‹ First  < 23 24 25 26 27 > 
 
   
 

Is there a place for a Christian in Project Reason?

 
Thoughtage
 
Avatar
 
 
Thoughtage
Total Posts:  522
Joined  13-01-2015
 
 
 
15 March 2015 17:27
 

Nobody but the mods can make anybody here do or not do anything.  So we can put our victim poses away. 

That’s the miracle of forums, there are no victims, only the enduring fantasy thereof.  We all know this, but still the gravitation pull of the victim pose is strong. 

Why did you make me write this???  That’s SO WRONG!!

 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
15 March 2015 17:46
 
Thoughtage - 15 March 2015 04:27 PM

Why did you make me write this?

Mind control.


Oh wait, that’s the answer to how.


I don’t know why I made you do it… I’m just surprised my mind control capabilities worked.

That’s SOO supernatural.

 
Thoughtage
 
Avatar
 
 
Thoughtage
Total Posts:  522
Joined  13-01-2015
 
 
 
15 March 2015 17:49
 

And now you made me read your reply!  Cut it the hell out!  MODS!!!

 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3322
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
15 March 2015 19:09
 

When the prerequisite for joining Project Reason consists of an IP address that pretty much opens it up for everyone. 

When Christians make claims about their beliefs and Atheists question or counter those claims there is room for dialogue to understand the perspective without getting overly personal.  Although it’s delicate territory, due primarily to the nature of deeply held beliefs, we should always have an expectation what we post will be scrutinized.  Deeply held beliefs should be no exception.  What makes this possible is putting forth arguments without taking things too personally and, from what I’ve witnessed, the Christians here come to their positions from completely different angles and will defend whatever claims they are comfortable discussing.  No arms are being twisted.  The comfort level of Theist members should not be given more slack than the comfort level of Atheists.  We must take responsibility for our own sensitivity thresholds.  When patrons voluntarily make claims involving profound personal experiences like being “touched by God” there should be a reasonable expectation of risk that ridicule will follow.  You can’t put it out there only to cry foul when it doesn’t go your way. Those of us who tend to deduce these profound experiences through a logical and scientifically measured approach should not be demonized or accused of having a lack of sensitivity.  Especially when the effort is merely to understand the nature of these experiences as objectively as possible.

 
 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
15 March 2015 20:50
 

Thought:
Where did this nation which has been overwhelmingly religious since it’s founding get it’s humane views?

What many members here fail to grasp, perhaps because they are too young, is that we are all in a sense Catholics and Jews, and it’s only the degree that distinguishes us from one another ideologically.

Catholicism arose out of many centuries of Jewish tradition, and then thoroughly dominated the western world in a manner incomprehensible to us today, for an unbroken 1,000 years.  None of us are entirely free of these influences, even if we are adamantly opposed to any and all religions.

It’s literally not possible to simply wipe one’s hands clean of such cultural history and return to the blank slate state.

All those secular Americans who saw the wisdom in Martin Luther King’s words got their sense of what is just from a very long tradition, that was primarily religion based.

However it is also true that this long history also contained many evil sides of religion too, as you mentioned in your reference to racists.

It’s far too complicated a situation to reduce to an equation like religion=bad, secular=good.  Simplistic formulas like aren’t even up to the standard of college sophomores.

Religion and culture are not synonymous.  Every religion grew out of culture.  Religion gives supernatural justification for morality; it did not invent morality.

When religion is the pre-eminent authority in a culture, it will be the vehicle by which morality is taught to each generation.  And this has been true for centuries.  More recently, secularism is on the rise.  Human rights do not need Divine justification.  When people saw on TV the violence against innocents on the Edmund Pettus bridge (Selma,AL), they did not react in shock because the church or synagogue told them to.  It was a human, a humane, reaction.

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21577
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
15 March 2015 21:27
 
LadyJane - 15 March 2015 06:09 PM

When the prerequisite for joining Project Reason consists of an IP address that pretty much opens it up for everyone. 

When Christians make claims about their beliefs and Atheists question or counter those claims there is room for dialogue to understand the perspective without getting overly personal.  Although it’s delicate territory, due primarily to the nature of deeply held beliefs, we should always have an expectation what we post will be scrutinized.  Deeply held beliefs should be no exception.  What makes this possible is putting forth arguments without taking things too personally and, from what I’ve witnessed, the Christians here come to their positions from completely different angles and will defend whatever claims they are comfortable discussing.  No arms are being twisted.  The comfort level of Theist members should not be given more slack than the comfort level of Atheists.  We must take responsibility for our own sensitivity thresholds.  When patrons voluntarily make claims involving profound personal experiences like being “touched by God” there should be a reasonable expectation of risk that ridicule will follow.  You can’t put it out there only to cry foul when it doesn’t go your way. Those of us who tend to deduce these profound experiences through a logical and scientifically measured approach should not be demonized or accused of having a lack of sensitivity.  Especially when the effort is merely to understand the nature of these experiences as objectively as possible.

i

I never have any problem with your posts, as they are always reasonable.  Not so much for some others here.

 
Thoughtage
 
Avatar
 
 
Thoughtage
Total Posts:  522
Joined  13-01-2015
 
 
 
15 March 2015 21:31
 
LadyJane - 15 March 2015 06:09 PM

Especially when the effort is merely to understand the nature of these experiences as objectively as possible.

Except that, um, the desire to understand such experiences is very rarely what’s actually happening.

 
Thoughtage
 
Avatar
 
 
Thoughtage
Total Posts:  522
Joined  13-01-2015
 
 
 
15 March 2015 21:40
 

Religion gives supernatural justification for morality; it did not invent morality.

I agree. 

What religion has done in our culture is sell morality, teach morality, in a determined way that no other agency has, for thousands of years.  Of course they have often undermined their own message with immorality too.

More recently, secularism is on the rise.  Human rights do not need Divine justification.

Recently, measured in mere decades.

When people saw on TV the violence against innocents on the Edmund Pettus bridge (Selma,AL), they did not react in shock because the church or synagogue told them to.  It was a human, a humane, reaction.

Yes, it was a humane reaction.  Taught to the culture as a whole mostly by 1,000 years of Catholic dominance of this culture.  1,000 years.  Write it down please.

I’m not claiming those teaching can not come by any other method.  I’m only claiming that secularism has a LONG way to go until it will have the same influence on western culture that religion has had.

Case in point, secular people weren’t who found the energy to lead the civil right movement.  That “humane” energy was found by religious folks.

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
15 March 2015 23:09
 

Thought:

When people saw on TV the violence against innocents on the Edmund Pettus bridge (Selma,AL), they did not react in shock because the church or synagogue told them to.  It was a human, a humane, reaction.

Yes, it was a humane reaction.  Taught to the culture as a whole mostly by 1,000 years of Catholic dominance of this culture.  1,000 years.  Write it down please.

I’m not claiming those teaching can not come by any other method.  I’m only claiming that secularism has a LONG way to go until it will have the same influence on western culture that religion has had.

Case in point, secular people weren’t who found the energy to lead the civil right movement.  That “humane” energy was found by religious folks.

I’m not sure the reaction was taught.  Really, I’m not sure.  It could be an innate reaction of shock to see defenseless people beaten.  We empathize with their pain.

I don’t think the Catholics taught us this.  I was raised Jewish.  And I learned to abhor slavery and persecution of minorities from that religious tradition.  (It was a lot easier to be an unconflicted Jew in the decades after WWII, when Israel was still seen as a shining star.)  I was just a little kid during the 60’s, but I absorbed the Civil Rights ideas from the wider culture around me.  We sang songs of brotherhood in choir at school and in summer camp.  Somehow, our culture began touting brotherhood and peace as God’s will.  It had certainly not been this way traditionally.

Catholicism was a strong arm of the power structure for centuries.  Theology was interpreted to fit the needs of the rulers.  It was used to justify the Crusades and the Inquisition.  The Church benefited from conquering territories and subjugating people throughout the world. 

Yes, I know, there are passages about equality and lovingkindness in the the Bible.  But also passages of holy war and a wrathful God.  So the Bible is not a clear guidebook.  The institution of Catholicism, for most of history, would be unrecognizable to Jesus as his legacy.  In the more modern era, with the development of democratic governance and recognition of individual rights, the Catholic church has evolved to a more charitable version.  The new Pope voices a continuation of this process.

My point reiterated is that religion dresses up a society’s moral code in a mantle of Divinity to imbue it with power and legitimacy.  But that paradigm is shifting.  In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there is no Divine justification indicated.

 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
15 March 2015 23:16
 
Hannah2 - 15 March 2015 10:09 PM

I was raised Jewish.


Me too.

Don’t forget, We are the chosen people.

 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
15 March 2015 23:18
 
Hannah2 - 15 March 2015 10:09 PM

My point reiterated is that religion dresses up a society’s moral code in a mantle of Divinity to imbue it with power and legitimacy.  But that paradigm is shifting.  In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there is no Divine justification indicated.

But on a different note,
I agree with your post.

 
Thoughtage
 
Avatar
 
 
Thoughtage
Total Posts:  522
Joined  13-01-2015
 
 
 
16 March 2015 09:47
 

I don’t think the Catholics taught us this.  I was raised Jewish.

Catholics are children of the Jews, and we are children of the Catholics.  There is an unbroken line from Jewish values to Christian values to humane secular values.  The surface details vary of course, but the fundamental message is the same.

And I learned to abhor slavery and persecution of minorities from that religious tradition.

Yes, that works perfectly well.  Catholicism is not necessary, agreed.  My only point about Catholicism is that this is who dominated western culture for 1,000 years.

Catholicism was a strong arm of the power structure for centuries.  Theology was interpreted to fit the needs of the rulers.  It was used to justify the Crusades and the Inquisition.  The Church benefited from conquering territories and subjugating people throughout the world.

That’s part of it, yes.  But not all of it.  For every Pope and Cardinal there were a million simple humble parish priests just trying to help their flock lead decent lives.

Yes, I know, there are passages about equality and lovingkindness in the the Bible.  But also passages of holy war and a wrathful God.  So the Bible is not a clear guidebook.

Yes, I agree.  Religion is simply too big a phenomena to be a this or a that.  It’s more like nature, a container holding all things.

The institution of Catholicism, for most of history, would be unrecognizable to Jesus as his legacy.  In the more modern era, with the development of democratic governance and recognition of individual rights, the Catholic church has evolved to a more charitable version.  The new Pope voices a continuation of this process.

Yes, I agree, to a degree. Again you seem to be focusing on the Church leadership, a tiny fraction of the Catholic experience.  The Catholic Church is not only that tiny fraction of Catholics who have appointed themselves to leadership, it is all Catholics, in all their diversity.  It’s a billion people, thus it’s impossible to apply a simple label like good or bad.  It’s good AND bad AND everything in between.

My point reiterated is that religion dresses up a society’s moral code in a mantle of Divinity to imbue it with power and legitimacy.

Yes, and by doing so made that code far more influential and effective.  It was religion that created the institutions which would relentlessly sell that moral code over many centuries. 

My point is that while there was indeed a good deal of circus clownery involved, the process western religion led mostly worked in the West.  I’m not saying those religions are right about everything, only that credit should be given where credit is due.  A huge amount of work was done to make the west the mostly civilized place it is today, and that project was led by Judaism and the other religions which arose from it.

 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14817
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
16 March 2015 09:50
 
EN - 15 March 2015 08:27 PM

I never have any problem with your posts, as they are always reasonable.


I’ll second that.

 
 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
16 March 2015 10:36
 
SkepticX - 16 March 2015 08:50 AM
EN - 15 March 2015 08:27 PM

I never have any problem with your posts, as they are always reasonable.


I’ll second that.


I’m going to politely disagree, as I’ve been on the receiving end of some bullying behavior by LJ at times (whether you want to call starting two different threads for the sake of mocking my long discursive posts justified or not, I don’t think it has anything to do with ‘reason’ one way or the other). That said, I think you’ve grown a lot since you’ve been here, LJ, and I am impressed with that.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3807
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
16 March 2015 11:47
 
LadyJane - 15 March 2015 06:09 PM

When Christians make claims about their beliefs and Atheists question or counter those claims there is room for dialogue to understand the perspective without getting overly personal.

I’ve been here a little over a year, and I have not perused all of Project Reason, but I must say I have seen no indication of anyone (other than another theist) making an attempt to understand the perspective of a theist.  What I’ve seen for the most part is along the lines of “You’re wrong/mistaken/not-using-‘critical’-thinking/delusional/hallucinating/etc.”  And that’s just fine, too, but don’t try to sugar-coat it.  It is what it is.

Although it’s delicate territory, due primarily to the nature of deeply held beliefs, we should always have an expectation what we post will be scrutinized.  Deeply held beliefs should be no exception.  What makes this possible is putting forth arguments without taking things too personally and, from what I’ve witnessed, the Christians here come to their positions from completely different angles and will defend whatever claims they are comfortable discussing.

“Although it’s delicate territory” is just lip service.

No arms are being twisted.  The comfort level of Theist members should not be given more slack than the comfort level of Atheists.  We must take responsibility for our own sensitivity thresholds.

I have no sensitivity threshold, which seems to attract as much or more ire as my belief.  The slings and arrows of atheists (or anyone else, for that matter) are empty, impotent words, and that impotence seems to engender attacks on a more personal level, which are just as impotent.  Such attacks would appear to say more about the attacker than about me, one might surmise.

Atheists seem to be quite sensitive to impotentence of their denigrations.  Interesting, and amusing as well.

When patrons voluntarily make claims involving profound personal experiences like being “touched by God” there should be a reasonable expectation of risk that ridicule will follow.  You can’t put it out there only to cry foul when it doesn’t go your way. Those of us who tend to deduce these profound experiences through a logical and scientifically measured approach should not be demonized or accused of having a lack of sensitivity.

Shoe-on-the-other-foot, atheists shouldn’t cry foul when their criticisms and assumptions are ineffective, and debase themselves into sound-bite repetitive rants.  Faith is by definition belief without proof.  For an atheist to demand proof of faith borders on arrogant ignorance.

Especially when the effort is merely to understand the nature of these experiences as objectively as possible.

I have personally seen little indication of that statement being even remotely close to “true”.  “The effort” seems more to be attempts to undermine such experiences from every possible angle.  Is there “high ground” at Project Reason?  I think not.

[ Edited: 16 March 2015 15:55 by bbearren]
 
 
‹ First  < 23 24 25 26 27 >