Belief in God versus the Evolutionist's put down

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote: »

Is he getting angry at all religious people?

My understanding of what he is saying is that he gets angry with those who wish to push religion into the realm of general social policy. As you say that isn't all religious people.

It's a sweeping generalisation. When atheists get angry at "religious people who do X", it is taken as read that we are angry at all religious people.

You can support this position with a neat piece of pseudo-logic:

1. (some) atheists are angry at (some) religious people for meddling in government

2. the defining characteristic of the people the atheists are angry with is religion

3. therefore, the atheists are angry with religion

4. therefore, if you have religion, the atheists are angry with you

5. grr grr, angry atheists

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's a sweeping generalisation. When atheists get angry at "religious people who do X", it is taken as read that we are angry at all religious people.

You can support this position with a neat piece of pseudo-logic:

1. (some) atheists are angry at (some) religious people for meddling in government

2. the defining characteristic of the people the atheists are angry with is religion

3. therefore, the atheists are angry with religion

4. therefore, if you have religion, the atheists are angry with you

5. grr grr, angry atheists

cordially,
Scofflaw

You left out step 2.5:

2. 5 The defining characteristic of the people getting angry is that they are atheist.

PDN

bonkey wrote: »

deVore wasn't the first to engage in such sweeping generalisations on this thread. His generalisation is no more 'totally wrong' then those used by the OP to both equate 'atheist' with 'evolutionist', and indeed to tar all atheists with the same brush.

Indeed. I think the OP owes an apology to all the atheist creationists out there.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Indeed. I think the OP owes an apology to all the atheist creationists out there.

Its funny considering how well supported Creationism is, scientifically of course, how few of them you find

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

Indeed. I think the OP owes an apology to all the atheist creationists out there.

And the theistic evolutionists...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote: »

Would we find it hard to find Christian posters who believe that the law of the land should reflect Christian morality, though?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think the goal post are being shifted slightly here. The original accusation was that we Christians want to impose a theocracy upon the state. Something that has been refuted. Does this suffice?

To quote C.S. Lewis on this matter:

If there were such a [Christian] society in existence and you or I visited it, I think we should come away with a curious impression. We should feel that its economic life were very socialistic and, in that sense, ‘advanced’, but that its family life and its code of manners were rather old fashioned — perhaps even ceremonious and aristocratic. Each of us would like some bits of it, but I am afraid very few of us would like the whole thing.

I see no problem with certain aspects of Christian morality being integral to the laws of our land. Indeed, I would argue that many of the existing laws are grounded in Christian morality.

Scofflaw wrote: »

And the theistic evolutionists...

Forget them... they are not as easy a target as young earth creationists.

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think the goal post are being shifted slightly here. The original accusation was that we Christians want to impose a theocracy upon the state. Something that has been refuted. Does this suffice?

Bear with me! It's a trap. I've temporarily moved the goalposts in order to dig a pit, but I will be putting them back in due course.

Just to point out where they were exactly, though - "the increasing invasion of the secular state by the christian right, organised by powerful religious organisations" is not actually the same as "Christians want to impose a theocracy upon the state".

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I see no problem with certain aspects of Christian morality being integral to the laws of our land. Indeed, I would argue that many of the existing laws are grounded in Christian morality.

So, you would promote the idea that the laws of the land should reflect aspects of Christian morality?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Forget them... they are not as easy a target as young earth creationists.

Well, they're not nearly as funny, anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

So, you would promote the idea that the laws of the land should reflect aspects of Christian morality?

I refer you to post #83

Soul Winner

bonkey wrote: »

deVore wasn't the first to engage in such sweeping generalisations on this thread. His generalisation is no more 'totally wrong' then those used by the OP to both equate 'atheist' with 'evolutionist', and indeed to tar all atheists with the same brush.

I didn't do that though. What I asked was thus:

"...who are atheist in your convictions and those of you who believe evolution..."

the word 'AND' seperates the two views it does not equate.

I'm really enjoying all your replies I will endeavour to reply in full to the other posts when I get time. Just thought I'd clear this little one up first.

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote: »

Bear with me! It's a trap. I've temporarily moved the goalposts in order to dig a pit, but I will be putting them back in due course.

So, you would promote the idea that the laws of the land should reflect aspects of Christian morality?

cordially,
Scofflaw

A trap, eh! Scofflaw, you fiend.

It seems you want a particular answer given before we Christians unwittingly pitch ourselves head first into your pit. I'd have to side with none other than C.S.Lewis and PDN on this matter, though.

To reiterate: I believe that the laws of the land already reflect aspects of Christian morality *Queue the angry chorus*. In light of this my personal opinion doesn't really matter.

A question, though. When you say 'should' what does this actually entail?

BrianCalgary

OK, maybe I'll bite.

No matter who you are you have beliefs as to how a country should be run both economically and socially.

I am a Christian so I believe that if our society was run based on Judeo-Christian values we would have ot pretty good.

The non-Christian would scream, 'you're not letting me do what I want though, you're strangling me.' Prohibition here comes to mind.

The non-Christian would then get involved in politics and bring there morality into the picture and strive to impose his morals on that same society.

Prohibition goes. The pendulum swings the other way. Here comes the Christian, 'alcoholism and drunkenenss is destroying our society, outlaw liquor and alcohol.'

To which the non-Christian says, 'beware the Christian right. They are trying to impose their outdated values on our society.'

philologos

Scofflaw wrote: »

So, you would promote the idea that the laws of the land should reflect aspects of Christian morality?

If only, that would be fantastic in my opinion!

robindch

FC wrote:

I see no problem with certain aspects of Christian morality being integral to the laws of our land.

Brian wrote:

I am a Christian so I believe that if our society was run based on Judeo-Christian values we would have ot pretty good.

Jakkass wrote:

If only, that would be fantastic in my opinion!

Well, if you guys had write-access to the Statute Book, what laws would you enact? Please be specific -- remember you're writing laws that must be interpreted by judges!

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

Well, if you guys had write-access to the Statute Book, what laws would you enact? Please be specific -- remember you're writing laws that must be interpreted by judges!

:eek: I sometimes wonder why we leave it up to judges as opposed to the heart intent of a law.

robindch

Brian wrote:

I sometimes wonder why we leave it up to judges as opposed to the heart intent of a law.

It's all to do with things like the independence of the judiciary, the delicate balance of power, the transparency of process, encouraging legislators to draft clear laws, the relationship between the rulers and the ruled, the use of precedence, the value of consistency, the powers of the enforcers and so on.

Democracy doesn't work if interpreters are allowed to decide that a piece of text means something other than what it says (which, I suspect, may be the cause of your unhappiness with judges).

Anyhow, some suggested "christian-derived" laws anybody? Yiz're all uncharacteristically quiet...!

Scofflaw

robindch wrote: »

Anyhow, some suggested "christian-derived" laws anybody? Yiz're all uncharacteristically quiet...!

Tricky. After all, prohibitions against robbery, theft, murder, rape, false witness, etc etc turn up in all ancient law tracts from Ur-Nammu (2100BC) on.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pinksoir

A new thread perhaps?

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Anyhow, some suggested "christian-derived" laws anybody? Yiz're all uncharacteristically quiet...!

That's because we realise you rabbit atheists are chomping at the bit, so to speak. Admittedly I don't have the specific knowledge to tie the origins of legal system to Christianity. But do you believe that, in our ounce overtly Christian country (and I apply that statement in general terms), Christian morality has not shaped our laws?

robindch wrote: »

Well, if you guys had write-access to the Statute Book, what laws would you enact? Please be specific -- remember you're writing laws that must be interpreted by judges!

I'm quite happy to let the legislators decide matters of State. That's their role after all. I feel absolutely no compunction for not do their job for them.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Anyhow, some suggested "christian-derived" laws anybody? Yiz're all uncharacteristically quiet...!

I could mention some, but you'd be crying out about how they aren't in the "moral Zeitgeist".

One that comes to mind would be measures on adultery. I believe the promises of marriage should be legally protected.

Ireland's policy on abortion is most favourable at the minute.

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That's because we realise you rabbit atheists are chomping at the bit, so to speak. Admittedly I don't have the specific knowledge to tie the origins of legal system to Christianity. But do you believe that, in our ounce overtly Christian country (and I apply that statement in general terms), Christian morality has not shaped our laws?

It's very hard to see where they have, really. However, I think my original question "would we find it hard to find Christian posters who believe that the law of the land should reflect Christian morality", has been answered. We evidently wouldn't.

As to how you'd identify specifically Christian laws, I'm not sure. Has anyone any suggestions as to how you identify a specifically Christian law? Coincidence with the Bible is insufficient, since much of what is covered there is covered elsewhere previously.

I'm ignoring "rabbit atheists chomping at the bit" for the moment, although I have to say it's a very colourful image.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm quite happy to let the legislators decide matters of State. That's their role after all. I feel absolutely no compunction for not do their job for them.

Hmm. Given the choice of two otherwise identical candidates, would you support by preference the one who wishes to bring in "Christian" laws?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's very hard to see where they have, really. However, I think my original question "would we find it hard to find Christian posters who believe that the law of the land should reflect Christian morality", has been answered. We evidently wouldn't.

Maybe. But there is a difference between desiring something and imposing something. DeVore implied the latter.

As to how you'd identify specifically Christian laws, I'm not sure. Has anyone any suggestions as to how you identify a specifically Christian law? Coincidence with the Bible is insufficient, since much of what is covered there is covered elsewhere previously.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm ignoring "rabbit atheists chomping at the bit" for the moment, although I have to say it's a very colourful image.

Woops!

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. Given the choice of two otherwise identical candidates, would you support by preference the one who wishes to bring in "Christian" laws?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Not necessarily. I'd like to think I would vote for this hypothetical candidate based on a number of factors - including those outside their Christian belief. They certainly would tick a box but that wouldn't guarantee them a vote. For example, there are some American politicians who apparently run predominately on the fact that they are Christians. Despite this, they wouldn't get my vote given the choice. George Bush springs to mind here.

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Maybe. But there is a difference between desiring something and imposing something. DeVore implied the latter.

I think the quote there is this one:

DeVore wrote:

You have though, neatly betrayed an example of the type of mindset (ie: religion should be in charge of society) which greatly annoys those of us who dont belong to that particular "club".

I would say, myself, that there are many ways for religion to be in charge of society. For example, if a majority vote to impose laws that penalise adultery (cf Jakkass) because their religion says adultery is wrong, that is hardly an extraordinary situation. All that is necessary is for a sufficiently influential minority to desire such laws, and a majority to be willing to vote for them rather than "go against their conscience".

I'm not arguing for a second that every person who is religious will either desire such a law, or support such a law. There are plenty of religious people who will say "it is not for society to enforce religious morality through law", which is the essence of the secular position. However, I would argue that it is certainly harder for a religious person to say that than it is for the irreligious, and more likely that they won't.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As to how you'd identify specifically Christian laws, I'm not sure.

It's a tricky one, alright. Jesus didn't really do the whole 'lawgiver' thing, which I suspect is part of the reason Christians often fall back on the OT for definitive statements.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Not necessarily. I'd like to think I would vote for this hypothetical candidate based on a number of factors - including those outside their Christian belief. They certainly would tick a box but that wouldn't guarantee them a vote. For example, there are some American politicians who apparently run predominately on the fact that they are Christians. Despite this, they wouldn't get my vote given the choice. George Bush springs to mind here.

Hmm. Yes, hence the "otherwise identical". However, we can make the matter easier by considering, say, a referendum to legislation that makes adultery (or idolatry, or coveting) punishable by law, based on the relevant Christian teachings on the subject. Would you vote against such legislation on the basis that religious morality should not be enforced by law? Or would you vote for it on the basis that laws in tune with Christian morality are better for society?

The question is, of course, open to all posters. I might make it a poll.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Acid_Violet

Jakkass wrote: »

I could mention some, but you'd be crying out about how they aren't in the "moral Zeitgeist".

One that comes to mind would be measures on adultery. I believe the promises of marriage should be legally protected.

Can we stone 'em?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe the promises of marriage should be legally protected.

What do you mean?

Should two people who are not happy together and do not want to stay together should be legally forced by the State to remain in a loveless marriage?

Ciaran500

Wicknight wrote: »

What do you mean?

Should two people who are not happy together and do not want to stay together should be legally forced by the State to remain in a loveless marriage?

Pretty sure he means cheating on your wife/husband should be punishable by law.

Zombrex

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Pretty sure he means cheating on your wife/husband should be punishable by law.

Oh right ... how would that work? A fine? Jail time? Your wife/husband gets to have a "free go?"

Seems rather pointless to me. Is it proper that the State sends out the message to people creating a situation where someone goes "Well I was going to shag my secretary but I won't now because I really don't want that €5000 fine for doing so"

If the only thing stopping a person cheating on their husband or wife is criminal intervention from the State the marriage has pretty serious problems to begin with.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Oh right ... how would that work? A fine? Jail time? Your wife/husband gets to have a "free go?"

Seems rather pointless to me. Is it proper that the State sends out the message to people creating a situation where someone goes "Well I was going to shag my secretary but I won't now because I really don't want that €5000 fine for doing so"

If the only thing stopping a person cheating on their husband or wife is criminal intervention from the State the marriage has pretty serious problems to begin with.

I guess this depends on your definition of marriage.

We have plenty of laws that hold people to contracts that they make. If you sign a contract to rent a property for a 5 year lease then there are penalties for breaking the contract. That is not Christian morality so much as common values we all cherish such as honesty and integrity.

If you make promises to another person (in this case your spouse) that you will behave in a certain way for the rest of your life, and if you insist on those promises being recognised by the State in a public ceremony, then it hardly seems unreasonable that you get penalised for breaking the contract.

I would be in favour of people being able to contract civil unions with each other that are temporary contracts that allow for no fault divorces whenever you want. These unions would attract all the tax advantages of marriage. The rest of us, who really want to make lifelong commitments to someone, and who value our integrity enough not to want to bail out when we feel like it, could still get married.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

I would be in favour of people being able to contract civil unions with each other that are temporary contracts that allow for no fault divorces whenever you want. These unions would attract all the tax advantages of marriage. The rest of us, who really want to make lifelong commitments to someone, and who value our integrity enough not to want to bail out when we feel like it, could still get married.

Thereby making everyone else feel their relationship is second class, and that they themselves lack integrity - a sort of state-sponsored condescension. Ah well.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Scofflaw wrote:

Thereby making everyone else feel their relationship is second class, and that they themselves lack integrity

...which is similar, I believe, to what lies behind the common antipathy towards extending the rite of marriage to include gay people. If, through marriage, you're in part making a statement about your own heterosexuality in a society which was taught to reject it as a base abomination, then wouldn't gay marriage retrospectively invalidates that statement?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

...which is similar, I believe, to what lies behind the common antipathy towards extending the rite of marriage to include gay people. If, through marriage, you're in part making a statement about your own heterosexuality in a society which was taught to reject it as a base abomination, then wouldn't gay marriage retrospectively invalidates that statement?

Let's not try to launch yet another homophobia smear against Christians?

No, I don't consider marriage to be making a statement about my heterosexuality. My marriage is a statement about my love and commitment to my wife - and we consider ourselves bound in a lifelong union due to the vows we made in the sight of God (a covenant) rather than the legal side of stuff when we signed the register (a contract).

If the government chooses to alter the basis of marriage to allow men to marry other men (or even bicycles) then that does not affect my marriage in the slightest. If the government chooses to make no fault divorce available at a drop of a hat, or even to abolish marriage altogether - that would invalidate nothing in my marriage. I would still be bound to keep the promises I made.

My original point is that people should keep the promises they make if society is to operate on any kind of basis of trust. If marriage vows include a commitment for life, or vows of fidelity, then it does not appear unreasonable that there should be penalties for breaking those vows, so long as said vows are in a legal framework recognised by the government. Since a large part of society appears incapable of keeping such promises then why not give then a less onerous 'civil union' that won't ask them to make promises they can't keep?

Incidentally, this is why I will never vote for a politician whom I know has committed adultery. It is an integrity and trust issue, not a matter of Christian morality. If the guy couldn't keep the most important promises he made in his life then he certainly isn't likely to keep all the promises he makes in an election campaign.