The real problem: Christianity

[laughing dog]

Would you want to insure someone's life that might participate in a violent riot?

So I take it if somebody tweets support for BLM riots you wouldn't have a problem with his insurer dropping him for it, because he's likely to go vandalize a Target store?

I wonder if Mr. Schilling is telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

As for insurers dropping clients for bogus reasons - hey, if they want to lose money and customers, that is their privilege.

 

[southernhybrid]

It's White Evangelicals who are the problem, not all Christians. I started a thread about this a couple of days ago in the religion forum, based on an article in the NYTImes.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?23171-The-danger-of-White-Evangelical-Christians-in-the-US

This is what I think. I also think it would be politically dangerous for any politician to claim it's "Christianity" - It's probably safer to say 'rioters, fascists, etc' knowing full well it's uneducated white evangelicals. Hasn't it always been, though?

The only word in your sentence that I have to disagree with is "uneducated". Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz both have advanced degrees from uppity universities. Some of the people who broke into the capital had advanced degrees. Of course, just because one has a lot of formal education doesn't necessarily mean that they are really educated. There are plenty of nutjob evangelicals who have degrees from secular schools in a variety of subjects.

And, sadly Lion doesn't seem to understand that most atheists couldn't care less what religion one believes in, as long as they aren't trying to force the rest of us to follow their beliefs, and as long as they aren't using their religion to harm others. I don't think most Christians are trying to force their views on the rest of us, but there is a component, which may be growing in the US, that seems to be supportive of a Christian theocracy. I don't remember this being a problem when I was growing up. In fact, historically it was the Baptists who were strong supporters of the SCS. Things have changed a lot over the past 50 or 60 years, most likely beginning around the early 1980s.

And, as I mentioned in the other thread, it's not all White evangelicals who are the problem. In fact, some of them were appalled at what their fellow evangelicals did last week and what they are trying to do. Hopefully, their numbers will grow, but it's not going to happen over night.

 

[Politesse]

And, sadly Lion doesn't seem to understand that most atheists couldn't care less what religion one believes in, as long as they aren't trying to force the rest of us to follow their beliefs, and as long as they aren't using their religion to harm others.

If some people say "I don't mind what you believe as long as you don't bother me", and others say Christianity is "an evil upon the land" that must be eliminated, as in the OP, that's... a hell of a lot you're asking people to take on trust.

As Chinese Muslims are arrested marched to the re-education camps of Xinjiang, are they supposed to take solace in the thought that most atheists don't want to oppress them?

 

[Elixir]

Religion in the public square is nothing new. And atheists don't want to get rid of religion, they want to replace it with their own religion.

All organized religions want to replace all the other religions with themselves.
But atheism is not a religion. I have no objection to religious beliefs, and don’t really care if you have an imaginary friend. I just find proselytizing for organized religions repulsive and dangerous.

I think you meant delusional friend. Having an imaginary friend doesn't make one religious or delusional.

Ah, but if you choose Christianity (or most other choices among the ten thousand-plus "religion" options) you get an imaginary friend in the bargain!

As Chinese Muslims are arrested marched to the re-education camps of Xinjiang, are they supposed to take solace in the thought that most atheists don't want to oppress them?

Solace? No. They're suppose to think "Damn! I should have been born in 'Murka, where I could have been born into a Jesus freak family, and number myself among the privileged class!"

 

[Lion IRC]

...most atheists couldn't care less what religion one believes in, as long as they aren't trying to force the rest of us to follow their beliefs, and as long as they aren't using their religion to harm others.

Democracy. What a bummer.

 

[Politesse]

Solace? No. They're suppose to think "Damn! I should have been born in 'Murka, where I could have been born into a Jesus freak family, and number myself among the privileged class!"

Ah. Ethnocide jokes.

 

[ronburgundy]

I would think the opposite. Christianity has shaped the Western world so thoroughly that even those who do not openly adhere to it still follow it. Jesus was a poor criminal executed in worst way. Yet, he became God. Concern for the meek and disadvantaged is a Western ideal because it is a Christian one. Historically, appeals for human rights have been based on it. Wilberforce was an evangelical Christian. I may be an atheist, but the notion that Christianity is the problem seems quite wrong.

The core values of Christianity are unseasoned faith-based loyalty, authoritarianism, and inequality. As with all Abrahamic monotheism, it is rooted in the notion of an unquestionable, unelected authoritarian creator who governs over all and any who challenge him deserve violence and punishment. That fascist authority decreed inherent inequality between the sexes, where all women should exist "in quietness and submission" to men. Not only is free speech incompatible with Christianity, but even private thoughts that the authority does not like are grounds for violence, murder, and torture.

Just as faith is the definitional opposite of the reason championed by the Enlightenment, the core values of Christianity are the direct anti-thesis of the Enlightenment values that gave rise to modern democracy the concept of protected individual liberty and equality.

Among whites who otherwise share similar history, ancestry, and economic circumstances degree of Christian religiosity is highly correlated with fascistic authoritarianism, racism, sexism, denial of basic rights to gays, etc.

 

[ronburgundy]

It's White Evangelicals who are the problem, not all Christians. I started a thread about this a couple of days ago in the religion forum, based on an article in the NYTImes.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?23171-The-danger-of-White-Evangelical-Christians-in-the-US

The source of the problem is inherent to Christian theology. The reasons that it doesn't manifest similarly with "all Christians" is that 1) most white non-evangelicals that don't ally with the right have weak religious beliefs and their religion is largely just superficial routine and Xmas service attendance, 2) the non-whites who DO take their Christianity seriously don't ally with the right wing who takes Christianity seriously b/c they right is ruled by white supremacist Christians. But the opposition of religious non-whites to basic human rights like reproductive and LGBT rights is actually similar to that of white evangelicals. Those non-whites that do choose to prioritize their own bigotries over racial issues and thus do ally with the right, GOP, and Trump, are almost all deeply religious.

 

[Brian63]

And, sadly Lion doesn't seem to understand that most atheists couldn't care less what religion one believes in, as long as they aren't trying to force the rest of us to follow their beliefs, and as long as they aren't using their religion to harm others.

Whether or not most atheists do actually hold that position is a separate issue from whether or not they should hold that position. If "most atheists" do not see the threat that religion poses, that is indeed a problem with those "most atheists".

Religions commonly do damage to the believers themselves, even if they are unaware of it. Instills feelings of anxiety, guilt, shame, fear for simply having particular thoughts or feelings, which are beyond their control. Then it also offers to give them the magical cure for those same thoughts and feelings, at different prices to pay.

Aside from that, and even if religion did not affect me personally (which is impossible since we in society do not live in a vacuum), I would absolutely care about the damage that religions do to other people *besides* me. Such as young children who become indoctrinated into them. They are given ideological labels and identities right at the age of birth, before they even had the chance to consider the issues themselves, learn how to think about the world logically, and study various alternatives. They are emotionally manipulated into being afraid or guilty to question what their religious parents pressure onto them.

So please stop invoking this bad argument about how most atheists do and should not care about the beliefs of religious people except to the point that they personally are impacted or others besides the religious believer. I care long ahead of that, and will defend doing so. I care about the damage being done to the religious believers themselves, even if they are very oblivious to it. If various atheists generally do not care before that point, that is a testament to the ignorance and the selfishness of those atheists. That is a problem we should aim to correct amongst our movement, not to promote.

 

[jab]

It's White Evangelicals who are the problem, not all Christians. I started a thread about this a couple of days ago in the religion forum, based on an article in the NYTImes.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?23171-The-danger-of-White-Evangelical-Christians-in-the-US

This is what I think. I also think it would be politically dangerous for any politician to claim it's "Christianity" - It's probably safer to say 'rioters, fascists, etc' knowing full well it's uneducated white evangelicals. Hasn't it always been, though?

The only word in your sentence that I have to disagree with is "uneducated". Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz both have advanced degrees from uppity universities. Some of the people who broke into the capital had advanced degrees. Of course, just because one has a lot of formal education doesn't necessarily mean that they are really educated. There are plenty of nutjob evangelicals who have degrees from secular schools in a variety of subjects.

And, sadly Lion doesn't seem to understand that most atheists couldn't care less what religion one believes in, as long as they aren't trying to force the rest of us to follow their beliefs, and as long as they aren't using their religion to harm others. I don't think most Christians are trying to force their views on the rest of us, but there is a component, which may be growing in the US, that seems to be supportive of a Christian theocracy. I don't remember this being a problem when I was growing up. In fact, historically it was the Baptists who were strong supporters of the SCS. Things have changed a lot over the past 50 or 60 years, most likely beginning around the early 1980s.

And, as I mentioned in the other thread, it's not all White evangelicals who are the problem. In fact, some of them were appalled at what their fellow evangelicals did last week and what they are trying to do. Hopefully, their numbers will grow, but it's not going to happen over night.

Also Cruz and Hawley are both, I believe, Catholic, not evangelical.

 

[Patooka]

For the record, there were no peaceful protestors at the DC Attacks.

And there's no such thing as an Israeli civilian.

"Very fine people on both side", wears a little thin when one group builds a gallows and chants about hanging the Vice-President. Whatever my political stance is, I would distance myself from such an assembly. Same as if they were chanting, "Jews will not replace us!"

But then again, I have some common fucking sense.

With regards to the OP, I'm certain quite a few of the domestic terrorists are Kenneth Copeland and Paula White fans. So whilst saying a blanket statement like, "Christianity is the problem", is a generalization, the is an element of truth behind it.

 

[bilby]

I would think the opposite. Christianity has shaped the Western world so thoroughly that even those who do not openly adhere to it still follow it. Jesus was a poor criminal executed in worst way. Yet, he became God. Concern for the meek and disadvantaged is a Western ideal because it is a Christian one. Historically, appeals for human rights have been based on it. Wilberforce was an evangelical Christian. I may be an atheist, but the notion that Christianity is the problem seems quite wrong.

I couldn't disagree more.

The idea that western liberalism, with its concern for the disadvantaged, is a result of Christianity is a widely accepted bit of propaganda, but it doesn't withstand scrutiny. It's a case of noting a correlation, and assuming a causal link - but if anything, the cause and effect are the reverse of what Christians would like us to believe.

In European history since the dominance of Christianity in the late Roman period, the only way to advance any political ideal was to claim support for it from Christianity. Wilberforce was highly successful in changing the world, in part because he was able to persuade many people that his preferred way was the Christian way. But his opponents were also devout Christians, and were equally convinced that Christianity supported their preference for owning slaves.

In order to persue any agenda in a society dominated by religion, you must claim the support of that religion. And fortunately, the Bible is a Forer Effect document - it's fairly easy to find biblical support for whatever position you want to take.

Henry VIII was convinced that he should be all powerful, and able to tell the pope what to do. The pope disagreed, so Henry started his own version of Christianity, with blackjack and hookers.

That same new version of Christianity was employed two hundred years later to justify stripping the king of England of his power, and chopping off his head. And then a decade or so later, to justify restoring the monarchy.

All developed nations today, with the very notable exception of the USA, are post-Christian, not Christian. Christianity used to be a prerequisite for wielding authority, but now it's not - except in the USA.

And the nations with the most caring laws in support of the poor and meek today tend to be the most secular ones. Christianity didn't shape the Western world; the Western world shaped, and then abandoned, Christianity. It has been abandoned largely because it no longer serves its sole purpose - the control of public opinion. In Europe, a politician who says that you should vote for him because Jesus would want you to, will find that he loses support as a result of that declaration. That's a very new phenomenon, and until recently, such a declaration was not only effective, but practically unavoidable, if you wanted to sway public opinion in your direction. The USA still hasn't caught up.

Christianity wasn't liberal, peaceful, or supportive of the poor and meek (except as a recruiting gambit) when it started, nor for most of its history. It has become those things, because western society has driven it in that direction. To suggest that western liberalism is caused by Christian liberalism is to put the cart before the horse.

 

[Trausti]

I would think the opposite. Christianity has shaped the Western world so thoroughly that even those who do not openly adhere to it still follow it. Jesus was a poor criminal executed in worst way. Yet, he became God. Concern for the meek and disadvantaged is a Western ideal because it is a Christian one. Historically, appeals for human rights have been based on it. Wilberforce was an evangelical Christian. I may be an atheist, but the notion that Christianity is the problem seems quite wrong.

I couldn't disagree more.

The idea that western liberalism, with its concern for the disadvantaged, is a result of Christianity is a widely accepted bit of propaganda, but it doesn't withstand scrutiny. It's a case of noting a correlation, and assuming a causal link - but if anything, the cause and effect are the reverse of what Christians would like us to believe.

In European history since the dominance of Christianity in the late Roman period, the only way to advance any political ideal was to claim support for it from Christianity. Wilberforce was highly successful in changing the world, in part because he was able to persuade many people that his preferred way was the Christian way. But his opponents were also devout Christians, and were equally convinced that Christianity supported their preference for owning slaves.

In order to persue any agenda in a society dominated by religion, you must claim the support of that religion. And fortunately, the Bible is a Forer Effect document - it's fairly easy to find biblical support for whatever position you want to take.

Henry VIII was convinced that he should be all powerful, and able to tell the pope what to do. The pope disagreed, so Henry started his own version of Christianity, with blackjack and hookers.

That same new version of Christianity was employed two hundred years later to justify stripping the king of England of his power, and chopping off his head. And then a decade or so later, to justify restoring the monarchy.

All developed nations today, with the very notable exception of the USA, are post-Christian, not Christian. Christianity used to be a prerequisite for wielding authority, but now it's not - except in the USA.

And the nations with the most caring laws in support of the poor and meek today tend to be the most secular ones. Christianity didn't shape the Western world; the Western world shaped, and then abandoned, Christianity. It has been abandoned largely because it no longer serves its sole purpose - the control of public opinion. In Europe, a politician who says that you should vote for him because Jesus would want you to, will find that he loses support as a result of that declaration. That's a very new phenomenon, and until recently, such a declaration was not only effective, but practically unavoidable, if you wanted to sway public opinion in your direction. The USA still hasn't caught up.

Christianity wasn't liberal, peaceful, or supportive of the poor and meek (except as a recruiting gambit) when it started, nor for most of its history. It has become those things, because western society has driven it in that direction. To suggest that western liberalism is caused by Christian liberalism is to put the cart before the horse.

It was the Church that made cousin marriage verboten. (Compare this to the Muslim world / middle east.) This may have been a carryover from Roman practice, but the consequence was to extinguish European tribes. This is probably why those of European ancestry - unlike any other people in the world - have an out group preference. The absence of familial tribes led people to organize in other ways, societies and charities and such. (This was unique to the West.) And at the core of Christianity is redemption and forgiveness. This is something that non-westerners often scoff at. Forgive your enemy? Love the poor? Ask yourself this: what do you view to be Western values and why was it only in the West that these values developed?

I'd add music, too. Without the Church, modern music simply would not exist.

 

[bilby]

I would think the opposite. Christianity has shaped the Western world so thoroughly that even those who do not openly adhere to it still follow it. Jesus was a poor criminal executed in worst way. Yet, he became God. Concern for the meek and disadvantaged is a Western ideal because it is a Christian one. Historically, appeals for human rights have been based on it. Wilberforce was an evangelical Christian. I may be an atheist, but the notion that Christianity is the problem seems quite wrong.

I couldn't disagree more.

The idea that western liberalism, with its concern for the disadvantaged, is a result of Christianity is a widely accepted bit of propaganda, but it doesn't withstand scrutiny. It's a case of noting a correlation, and assuming a causal link - but if anything, the cause and effect are the reverse of what Christians would like us to believe.

In European history since the dominance of Christianity in the late Roman period, the only way to advance any political ideal was to claim support for it from Christianity. Wilberforce was highly successful in changing the world, in part because he was able to persuade many people that his preferred way was the Christian way. But his opponents were also devout Christians, and were equally convinced that Christianity supported their preference for owning slaves.

In order to persue any agenda in a society dominated by religion, you must claim the support of that religion. And fortunately, the Bible is a Forer Effect document - it's fairly easy to find biblical support for whatever position you want to take.

Henry VIII was convinced that he should be all powerful, and able to tell the pope what to do. The pope disagreed, so Henry started his own version of Christianity, with blackjack and hookers.

That same new version of Christianity was employed two hundred years later to justify stripping the king of England of his power, and chopping off his head. And then a decade or so later, to justify restoring the monarchy.

All developed nations today, with the very notable exception of the USA, are post-Christian, not Christian. Christianity used to be a prerequisite for wielding authority, but now it's not - except in the USA.

And the nations with the most caring laws in support of the poor and meek today tend to be the most secular ones. Christianity didn't shape the Western world; the Western world shaped, and then abandoned, Christianity. It has been abandoned largely because it no longer serves its sole purpose - the control of public opinion. In Europe, a politician who says that you should vote for him because Jesus would want you to, will find that he loses support as a result of that declaration. That's a very new phenomenon, and until recently, such a declaration was not only effective, but practically unavoidable, if you wanted to sway public opinion in your direction. The USA still hasn't caught up.

Christianity wasn't liberal, peaceful, or supportive of the poor and meek (except as a recruiting gambit) when it started, nor for most of its history. It has become those things, because western society has driven it in that direction. To suggest that western liberalism is caused by Christian liberalism is to put the cart before the horse.

It was the Church that made cousin marriage verboten. (Compare this to the Muslim world / middle east.) This may have been a carryover from Roman practice, but the consequence was to extinguish European tribes. This is probably why those of European ancestry - unlike any other people in the world - have an out group preference. The absence of familial tribes led people to organize in other ways, societies and charities and such. (This was unique to the West.) And at the core of Christianity is redemption and forgiveness. This is something that non-westerners often scoff at. Forgive your enemy? Love the poor? Ask yourself this: what do you view to be Western values and why was it only in the West that these values developed?

I'd add music, too. Without the Church, modern music simply would not exist.

I don't agree that there are uniquely western values. There are modern values, and the west leads the race for modernity due to a number of geographical and geological factors, as Diamond discusses in Guns, Germs and Steel.

The Roman Catholic tradition certainly has some good music (and other art), but again, this isn't unique to that tradition - there's good art and music everywhere.

 

[Trausti]

It was the Church that made cousin marriage verboten. (Compare this to the Muslim world / middle east.) This may have been a carryover from Roman practice, but the consequence was to extinguish European tribes. This is probably why those of European ancestry - unlike any other people in the world - have an out group preference. The absence of familial tribes led people to organize in other ways, societies and charities and such. (This was unique to the West.) And at the core of Christianity is redemption and forgiveness. This is something that non-westerners often scoff at. Forgive your enemy? Love the poor? Ask yourself this: what do you view to be Western values and why was it only in the West that these values developed?

I'd add music, too. Without the Church, modern music simply would not exist.

I don't agree that there are uniquely western values. There are modern values, and the west leads the race for modernity due to a number of geographical and geological factors, as Diamond discusses in Guns, Germs and Steel.

The Roman Catholic tradition certainly has some good music (and other art), but again, this isn't unique to that tradition - there's good art and music everywhere.

The cousin marriage ban seems to have had a great impact.

The Origins of WEIRD Psychology

Recent research not only confirms the existence of substantial psychological variation around the globe but also highlights the peculiarity of populations that are Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic (WEIRD). We propose that much of this variation arose as people psychologically adapted to differing kin-based institutions—the set of social norms governing descent, marriage, residence and related domains. We further propose that part of the variation in these institutions arose historically from the Catholic Church’s marriage and family policies, which contributed to the dissolution of Europe’s traditional kin-based institutions, leading eventually to the predominance of nuclear families and impersonal institutions. By combining data on 20 psychological outcomes with historical measures of both kinship and Church exposure, we find support for these ideas in a comprehensive array of analyses across countries, among European regions and between individuals with different cultural backgrounds.

Do think the West would have led the race to modernity if it hadn't developed individualism and impersonal institutions?

In 1931, Iraqi King Feisal said this of his people "devoid of any patriotic idea, connected by no common tie, giving ear to evil; prone to anarchy, and perpetually ready to rise against any government whatever." Iraq has very high rates of cousin marriage and tribalism.

 

[Angry Floof]

Christianity begets fascism. Blind authority worship, insistence on conformity, us vs. them, condemnation and punishment of outgroups, a sense of separation from the rest of society, a sense of moral superiority (lol), sexism, etc. Religion getting something right now and then doesn't justify its backward and toxic nature. Honestly, I'm surprised it took us this long to develop a trump cult.

And one more time for those in the back: There is not one single thing that is good or useful in the world that cannot be had without religion. Not one.

 

[Bomb#20]

For the record, there were no peaceful protestors at the DC Attacks.

And there's no such thing as an Israeli civilian.

"Very fine people on both side", wears a little thin

Dude, save the quotation marks for when you aren't misrepresenting me. Pointing out that Jarhyn made an obviously false accusation does not constitute a claim that the people he falsely accused are very fine people. You can be a jerk who's trying to do something that should not be done, and still do it by peaceful protest. This is not rocket science.

when one group builds a gallows and chants about hanging the Vice-President.

There were thousands of people at that riot. You think thousands of people built a gallows? You are doing exactly the same thing Jarhyn did, and exactly the same thing any number of Palestinian terrorism apologists have done -- you are claiming your political opponents are interchangeable parts in order to give rhetorical cover to treating them as interchangeable parts.

 

[Patooka]

There were thousands of people at that riot.

You're going to have to instruct me on the proper technique of rioting "peacefully", seeing as you believe Jarhyn's assertion is wrong.

You think thousands of people built a gallows?

Nope. Some built a gallows. Some chanted, "Hang Mike Pence". Some looted. Some attacked cops. All of them stormed Capitol Building. One tasered himself to death. All were in the wrong and all showed violent intent the instant they believed themselves exempt from the barricades erected.

 

[Bomb#20]

There were thousands of people at that riot.

You're going to have to instruct me on the proper technique of rioting "peacefully", seeing as you believe Jarhyn's assertion is wrong.

Seriously? The proper technique is to not riot even when one is at a riot. You do understand the difference between a noun and a verb, don't you?

Nope. Some built a gallows. Some chanted, "Hang Mike Pence". Some looted. Some attacked cops. All of them stormed Capitol Building.

Um, no, plenty of them didn't enter the Capitol Building at all and stayed out on the street; and lots of them just strolled unopposed through the open doors, which does not qualify as "storming".

One tasered himself to death. All were in the wrong and all showed violent intent the instant they believed themselves exempt from the barricades erected.

Uh huh. So you figure when a bunch of hippies hold a sit-in in the dean's office and don't leave when asked, that's "showing violent intent", do you? Ignoring barricades and trespassing where you aren't allowed has been a huge part of this country's long tradition of peaceful protest.

Threatening death, looting, attacking cops, and breaking property do not count as peaceful protest. But being in the vicinity of a person who does those things does not count as doing those things. Some of the participants were peaceful protesters and some were rioters. Duh! So don't treat people as interchangeable parts. Why is this hard for you?

 

[WAB]

Some things would be better if christians followed certain portions of their damned bible

Matthew
5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Amen to that!