clarification for christian readers
one-upmanship: the art of outdoing or keeping one jump ahead of a friend or competitor
As I state on my ‘About’ page, I’m a bit of a ranter and I like to argue. I have lots of fun scuffles with my blog chums in Blogland, and I’m fairly confident I win them all. Because I’m into light-hearted one-upmanship. However, I wouldn’t like to think any Christians (if they happen to drop by) reading my scuffles would take the wrong message from this. Here’s a special note to explain where the competitive one-upmanship ends, and the serious exchange of ideas based on logic begins.
- If you think that male versions of human beings have the right to decide on matters for female versions of human beings, you are wrong. If I start a discussion with you challenging this, I’m not looking to ‘win’ for fun, I’m looking to change your opinion so you don’t pollute anyone else in the world with your foul ideas. All people have the right to equal treatment and opportunities. A book written 2000 and more years ago, in a very specific culture, and exclusively by men, is not a smart place to look for ideas on gender.
- If you think that homosexual couples don’t have the right to express their bond though the traditional ritual of marriage, but heterosexual couples do, you are wrong. If I start a discussion with you challenging this, I’m not looking to ‘win’ for fun. I’m looking to change your opinion so you don’t pollute anyone else in the world with your harmful ideas. All people have the right to equal treatment and opportunities. A book written 2000 and more years ago in a very specific culture, that encourages inhumane behaviour such as slavery, and written in an ignorant information void that considered all sex outside male-female marriage to be sinful (including remarriage), is not a smart place to look for ideas on love.
- If you think that the notion of sin is real, or in any way useful, you are wrong. If I start a discussion with you challenging this, I’m not looking to ‘win’ for fun. I’m looking to change your opinion so you don’t pollute anyone else in the world with your silly ideas. All people should be encouraged to negotiate their way through life following civil laws (which can be challenged through the appropriate channels as required) and using their personal critical thinking skills and naturally evolved empathy. A book written 2000 years and more ago, in a very specific culture and an ignorant information void, is not a smart place to look for ideas on ‘morality’. And labeling behaviour that may have negative outcomes as ‘sinful’ or believing that an invisible spirit is policing the thoughts in your head, will only lead to thought repression, obsession and a greater likelihood of behaving in ways you don’t want to.
- If you believe in a supernatural creator being that exists outside of our physical realm, I think you’re most probably wrong. If you believe that this creator deity left a divinely inspired message for humanity in the form of a book, I’m fairly certain you’re wrong. If I argue with you about any of this, it’s because I see how these base beliefs are then used to promote discrimination and harmful ideas. I don’t believe for one minute that all religious people promote harmful ideas, but as I see religion being used for this, and as I see the base belief is illogical, I will try to change your opinion so you don’t pollute anyone else with illogical thinking that can so easily lead to the spread of harmful ideas.
I hope this clears things up for my avid Christian following. If you have any questions or suggestions, please do not hesitate to leave your comment below.
Excuse me Ma’am. I’m looking for a “”discussion””
Long time listener, first time caller and I saw this comment and just had to write.
“I don’t believe for one minute that all religious people promote harmful ideas, but as I see religion being used for this, and as I see the base belief is illogical”
How can it be that one group wants to amputate your arm above the elbow and they are seen as harmful but when a similar group only wants to amputate a couple of fingers they are seen as not harmful. Aren’t you conflating ‘not harmful’ with ‘less harmful in comparison’ ?
Isn’t it true that no matter how innocuous a person or group is, if they support the idea that there is an omnipotent creator being outside of the physical world aren’t they supporting the very foundations of what you consider harmful groups/people?
If a person personally supports the foundational dogma of whack-job lunatics, are they not themselves a whack-job lunatic? Even if their craziness is in remission?
LikeLike
Not in the slightest. Only in the same way that as I’m an atheist and Stalin was an atheist, I’m likely to start a campaign of mass murder. I think Christianity is moving towards taking the ‘nice’ stuff Jesus said and ignoring the rest. Remember, we have to encourage it to thrive so that the superbug religion (perhaps Islam) doesn’t sweep the world picking up all the deity believers in its path. 🙂
LikeLike
I would agree with you on the point about atheism and Stalin if in fact Stalin had done it in the name of atheism. He did not, so that comparison sounds good but ultimately is not valid. It is quite true that being an atheist won’t make you the next Stalin, but then again being an atheist didn’t make Stalin the evil man he is thought to be.
LikeLike
Oh I don’t know, I think it is valid. Atheism for me is a belief system. It’s the belief that supernatural deities don’t exist, and it’s a belief that has had the opportunity to evolve alongside our scientific understanding of the physical world. Atheism encompasses a number of different philosophical views on life, as does Christianity, or more broadly, religion. Hitler wasn’t an atheist, but, as far as I know, neither the Bible nor personal conversations with his deity were part of the cornerstones of his philosophical outlook. Back to your original point, anyone can take any basic belief system and do lots of nasty things based on that (atheism included) but that doesn’t mean the elimination of the organised religions would in any way improve things. People would just find some other brand of ideology to base their lives around. It makes more sense just to fight against the harmful stuff, wherever it comes from.
LikeLike
I agree with you here except for one small contention. For the reasons mentioned before, religion is the source of harmful stuff, the largest and most widely spread source of it. It even comes in different flavors so the believers can fight and kill each other over differences of opinion. Perhaps a bit of exaggeration, but not much.
LikeLike
“Atheism for me is a belief system. It’s the belief that supernatural deities don’t exist . . . ”
Hmm . . . theism is a belief supernatural deities exist.
Atheism is a lack of belief supernatural deities exist. That’s different from ‘believing’ something does not exist.
Someone who has never heard of a concept of ‘god’ is automatically an atheist, and it’s not belief that makes them so.
Granted, there are some who are labeled ‘strong atheists’ (me), but even then, it’s not a belief.
Until I am presented with concrete proof, I will not believe in deities.
It’s a fine point, but an important one because the term ‘belief’ is a charged one that carries certain connotations.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm
LikeLike
Guilt by association via the “foundational dogma” route is tricky business…and, I daresay, entirely ill-founded. Virtually any harmful lunatic beliefs can be found to have SOMETHING foundationally in common with legitimate beliefs. So unless you have some criteria here to determine which beliefs shouldn’t be held in common, I think you’re SOL.
LikeLike
The criteria you are hinting at is the fact that aunt Jane and the whack-jobs have something in common – false beliefs. The kind of false beliefs that are designed to be abused and give license to all manner of ill-meaning actions.
In opposition to your point, which is often enough valid, all manner of good person can use a basic set of vile belief in a benign way. One coin, two sides, rancid at the core.
LikeLike
Doesn’t that beg the question? Or is this just a personal decision?
LikeLike
Well, you might call it personal observation. Having been in the trenches (so to speak) sitting next to aunt Jane, I have some experience at what lies under that demure comportment and benign faith. Until aunt Jane is shown and learns she is wrongly thinking, she will continue to support the caustic elements of her religion. So it is the world over. That’s part of human nature.
Even the Christian bible talks about separating the wheat from the chaff….
LikeLike
Certainly with you there. False belief ought to be confronted in any form, no matter how harmless it seems
LikeLike
Perhaps I need to work on a more eloquent way to express it. I’ve been known to take some time to figure that part out.
LikeLike
I’d add the caveat that perhaps even more important than confronting false belief is confronting faulty reasoning. Especially because it’s something that almost all of us skeptical types can generally agree on. Nip idiocy in the bud.
I’d rather try to teach Aunt Jane critical thinking than merely try to convince her she’s wrong. More investment? Yes, but more returns too.
Build a man a fire, and he’ll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire, and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life.
LikeLike
now you’re talking… except they talk about being on fire for christ all the time already… h mmmm
LikeLike
**insert inappropriate Coliseum joke here**
LikeLike
ahah, that’s roaring funny, and I’m not lion
LikeLike
So wrong.
(Somewhat mitigated by the fact that the Coliseum wasn’t actually ever used to kill Christians….just a lot of gladiators and such.)
LikeLike
But it makes a great persecution syndrome story!
What kind of tunes do you like?
LikeLike
It’s always smart to associate a physical location with your most heart-wrenching legends, whether they are accurate or not. Gives people a place to congregate. Also, MERCHANDISING.
Uh, what music? Indie acoustic and folk rock most of the time; a little mainstream pop or thrash metal when I need to force my brain to stop working. I have Tourette’s, so different kinds of music can have varying effects. Why?
LikeLike
I’m working on one pc, writing here on another, and have music playing on a laptop – a ecclectic french metal band called Eths… it’s good, well, I like it.
Funny you should mention geography. The Isrealites bemoaned being away from their land because they did not know how they would worship their god without being on his land….
LikeLike
I’ll look them up tomorrow.
Doesn’t that interpretation conflict with their repeated narrative of worshiping in Diaspora?
LikeLike
LOL, everything conflicts with everything else…but this was OT while they were looking for a map in the desert
LikeLike
Eths sounds pretty good.
LikeLike
There is just something about that French with metal that rocks… Don’t know why. There is another band SPI Ritual
LikeLike
I’ll check it.
LikeLike
Amen to everything. I should just copy and paste that into my “about” page.
LikeLike
Yes, we really don’t want them pesky discriminating Christian types getting the wrong idea.
LikeLike
Mmm. I am entirely with you on male/female relations- Quakers championed gender equality from our beginnings in the 17th century- and on equal marriage, but I find value in the concept of sin. I will post on that. The Nature of God is a bit complex for me to discuss in this medium.
I believe in God. This does not mean that I support fundamentalists. I challenge fundamentalists by showing that belief in God, respect for the teachings of the Bible, and weekly worship do not support their views or actions.
LikeLike
I’ll be interested to see your thoughts on sin, I find the whole notion incredibly damaging and counter-productive.
LikeLike
I’d echo Clare here. Misuse of the concept of sin does not mean sin is a useless concept.
Sin is doing willful harm. How’s that?
LikeLike
Sin is a harmful concept.
LikeLike
Reduced to its most basic conceptual level, sin is a violation of some essential moral code. As such, I don’t think it’s harmful. The way that sin is commonly expounded upon (as an innate human predisposition to evil and so on) can certainly be harmful.
LikeLike
Did you read any of my fine posts? There’s no such thing as a moral code. It’s a simplification of the everyday situations we find ourselves in. If people would only make decisions based on what the positive and negative outcomes of their actions are, and make a decision based on the overall weight of each, the silly blanket concept of ‘sin’ could be abandoned. Killing, stealing, adultery – things that hurt other people usually, but in specific circumstances are the best decision to make. Sin is simplification of the complications of life – a useless label that leads to people becoming harmfully preoccupied by their natural desires and unable to make sensible decisions based on facts.
LikeLike
Rape, killing children, preaching that God requires killing….those things aren’t “the best decision” in certain circumstances.
Even if case-by-case evaluation of positive and negative outcomes is *better*, that doesn’t change the fact that humans do have moral intuitions which often influence behavior. And what if people do a poor job of evaluating positive and negative outcomes?
LikeLike
“Rape, killing children, preaching that God requires killing….those things aren’t “the best decision” in certain circumstances.” And I never said they were. The weight of the negative consequences will always, and easily, outweigh the positives in the areas you mention. (Is this what they call a ‘straw man’ argument? I say one thing and you respond with something completely different insinuating that’s what I said?) The fact that you could justify these using the Bible and not by using reasoning speaks volumes.
“humans do have moral intuitions which often influence behavior” Yes, these come from natural empathy combined with the cultural values or ‘morals’ that have evolved in the society they live in. So what?
“And what if people do a poor job of evaluating positive and negative outcomes?” The same way they do a poor job of interpreting what their deity wants? The difference is they can learn from mistakes, other can see mistakes and common frameworks can be developed. It’s not really different from the development and revision of civil laws – and most people live within that framework and accept the cultural values as a result of that. This is an extension.
LikeLike
Sorry, I’m not trying to set up a strawman. My point is, people DO justify these atrocities…sometimes with religious texts, sometimes without them. Every culture (should) agree that actions like rape are always wrong without exception; every culture should agree that revenge killing is always wrong without exception. Such immutables constitute a moral code, and to violate that moral code renders a person culpable. One might call that sin.
If you believe in any moral responsibility or culpability that doesn’t necessarily rise to the level of civil prosecution, then you’ve agreed with the basic concept of sin.
LikeLike
Sin is primarily a concept of religion. By association, it has too many negative connotations. Choose another word.
LikeLike
Moral culpability.
LikeLike
That’s two words
LikeLike
It’s just poor decision making. And you can’t label it with silly words like ‘sin’ because it’s specific to each situation, and ‘sin’ gives the idea that there are specific actions that are ‘wrong’. There are specific actions that usually (or always) have more negative than positive consequences, so we get used to understanding them as to be avoided (rape, murder, stealing etc). It’s logical to make logic-based decisions based on outcomes of our actions because we have a vested interest in living on a nicer planet. Empathy is natural and it guides our understanding of the outcomes for others. I don’t see any moral responsibility there. LOGIC!!
LikeLike
You make that very clear. It’s a real pity that there’s a need to state those things. Sometimes I feel genuinely torn between a desire to look the other way and save myself the aggravation and the thought that each and every one of us should speak out, at every opportunity. Acceptance for gays seems to get worse: many of my friends would walk hand-in-hand before and are now afraid to be beaten up. Others are harassed until they move out of their neighbourhood.
Apart from that I’m very worried that the government will find a way to legalise polygamy because they want to cater to all cultures, however backward their beliefs. It’s not that I would object to three (or more) adults living together, btw. But it’s never about polyandry, is it? In reality it’s about importing any number of gullible sixteen-year-olds from a society that doesn’t promote gender equality, just because your ‘good book’ says you can…
LikeLike
Those ‘good’ books are the root of a lot of silly behaviour! I thought I’d better post this because I was in the middle of a gay marriage chat with a Christian recently and he made some comment about be arguing for fun. I don’t like to be taken out of context. 🙂
LikeLike
This is the best photo you have taken..so far. Beautiful. On my reader it looks utterly stunning.
Well done you. I mean it.\I shall not make any ‘noise’ about the post. Though i agree, of course.
I am still thinking which way I must take my ‘religious’ stuff after yesterday’s little epiphany.
Again, cracking photograph. I would be honored to hang this on my study wall. Would look great blown up hanging next to the one I took of a tiger a few years back.
LikeLike
Thank you 🙂
LikeLike
That’s one hell of a lime!
LikeLike
Ouch! You better run, Mister Kande, and fast!
LikeLike
The birds ok i guess, but that lime is to die for!
LikeLike
It’s lemon yet to ripen, and it looks so big because the little hummingbird is tiny! They’re so cute!!
LikeLike
It is currently my desktop of choice..
Do you have any ornithological details on the bird? Species etc?
What did you take the photo with, and how did you get so close, that bird cannot be more than a few inches?
LikeLike
I’m afraid I don’t know anything about the species. It’s taken with my rubbish little Sony digital camera. We have loads of territorial hummingbirds round the garden fighting over our sage flowers, so they tend to pick spots (like the lemon tree) to sit in and chase off other hummingbirds when they come. I don’t know why they let us get so close, they’re more concerned with other hummingbirds feeding from their flowers.
LikeLike
Green lemon?
LikeLike
Before they are ripe and turn yellow, lemons are green. (not sure whether to take a patronising, sarcastic, factual or confused tone here)
LikeLike
Not in Australia, they’re yellow the whole way through… as much as i remember. Limes, on the other hand, are green from beginning to end. You sure you have a lemon tree there? 😉
LikeLike
Glad I didn’t opt for patronising or sarcastic. I assumed my lemon tree spoke for all lemon trees, but apparently not. Must be special Argentinian breed, they all seem to behave in a similar fashion here. It’s a four seasons lemon tree, although it only bears fruit twice a year, so it’s a bit of a misnomer.
LikeLike
I like your patronising and/or sarcastic tone! Want me to say something rude so you can chastise me? 😉
LikeLike
I had a feeling that I shouldn’t go for patronising or sarcastic at you, as I would come out on the losing side. With Ark I have no such qualms! 🙂 (Once more, don’t tell him I said that, he’s terribly sensitive!)
LikeLike
I have a single sub-question concerning Point #4. You talk about opposing illogical processes of thought, and I certainly agree with you there. But what if someone arrived at God-belief (complete with reliance on the Bible and so on) using logically valid reasoning, the only distinction being that you disagreed with their premises? Would you then want to support this belief because it was arrived at using a logically sound approach, despite disagreeing with it in essence?
LikeLike
I know this isn’t my question to answer, but here’s my 2 cents: I don’t think it is possible to arrive at god-belief using logically valid reasoning. I think it’s possible to arrive at god-disbelief using logic and reason, but not the other way around. I think her point was (and correct me if I am wrong, Violetwisp) that the base belief was illogical. It doesn’t really matter how one gets to that belief because the person with said belief will always believe that they got to it with logic and reason. However, if I believe that the entire belief itself is illogical (i.e. the base belief that god exists) then everything, from the moment it becomes a thought to the moment it is rationalized and then fully believed in, is irrational, illogical and unreasonable. In other words, I don’t believe that it is possible to come to an irrational conclusion based on rational and reasonable thoughts. The only way that would be possible is if those thoughts were not rational and/or reasonable to begin with.
LikeLike
Hey, thanks for responding anyway!
I think I should probably make a distinction between “irrational” reasoning and “incorrect” reasoning. Asserting that the “base belief” in a god or gods must necessarily be irrational and illogical means it must be impossible for any logically valid argument to lead to the conclusion “God exists”.
I’m not trying to split hairs or be unnecessarily picky here; I’m just trying to think about the implications of our approach. Consider the following argument.
“If humans have moral intuitions, God exists.
Humans have moral intuitions.
Therefore, God exists.”
This argument is logically valid and leads to a valid conclusion. The fact that we would immediately question the accuracy of the first premise doesn’t detract from the validity of the argument. That’s the point I’m trying to make: a base belief in God may depend on premises or presuppositions we would consider illogical or unreasonable, but the belief itself may be constructed from those premises in a valid and defensible manner.
Perhaps a better phrasing of your (and violet’s) assertion would go something like this:
“I don’t believe it’s possible to come to a belief in God without depending on an irrational, unreasonable, or indefensible premise.”
That, I think, gives us a little more to chew on.
LikeLike
Okay, so this is clever philosophical arguing stuff that I think is complete waste of time. If the premise is irrational, it’s also unreasonable and indefensible (no need to state all three), and would make any argument based on said irrational/unreasonable/indefensible premise, completely illogical. Your paragraphs here only wasted all our time with unnecessary chewing. 🙂
LikeLike
Not my intention to waste anyone’s time. 🙂 I’m just trying to determine whether you’re saying that god-belief must necessarily be irrational, or that god-belief must necessarily be based on an irrational premise. It might seem like a spurious distinction, but I promise that it’s not.
LikeLike
But tell me you see it’s the same thing?
LikeLike
In terms of immediate effect, sure. But the difference is that the former closes down discussion, while the latter invites discussion.
If you start with the stated premise that god-belief must necessarily be irrational, then you will very likely lose the opportunity to build common understanding. If you start with the stated premise that all belief in god is traceable to an irrational premise, then you accomplish the same goal while simultaneously opening up an avenue for discussion and common ground.
Hope that makes sense. 🙂
LikeLike
I see what you mean. Paint the person as mistaken, rather than stupid. I think you’re right that atheists can tend to shut down dialogue with offensive absolutes.
LikeLike
I definitely prefer it when a position invites discussion instead of closing it down. 🙂
LikeLike
(but no need to couch it in unnecessary logical argument terminology – your point stands better with the reason behind it)
LikeLike
Yeah, my reductionism can get a little out of hand sometimes.
LikeLike
“”Yeah, my reductionism can get a little out of hand sometimes.””
Really? You noticed this did you,Sherlock. What was your FIRST chuffing clue?
Are you aware just how often start your comment with, “I am not trying to… ” and you say things like this…..
“I am not trying to set up a strawman”
or,
“I am not trying to be picky,”
or
”I am not trying to split hairs.”
or…
”I am not trying to be a smartass”
And then you proceed with your point and do EXACTLY what you have only just claimed not to be doing.
Unbelievable. Truly. And you do it so often it will soon become a damn trademark!
My god….excuse me, I have to go and lie down for a few moments.
LikeLike
Better watch those heart palpitations, sir.
LikeLike
One other follow-up point:
“If I believe that the entire belief itself is illogical (i.e. the base belief that god exists) then everything….is irrational, illogical, and unreasonable.”
I’m not trying to be a smartass or anything, but this belief — that any base belief in God must be illogical — is phrased suspiciously like an article of faith. Would you say that this belief is the result of inductive reasoning, or is there some underlying intuition or argument about God-belief that makes it necessarily illogical in your mind?
LikeLike
I don’t see how that’s possible, Missy has outlined very clearly why below. I don’t mind if people believe in a creator god, I think it’s perfectly natural to do so. But they can’t pretend it’s benevolent and intelligent, and sent the Bible (!) to guide mankind. They can’t pretend that their god answers prayers or spends time tutting over bad behaviour. It’s just so childish – the biggest extension of bad parenting ever dreamt up. Did you have a logically-sound argument in mind??
LikeLike
Well, now we are moving away from the general notion of a deity providing special revelation to human beings, and toward the specific case of the Judeo-Christian YHWH providing the Bible as a particular sort of moral code intended for a specific set of applications under a particular interpretive paradigm. That, I think, is much more concrete than the general idea in your original post.
If someone approached me and asserted that some ancient religious text contained guidance from a creator deity, that assertion alone would not (to me) prompt an aggressive response simply on the basis of other religious texts being used to promote moral evils.
LikeLike
Could you not go on ‘once bitten, twice shy?’ If every other religious text that has been waved around to date has resulted in the promotion of harmful ideas, would it not be wise to make the assumption that anything else that turns up will be likely to be more of the same? You’ll note also that in point 4, I wasn’t the least bit aggressive, made allowances for being incorrect, and didn’t claim I wouldn’t be challenging for the sake of winning – I just stated I would try to change their ideas. 🙂
LikeLike
Oh, I know you weren’t being aggressive or spuriously challenge-driven. 🙂 I’m more concerned with the presupposition that because religious texts can be used to promote harmful ideas, the concept of religious texts ought to be challenged as a matter of principle.
I’d be much more likely to agree with you if you were talking about advancing a particular approach to religious texts (reasoned skepticism, textual criticism, historical analysis) rather than opposing their existence in principle.
LikeLike
(Have you got an ancient religious text up your sleeve you’re wanting to unleash on the world? Are you roaming the world of atheist blogs to make it impervious to attack? Are you the creator of the superbug religion that Life on Frogstar foretold???)
LikeLike
Quiet! My devious plan must not be made known until due and appointed time!
LikeLike
Pingback: Of sin II | Clare Flourish
Pingback: Romans 2: 1-3 | russell & pascal
Pingback: clarification for christian readers III | violetwisp
Well, I enjoyed that immensely. On to more clarifications 🙂
Found you from aintnoshrinkingviolet, who visited my blog recently. 🙂 Cheers.
LikeLike
Any friend of Violet’s is most welcome! Glad you enjoyed the clarifications. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person