussions with muslims and christians alike and found them very much the same. I have not found that muslims find debating their faith hard at all. And never have I felt that christians like having their faith insulted or seen that as part of their faith. I think that is way off the mark.

I think the lslam board was just setup for the sole intention of use by muslims only with some odd poster from outside.

Schuhart

First the disclaimers – I’m not saying Christianity is absolutely tops because, as we know, it’s left a body count behind it. The historical picture, as I understand it, is that Christians were very peaceful folk for the first couple of hundred years. They endured all kinds of oppression and stuck to their beliefs in the face of it all. The religion got co-opted by the political power structure and all that changed. But, because of what Bertie Ahern would call ‘aggressive secularists’, the Church was simply forced to take a back seat. Hence, the tolerance we see has as much to do with secularist values as it has to do with Christianity.

Also, I think an amount of the heavy handedness that we’ve seen on occasion on the boards Islam forum has more to do with someone outside of that faith trying to judge what is or isn’t acceptable to people within it. In fairness, I sense a more open attitude over there in recent times.

However, I do think there are features within Islam that obstruct open debate. There is discussion within the faith. However, it tends to be couched in a thick layer of obsequious courtesy to camouflage any suggestion that someone is actually saying ‘this is just plain nonsense’. This kind of sensitivity must cause an amount of doublethink. But then doublethink is probably present in most theist outlooks.

I’d feel an amount of the problem Islam has with discussion is illustrated by the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. It’s a sort of Islamic response to the UN Declaration on Human Rights.

When someone says that the UN Declaration is based on Western values, it can seem all sort of ecofriendly to open the door to alternatives. But the Cairo Declaration amounts to limiting the rights of free expression, free choice in religion and allowing discrimination on grounds of gender and religious affiliation. I think that does move a body to say ‘actually, I think you are the people who need to reflect again on where you are coming from’. But that implies Islamic orthodoxy is just plain wrong which is hard to do unless you dress it up in language that suggests you fear for your very soul in daring to suggest it.

Conclusion? Yes, Islam as a faith does have a bit of a problem with being questioned. Christianity did too when it had political power, until secularist values displaced religion from the political realm.

ISAW

I think part of the reason about non believers and agnostics debating Christians is the link (pointed out bty the Pope recently and taken as a slight against Islam ) between Greek rationality Christianity and Western culture. Since Acquinas, greek rationaliuty has been subsumed into western culture. Mathematics and science are also founded on this. On the theological side God cant be irrational unlike an Islamic God which at the extremecan redefine the laws of reason. I am reminded of the descriptions of Aslan and Tash.
On the science side there have been attempts to underwrite some science with Eastern Mysticism e.g. linking tao with quantum physics and to reject rationality as part of rejecting causality but this hasn't encompassed the philosophy of science no more than memetics has comprehensively explained culture in a coherent way derived from basic foundations.

ISAW

dr.bollocko wrote:

Athiests post here because we love to totally blow your arguments out of the water using logic, science and intelligent insight rather than relying on random scripture, the occasional bible quote, and moaning about why all the athiests are ruining our imaginary friend fun with their logic.

Actually Christianity is based on reason just as science is. the SAME reason in fact! Empirical science isn't sufficient for society to be explained or to be managed and developed. That fairly blows all "all we need is science" argument out of the water! and i come from a background of supporting sicence. but it isnt everything. And even in a godless univers it STILL isnt everything! Science seperated from natural philosophy some time ago. But people still value arts, philosophy etc. To a pure business view these things are almost worthless and to one science view (while some view of science science may see it as creative) they value or creativity when impossible to measure or analyze are pointless. so where does that leave the scientific explaination of post modern science in a Godless world? thats is of course a trick question science post modern science isnt encompassed by empirical constraints. which means that what you call "science" can be subjected to as many arguments as what others call "God" can.

So don't please contradict others for having blind faith if as I suspect you either have blind faith in "science" or can't produce a reliable definition for the reliable and dependable "science".

ISAW

Tim Robbins wrote:

PS
I find Christians with theological opinions commit more logical fallacies in their arguments than anyone else

Christians in general possibly.

If you could cite say five examples from theological journals or papal speeches etc. outlining these logical fallacies and we can compare that to say world leaders and see who comes out as more fallacious. okay?

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote:

I also note that in his rush to feel "bashed" -- a commonly-expressed emotion around here of late -- he can only produce three examples of this mockery, one of which says that Jesus was a normal human being (er, wasn't he?), and the other two of which go back twenty years.

To dismiss his article because he 'only produced three examples' of Jesus' suffering seems like nitpicking to me, robin. Would it be more acceptable to you if he listed 20 insentiences of suffering? Let me guess - no!

::Edit::

The article links in nicely with the viewpoints held by the oppressed Chinese Christians PDN discussed in another thread.

Tim Robbins

ISAW wrote:

Christians in general possibly.

If you could cite say five examples from theological journals or papal speeches etc. outlining these logical fallacies and we can compare that to say world leaders and see who comes out as more fallacious. okay?

I would politics is exceptionally close to Christianity for bad logic.
They are both manifestations of the human condition and have little to do with valid logic. As for five examples, well that's time consuming so I'll label my post as my own subjective opinion based on my own experience and world view for now if that's ok. I see the philosophy of "faith" as an admission of having no logic.

ISAW

Schuhart wrote:

First the disclaimers – I’m not saying Christianity is absolutely tops because, as we know, it’s left a body count behind it. The historical picture, as I understand it, is that Christians were very peaceful folk for the first couple of hundred years. They endured all kinds of oppression and stuck to their beliefs in the face of it all. The religion got co-opted by the political power structure and all that changed. But, because of what Bertie Ahern would call ‘aggressive secularists’, the Church was simply forced to take a back seat. Hence, the tolerance we see has as much to do with secularist values as it has to do with Christianity.

Apparently Christ chose to die rather than kill his oppressors so his lesson was not born out by the practice . so you cant say it is Christian to slaughter people.


But - history lesson- it iddnt happen like you seem to think! Far more people have been killed by athiestic systems.

Also, I think an amount of the heavy handedness that we’ve seen on occasion on the boards Islam forum has more to do with someone outside of that faith trying to judge what is or isn’t acceptable to people within it. In fairness, I sense a more open attitude over there in recent times.

In response to the "FG lumped in with wont vote" comment you should pop over to the politics forum:)

A group of people there dont like me because i "argue agressively" and ask people to back up claims or shut up about them as fact and clarify it is their unsupported opinion. I got banned for insisting someone back up their claims. That person is a mod on another forum which (like Islam has been described) changed its charter and no all detractors are banned. I nearly got banned there a long time ago. I probably certainly would be now for asking people for evidence to support their claims.

So in short not all fora are the same it seems. In fact charters seem to radically differ. There is no "constitution" or overarching charter to apply to and the local "mod mindset" determines what to censor from that group.

In theological courts there is a guy called the "devils advocate". I try to play that in most groups.

But iot is simplistic and childish to say " so you believe in God - prove it! Prove god exists!" You may as well say "proove the universe exiats!" And you can and is a valid question but it is really baby stuff dealt with eons ago.

I perfer to say " you say you believe in x" and then point out how belief in X means something which is uncomfortable. This goes whether they say it is God, Fine Gael, Paranormal powers, athiesm or science.

so I seem to be anti establishment but in fact if someone attacks "scientists" "the church" Fianna Fail, or other institutions which are up front about their position I seek to expose what i suspect is their whinging.

However, I do think there are features within Islam that obstruct open debate. There is discussion within the faith. ...But then doublethink is probably present in most theist outlooks.

As in non theistic ones e.g. science and wave particle duality. Of course you may believe science is theistic!

ISAW

Tim Robbins wrote:

I would politics is exceptionally close to Christianity for bad logic.

Do you mean "what people say"? and not "politics". Im sure peer review journals and political text books are not chock full of fallacy. You must also know that many scientists are fallacious. Environmental scientists may say things whch to a physicist seem implausable. But the science in itself is rational. Just as poriests may say loony things but the theology is rational.

And christianity is not full of bad logic! It is very sophisticated in rational debate.

They are both manifestations of the human condition and have little to do with valid logic.

I humbly await you rational and logical explaination of this "human condition"!
Indeed if your apparent scientific alternative is all encompassing you should be able to explain how and when it will arrive at the explaination of this "human condition". which prompts my earlier reference to a medic or psych as a "scientist" not being the same as a mathematician or particle physicist.

As for five examples, well that's time consuming so I'll label my post as my own subjective opinion based on my own experience and world view for now if that's ok.

That is absolutley ok! your own unsupported opinion. which is no better than the opinion of others here that God exists.

I see the philosophy of "faith" as an admission of having no logic.

So you have no "faith" in science then because by your definition believing in science would have no logic to it?

Tim Robbins

ISAW wrote:

Do you mean "what people say"? and not "politics". Im sure peer review journals and political text books are not chock full of fallacy. You must also know that many scientists are fallacious.

Both. They are not "chock full of fallacy" but you get a better representation of the human condition then you do of logic.

Environmental scientists may say things whch to a physicist seem implausable. But the science in itself is rational. Just as poriests may say loony things but the theology is rational.

If theology is purely a rational philosophy why the need for "faith" then?

And christianity is not full of bad logic! It is very sophisticated in rational debate.

It's riddled with logical fallacy.

I humbly await you rational and logical explaination of this "human condition"!
Indeed if your apparent scientific alternative is all encompassing you should be able to explain how and when it will arrive at the explaination of this "human condition". which prompts my earlier reference to a medic or psych as a "scientist" not being the same as a mathematician or particle physicist.

Here's one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition

So you have no "faith" in science then because by your definition believing in science would have no logic to it?

Well I don't pray to Science or sing songs about it, although I would have no problem doing the latter. I think Science is an excellant way to achieve things or understand things of a material nature. By material I mean that of mater, not capitalist nature.
It's not a great way of telling you how to life you morals, you need something else for that. Philosophy for me or for some other people theology.

Scofflaw

ISAW wrote:

Actually Christianity is based on reason just as science is. the SAME reason in fact! Empirical science isn't sufficient for society to be explained or to be managed and developed. That fairly blows all "all we need is science" argument out of the water! and i come from a background of supporting sicence. but it isnt everything. And even in a godless univers it STILL isnt everything! Science seperated from natural philosophy some time ago. But people still value arts, philosophy etc. To a pure business view these things are almost worthless and to one science view (while some view of science science may see it as creative) they value or creativity when impossible to measure or analyze are pointless. so where does that leave the scientific explaination of post modern science in a Godless world? thats is of course a trick question science post modern science isnt encompassed by empirical constraints. which means that what you call "science" can be subjected to as many arguments as what others call "God" can.

So don't please contradict others for having blind faith if as I suspect you either have blind faith in "science" or can't produce a reliable definition for the reliable and dependable "science".

Let's be quite clear. There is no such thing as "post-modern science". Science remains entirely constrained by empirical constraints. The scientific method has not changed in any way to accommodate post-modernism. There are post-modernist attitudes to science, but they are almost entirely irrelevant to the process of science, and have generated nothing useful that I am aware of.

Other than that, I would agree with you that rationality is a major part of Christianity, although to claim that it is "founded" on rationality is incorrect - it is founded on faith, of course. It is also the case, as far as I can see, that Islam is not so wedded to rationalism. I felt it was rather unfortunate that Benedict chose to illustrate his point about this with the example he chose, but the principle was sound.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

So you have no "faith" in science then because by your definition believing in science would have no logic to it?

Well I don't pray to Science or sing songs about it, although I would have no problem doing the latter. I think Science is an excellant way to achieve things or understand things of a material nature. By material I mean that of mater, not capitalist nature.
It's not a great way of telling you how to life you morals, you need something else for that. Philosophy for me or for some other people theology.

Faith is not required, because the proof of the functionality of science is instantly available. That doesn't stop some people "doubting" science, but what they are "doubting" is almost invariably either a materialistic worldview, some particular scientific theory that they don't like (and generally don't understand), or the "elitism of scientists".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

So you have no "faith" in science then because by your definition believing in science would have no logic to it?

Well I don't pray to Science or sing songs about it, although I would have no problem doing the latter. I think Science is an excellant way to achieve things or understand things of a material nature. By material I mean that of mater, not capitalist nature.
It's not a great way of telling you how to life you morals, you need something else for that. Philosophy for me or for some other people theology.

Faith is not required, because the proof of the functionality of science is instantly available. That doesn't stop some people "doubting" science, but what they are "doubting" is almost invariably either a materialistic worldview, some particular scientific theory that they don't like (and generally don't understand), or the "elitism of scientists".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

ISAW wrote:

Apparently Christ chose to die rather than kill his oppressors so his lesson was not born out by the practice . so you cant say it is Christian to slaughter people.

That’s the usual disclaimer. I’m simply suggesting that once Christianity actually got into a position of having political power, it used it.

ISAW wrote:

But - history lesson- it iddnt happen like you seem to think! Far more people have been killed by athiestic systems.

I don’t particularly see how this contradicts what I’m saying. Yes, the French Revolution left a body count. So did Stalin. Does this mean that the reduction in the political power of mainstream Christianity hasn’t been forced on it?

ISAW wrote:

In response to the "FG lumped in with wont vote" comment you should pop over to the politics forum:)

Apologies, I’ve missed the significance of this remark.

ISAW wrote:

As in non theistic ones e.g. science and wave particle duality. Of course you may believe science is theistic!

I expect those with a science background will more coherently argue this point. However, my understanding of the kind of thing you refer to is that scientists acknowledge these flaws. They simply state that ‘within these assumptions, and in these situations, this predictable thing occurs. However, this is incompatable with other behaviours in other situations so we know we’re missing something.’ I’m not sure that transfers over into the situation I’m talking about where someone wants to retain the cultural affiliation that they’ve been raised in while simultaneously seeing it to be deeply flawed.

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Other than that, I would agree with you that rationality is a major part of Christianity, although to claim that it is "founded" on rationality is incorrect - it is founded on faith, of course. It is also the case, as far as I can see, that Islam is not so wedded to rationalism. I felt it was rather unfortunate that Benedict chose to illustrate his point about this with the example he chose, but the principle was sound.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I am open to correction on this but I think Christianity is founded on rationality and logic. The Jews learnt logic from the Greeks about 400BC and tried to apply it to their thinking, the Christians did the same, attempting to use Aristotle's laws of logic. The style of arguing in the Gospels for it's time is attempting to use logical reasoning.

Ok they weren't using the Scientific method, but were using classical Aristotelian logic or at least they claimed to be.
However, when alternative theories and arguments such as Darwin manifested, the logic and rationality of Christianity and Theology was seriously challenged and it became a philosophy of faith rather than logic. Also one might argue the standard of logic and critical thinking improved greatly in the last couple of centuries, especially with the scientific method which makes something that was once considered logical - not logical anymore.

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote:

Faith is not required, because the proof of the functionality of science is instantly available. That doesn't stop some people "doubting" science, but what they are "doubting" is almost invariably either a materialistic worldview, some particular scientific theory that they don't like (and generally don't understand), or the "elitism of scientists".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ban Scoflaw, he's double posting in attempts to get his post count up.

After studying a science in college I would have encountered the 'elitism' you speak of. I don't however think this was specific to the sciences, but academia in general. As a Christian, I am quite happy to incorporate science into my faith. I don't believe they are always at odds. It's strange that some atheists seem to see the world of science as their realm, but not a Christians.

Asiaprod

PDN wrote:

The other day I lurked on the atheist and agnostic board (strange that they share a board. I would have thought that's like grouping Fine Gael with the "don't knows" in an election opinion poll).

No, a lurker does not post, you posted both yesterday, and today:)

PDN wrote:

It was an interesting experience to see how some people's minds work.

I'm enjoying yours.

Zombrex

While I suppose for the sake of my own sanity I will let the idea that Christianity is founded on the principles of reason slide (arguing against that idea would probably require a thread and a half), I am slightly curious as to how people support the idea that Islam is devoid of reason by its very nature, as the Pope suggested in his speach.

This TIME article is an interesting take on the problems of the Popes ideas

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1536581-1,00.html

As I said earlier I'm no fan of Islam, but equally I'm a little baffled as to why Christians here believe their religions is far more rational based than Islam. Is it simply because of the spate of fundamentalists violence that has gripped the Muslim world in the last few decades?

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

The reason we (well I, and I assume others) don't go to the Islamic board is two fold

1 - Islam, as yet has far less impact in Ireland. This is though changing
2 - They would ban us

I go to the islam forum, I've made a couple posts and read a few threads but I don't think I know enough about it to argue it with them whereas I'm more familiar with christianity.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote:

After studying a science in college I would have encountered the 'elitism' you speak of. I don't however think this was specific to the sciences, but academia in general. As a Christian, I am quite happy to incorporate science into my faith. I don't believe they are always at odds. It's strange that some atheists seem to see the world of science as their realm, but not a Christians.

Yeah I'd agree with that they are not always at odds.
There are many top class Scientists today, with strong faiths.
However, they would stress faith and not deductive logic or a testable theory as their reason for their belief. Most of them are not Biblical literalists, the literalists usually don't know much about Science IMO.

Asiaprod

bluewolf wrote:

.... read a few threads but I don't think I know enough about it to argue it with them whereas I'm more familiar with christianity.

This is me too. Though, I have been reading up on Islam.

On an aside, As to this stuff about Charters. The process to form a forum is that the idea for a forum is presented, debated, approved, and mods are selected from those posters that supported the creation of the said forum and showed that they understood the content in a manner that would lead to a healthy new community. These new mods pen a charter that they feel best represents the goals of the new forum ( bear with me, I have to say this stuff). Visitors abide by the charter.
We can debate the contents of the Islam charter constructivley, but we should remember its not an issue of right or wrong. Its the charter for that forum and one that visits it, should abide by it.

Hm, there's currently a priest in the sitting room maybe I should go interrogate him

Dave!

Christians don't like or appreciate or see benefit in being mocked. Maybe JC needed to be mocked, but to take the Christianity forum as an example, we had a large section of the posters seeking to have Christian 'safe-zones' in the forum where atheists can't question them Ya didn't see Jesus doin that crap! He put up with the abuse! I think there is no relationship between the suffering of Jesus and atheists posting here.

There's been at least 3 threads on this already...... As I've said repeatedly, for me, and I expect for most people on boards, we grew up in a Christian country, went to Catholic schools, went to mass every weekend when I was young, and learned about Christianity since I was in primary school......... I've had no exposure to Islam except for the last few years, and in that there was minimal exposure or discussion about the actual beliefs of Muslims, or the Quran. I do not know alot about Islam, whereas I know a decent amount about Christianity. That is why I post in the Christianity forum and for the most part stay out of the Islam forum.

Fanny Cradock

DaveMcG wrote:

we had a large section of the posters seeking to have Christian 'safe-zones' in the forum where atheists can't question them

This is not entirely true. The reasons for these 'Christian only threads' - of which I can only recall one - is not for fear of what you big, bad atheists might say, rather it's a case of trying to sound out fellow Christina ideas and thoughts on a specific aspect of their faith without fear of it being sidetracked.

Dave!

If a thread is going off-topic, the mod says "back on topic" or else bans people. The posters wanted a Christian-only zone so that everything could be answered from a Christian perspective, and Christians wouldn't have to read crazy atheistic notions about it being impossible for humans to walk on water.

Son Goku

ISAW wrote:

I think part of the reason about non believers and agnostics debating Christians is the link (pointed out bty the Pope recently and taken as a slight against Islam ) between Greek rationality Christianity and Western culture. Since Acquinas, greek rationaliuty has been subsumed into western culture. Mathematics and science are also founded on this. On the theological side God cant be irrational unlike an Islamic God which at the extremecan redefine the laws of reason. I am reminded of the descriptions of Aslan and Tash.

Nonsense, Modern mathematics is much closer in practice to how it was done by Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī and his acedemic descendants (e.g. Al-Jayyani and the greatest mathematician of the first millenium, Al-Karaji). Also, the modern scientific method is inherited just as much from the works of Alhazen, Avicenna and the book of Optics as it is from Greek rationality.
Islam has as much of a rational history as Christianity.
(Also wave-particle duality isn't double think)

Anyway, the reason I'm here is that there isn't as much nonsense spouted about science on the Islam forum and the charter thing.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote:

This is not entirely true. The reasons for these 'Christian only threads' - of which I can only recall one - is not for fear of what you big, bad atheists might say, rather it's a case of trying to sound out fellow Christina ideas and thoughts on a specific aspect of their faith without fear of it being sidetracked.

I think the root of the problem is that not that many Christians use boards.ie or feel comfortable talking about their faith. Most thinkers and intellectuals (I stress not all) are atheists nowadays.

PS
I mean that sincerely, appreciate it sounds very arrogant.

philologos

We discuss our faith plenty even on this forum. Mind you, we are slightly reluctant due to the fact that much of these threads to discuss faith are often hijacked. Notably, the thread about Christianity being an experiential faith, where Tim Robbins (you) decided to change the topic to discuss violence in Christianity.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

I think the root of the problem is that not that many Christians use boards.ie or feel comfortable talking about their faith. Most thinkers and intellectuals (I stress not all) are atheists nowadays.

PS
I mean that sincerely, appreciate it sounds very arrogant.

Well, most arrogant people are sincerely arrogant.

If you were not really arrogant then you would be insincere when you sounded arrogant.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Well, most arrogant people are sincerely arrogant.

If you were not really arrogant then you would be insincere when you sounded arrogant.

Brilliant!

Fanny Cradock

DaveMcG wrote:

If a thread is going off-topic, the mod says "back on topic" or else bans people. The posters wanted a Christian-only zone so that everything could be answered from a Christian perspective, and Christians wouldn't have to read crazy atheistic notions about it being impossible for humans to walk on water.

In theory that is how it should work. However, the reality is not so straight forward. Once a thread has been diverted it is very difficult to get it back on track. Banning isn't as simple an option as you suggest either (Mods, I'm not telling you your business - just giving my opinion), the recent "I was banned from the Christianity forum" thread would be a good example of that. In fairness to the atheists/ agnostics, their responses were largely unexpected by me in their even-handedness towards the matter.

I think you grossly exaggerate the gentleman's agreement that is in place here. To claim this is being turned into a Christian-only zone is pie in the sky hyperbole. As I've already stated, in the weeks that this has been in place, I can only think of one instance where it has been used. Hardly a new Crusade, is it?

Tim Robbins wrote:

I think the root of the problem is that not that many Christians use boards.ie or feel comfortable talking about their faith. Most thinkers and intellectuals (I stress not all) are atheists nowadays.

You are probably correct. I often feel that Christians remain silent about their faith for a variety of reasons - peer pressure, not wishing to offend or cause a fuss, fear etc. - probably none of which relates to this specific post.

It's just a small point, and nothing that I'm overly concerned about, but I wouldn't agree that most thinkers or intellectuals are atheists. I'm unsure how you define a 'thinker' or 'intellectual', but as far as I'm concerned your religious faith (or lack of) doesn't necessarily enter into the definition of either. I'd also argue that the numbers of people in agreement doesn't equate to correctness. To use an example you may appreciate, when Christendom was at it's height, would a majority of intellectuals claiming to be Christians do anything to convince you otherwise about you atheist beliefs? I'm guessing when I say the the answer is "no!"

Dave!

Fanny Cradock wrote:

In theory that is how it should work. However, the reality is not so straight forward. Once a thread has been diverted it is very difficult to get it back on track. Banning isn't as simple an option as you suggest either (Mods, I'm not telling you your business - just giving my opinion), the recent "I was banned from the Christianity forum" thread would be a good example of that. In fairness to the atheists/ agnostics, their responses were largely unexpected by me in their even-handedness towards the matter.

I think you grossly exaggerate the gentleman's agreement that is in place here. To claim this is being turned into a Christian-only zone is pie in the sky hyperbole. As I've already stated, in the weeks that this has been in place, I can only think of one instance where it has been used. Hardly a new Crusade, is it?

I never said what was being sought was actually implemented. It was suggested by someone and a bunch of others came in with support for the idea. It was opposed by others and so a compromise was agreed upon.

philologos

Surely you can see why us Christians would want to speak to eachother about certain things without atheist interruption?

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

I am open to correction on this but I think Christianity is founded on rationality and logic. The Jews learnt logic from the Greeks about 400BC and tried to apply it to their thinking, the Christians did the same, attempting to use Aristotle's laws of logic. The style of arguing in the Gospels for it's time is attempting to use logical reasoning.

Ok they weren't using the Scientific method, but were using classical Aristotelian logic or at least they claimed to be.
However, when alternative theories and arguments such as Darwin manifested, the logic and rationality of Christianity and Theology was seriously challenged and it became a philosophy of faith rather than logic. Also one might argue the standard of logic and critical thinking improved greatly in the last couple of centuries, especially with the scientific method which makes something that was once considered logical - not logical anymore.

I mostly agree, but for one detail. Christianity can be regarded as founded on rationality and logic only if the initial belief in God is rational and logical.

Once past that initial leap of faith, I would agree with you. Indeed, science itself grew from the rational Christian enquiry into how God made the world.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote:

You are probably correct. I often feel that Christians remain silent about their faith for a variety of reasons - peer pressure, not wishing to offend or cause a fuss, fear etc. - probably none of which relates to this specific post.

It goes both ways, many atheists feel frustrated about having to keep quiet about their views, in this day and age. This is usually amongst conservative or older company, relations, in laws etc who just couldn't deal with the arguments which challenge their world view.

I'm unsure how you define a 'thinker' or 'intellectual' but as far as I'm concerned your religious faith (or lack of) doesn't necessarily enter into the definition of either.

Agree it's a subjective thing to define an intellectual. But
right now, if you look at Philosophy, any philosopher who is up to international standards, and if you consider that a good benchmark is usually not a Christian. Whereas pre Darwin, quite a lot were. In fact, the only contemporary international class philosophers I know are categorically atheist.

Or say if you look at the Nobel prizes for Physics, I can't think of any that believe in 6 day creationalism. I accept many have a faith of sorts, but they usually keep it to themselves as a personnel thing.

I am pretty much much certain the same is the case with international Chess players or any yarstick where one would find a high degree of intellectuals.

But you are correct, strictly speaking, "your religious faith (or lack of) doesn't necessarily enter into the definition of either."
My point is just based on my own observation.

I'd also argue that the numbers of people in agreement doesn't equate to correctness. To use an example you may appreciate, when Christendom was at it's height, would a majority of intellectuals claiming to be Christians do anything to convince you otherwise about you atheist beliefs? I'm guessing when I say the the answer is "no!"

I would agree 100% there. But I would say historically people like William Paley, Anslem were undoubtably intellectuals, as was Newton and Copernicus. There's a long list.

I have no doubt I would have believed in God in those days.

But since Darwin the number of intellectuals (agree it's hard to define with exactness what makes an intellectual) arguing Christianity has been rapidly in decline. It has become a "faith" or a vague fuzzy thing based or ancestoral tradition, but not a logic thing that people can enter and argue following Aristotelian logic.

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

I mostly agree, but for one detail. Christianity can be regarded as founded on rationality and logic only if the initial belief in God is rational and logical.

Once past that initial leap of faith, I would agree with you. Indeed, science itself grew from the rational Christian enquiry into how God made the world.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Excuse the second post.
I haven't studied ancient history or ancient philosophy in detail, but as far as I know it was not considered a leap of faith back then. The concept of faith, I think was only recently introduced when the concept of logic to argue theology fell apart.

I am talking from Jews in Aristotle times to Aquainus to Calvin, etc. In their time, it would have been considered that they were logical and not violating aristotlean logic.

However, I know Epicurius challenged the notion of God, so I am not totally sure about solid the argument: "the theism was founded on logic" is. It's an interesting subject alright.

Might bring it up again in a few weeks after some research.

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote:

I am slightly curious as to how people support the idea that Islam is devoid of reason by its very nature, as the Pope suggested in his speach.

This TIME article is an interesting take on the problems of the Popes ideas

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1536581-1,00.html

I’m not sure that the Time article is picking up the issue of rationality that the Pope was making.

I can’t find the link, but I recall reading something by a liberal Muslim a while back saying that, in his opinion, Islam took a wrong turning away from logic hundreds of years ago, illustrated by a division of views between an Imam al-Ghazali who wrote a text called the Incoherence of the Philosophers which argued for faith over reason and a philosopher called Ibn Rushd or Averroes, who wrote a response called The Incoherence of the Incoherence, which defended rationalism. The article I read was suggesting al-Ghazali's work supported the orthodoxy and was accepted, while Averroes was substantially rejected by the mainstream.

I’ve never really had the time to get into those texts to see what he meant, and I’m not suggesting that a debate between two intellectuals determines the direction of a religion. If some ideas triumph over others, as we know, frequently we find factors other than the logic of their respective cases came into play (which is not to say that ideas have no influence). But certainly the proposition ‘nothing happens except what God wills’ does seem to feature very strongly in Islam to a greater extent than in Christianity.

That’s not to say that you won’t find Christians who believe that God might suspend the laws of nature to achieve some result. Just that Islam seems to place quite a strong reliance on the idea that if something happens, its needs no more explanation than it being God’s will – and acceptance of God’s will as beyond our understanding.

ISAW

Schuhart wrote:

That’s the usual disclaimer.

"you would say that wouldn't you" isn't really a strong counter arguemetn is it?

I’m simply suggesting that once Christianity actually got into a position of having political power, it used it.I don’t particularly see how this contradicts what I’m saying.

Because it is not what you are saying! you are cnfusing "christianity" i.e. the example christ gave and church hieratchy and political organisation. there is no biblical or christian necessity for the Vatican. In fact it didnt exist for most of the churches history.

Yes, the French Revolution left a body count. So did Stalin. Does this mean that the reduction in the political power of mainstream Christianity hasn’t been forced on it?

No it means that claims of the church or any other religion being the biggst cause of death in history is not correct! The Church again is confused with temporal instutions of the Church. The church is the people in it. The hierarchy and clergy are a small minority and are no more worthy of heaven than the laity.

’ I’m not sure that transfers over into the situation I’m talking about where someone wants to retain the cultural affiliation that they’ve been raised in while simultaneously seeing it to be deeply flawed.

But the whole reformation pointed to human flaws affecting the institutions! Did that mean that because people were doing wrong ( wrong being against christ's will) that the definition of "wrong" was wrong? of course it didnt! It meant that people in power were turing away form the message for selfish reasons. that doesnt mean Christ was wrong does it?

ISAW

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Ban Scoflaw, he's double posting in attempts to get his post count up.

I have him on ignore but to be fair there are bugs that mean you may double piost.

After studying a science in college I would have encountered the 'elitism' you speak of. I don't however think this was specific to the sciences, but academia in general.

and it was this mind set with which the galileo had a run in! Not necessarily the "believers" in God but more so the academics of the day.

As a Christian, I am quite happy to incorporate science into my faith. I don't believe they are always at odds. It's strange that some atheists seem to see the world of science as their realm, but not a Christians.

Proof of the functionality of religion is also instantly available. As ids proof of the functionality of nukes WMD small arms mines all made by technologies developed in the recent past by science and scientists.

scpofflaw wrote:

That doesn't stop some people "doubting" science, but what they are "doubting" is almost invariably either a materialistic worldview, some particular scientific theory that they don't like (and generally don't understand), or the "elitism of scientists".

No! Take questions like "how should information be made available in the emergent society"? or "should genetic engineering be regulated"? these are not questions for science to derive answers to. science requires guidance and judgement form OUTSIDE science! As such it is not sufficient for society to function!

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

While I suppose for the sake of my own sanity I will let the idea that Christianity is founded on the principles of reason slide (arguing against that idea would probably require a thread and a half), I am slightly curious as to how people support the idea that Islam is devoid of reason by its very nature, as the Pope suggested in his speach.

I didnt say devoid! the Pope referred to "dehellinisation" periods. I believe his intention was refering to the church internally. Liberation theology and that kind ofg thing. But the reference was made to Islamic scholar who basically stated that if god wanted to say the Bible wasnt inspired by him and change the laws of the Universe then that would be up to him. a christian wouldnt make a "God can break gods laws and make them up as he pleases" argument.

Schuhart

ISAW wrote:

"you would say that wouldn't you" isn't really a strong counter arguemetn is it?

That's not the counter argument. What followed that remark was. But it certainly was fair to, in passing, note the element of ritual in your response.

ISAW wrote:

you are cnfusing "christianity" i.e. the example christ gave and church hieratchy and political organisation. there is no biblical or christian necessity for the Vatican. In fact it didnt exist for most of the churches history.

Right, the old 'those Catholics aren't really Christian' argument. Hardly credible.

ISAW wrote:

No it means that claims of the church or any other religion being the biggst cause of death in history is not correct!

Did I say that it was? I just said when Christianity was co-opted by the political authority that it forgot what it was like to be persecuted. Can you respond to the points I made rather than the points you wished I'd made?

ISAW wrote:

It meant that people in power were turing away form the message for selfish reasons. that doesnt mean Christ was wrong does it?

I note this doesn't actually relate to the point I was making in that quote, but I'll still take the question. I'm quite prepared to believe that you are the only real Christian. But first you have to get the Vatican to give up their claims to the title. It shouldn't be that hard. After all, the gates of Hell can't prevail against you.

Scofflaw

ISAW wrote:

I have him on ignore but to be fair there are bugs that mean you may double piost.

Well, they're two separate posts, just in quick succession. Have you still got me on ignore? Probably for the best...

ISAW wrote:

Proof of the functionality of religion is also instantly available. As ids proof of the functionality of nukes WMD small arms mines all made by technologies developed in the recent past by science and scientists.

...since it means I can ignore this kind of thing.

ISAW wrote:

No! Take questions like "how should information be made available in the emergent society"? or "should genetic engineering be regulated"? these are not questions for science to derive answers to. science requires guidance and judgement form OUTSIDE science! As such it is not sufficient for society to function!

Indeed - these are policy questions, and quite irrelevant to science per se. They are relevant only to how science is regulated or used, not how it is done.

cordially,
Scofflaw