Your opinion on Christian member participation

[Politesse]

In the earliest versions of this forum (early 2000's), discussions between the Atheists and Christians was very popular (now it seems to be Politics). I remember spending most of my time back then in the various Religion forums and rarely venturing elsewhere. I burned out after a while, but I do recall a lot of entertaining and thought provoking discussions we had back then, and I think everyone learned something. Discussions did get tense at times, but people would keep coming back for more, so I guess generally bridges weren't burned in the process. I wish we had those kinds of members and discussions back. It seems we have few Christians here now, compared to the old days.

We're a dying breed.

 

[southernhybrid]

... should they only be allowed to post secular messages?

Yikes. How boring it'd be...

Hopefully you don't feel unwelcome because of the strong stance of some secular ideologues proclaiming that all religion is wrong and it's ruining the world. IMV the diversity of POV's and cultures/subcultures makes the world more interesting, there are more ideas on offer. The "get rid of all religion" secular activists are the secular version of fundagelicals. There are a few zealots in any gathering of humans.

Totally agree.

 

[Brian63]

I had wondered if this discussion was going to be used as a proxy for that discussion. Apparently so.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Thanks to all of you who have voted so far. I would really like to see more members participate in this; I deliberately left the votes anonymous so people wouldn't feel like they were being exposed if they hold an opinion that might not be popular, or simply prefer their privacy.

I am not doing this poll for some nefarious reason. This is strictly personal curiosity on my part. So please drag in your friends and acquaintances to help me scratch that itch

Ruth

 

[ZiprHead]

Proselytising is boring, and prohibited by the ToU. But apart from such contentless exhortations to convert, repent, or read from a religious text, any and all participation is welcome.

It won't go unchallenged; But don't mistake such challenges for attempts to silence criticism - members pointing out the flaws in an argument ought to be an inspiration to come up with better arguments, and shouldn't be construed as an attempt to dissuade people from posting at all.

Of course, we're all here for entertainment. Being wrong is fine. Being right is fine too. Being boring, not so much. So far, I have yet to see anything from you that I would classify as boring. Although I will admit that I rarely agree with you, at least in the realm of religion

This ^.

 

[ZiprHead]

Christians can certainly be exasperating, with an inability to evaluate evidence or think logically. I've argued with them often on other forums, and their posts just go round and round. You can show them their logical errors, their factual errors, and their baseless premises, but six or eight posts later the same faulty reasoning or unevidenced premises surface again. Their ideas are not the product of reason, and reason seems unable to budge them.
But, in the interest of fairness and free expression, if they think they have something to contribute, I've no objection. I can always just ignore them.

This too ^. I've stopped trying to deal with that stuff a long time ago. It got boring.

 

[blastula]

I'm reminded of the The Christian Forums Outcast threads here. Those were a trip.

 

[Brian63]

some secular ideologues proclaiming that all religion is wrong and it's ruining the world. IMV the diversity of POV's and cultures/subcultures makes the world more interesting, there are more ideas on offer.

Are there any limits at all to that mentality though? For instance, would you look at a COVID denier and say “wow, that is another addition of diversity of POV’s to the world, and therefore is welcome to the world”? Do you think YEC’s promoting their nonscientific views into private and/or public schools is a welcome addition to the “diversity” of viewpoints? Are there some beliefs that are simply wrong, and even harmful? We as a human species would generally and likely be better off if nobody held them, than if some people did?

I do. Diversity for the sake of diversity is not always a good thing. Compromising and sacrificing reasonable positions just for the sake of entertaining bad ideas and granting them equal power and privileges in society is not a good approach. We as people should generally strive to hold as many true beliefs as possible, and as few false beliefs as possible. That will be most likely to lead to our overall prosperity.

 

[crazyfingers]

I propose no changes to the current rules. Since I don't visit the religion forums much I have very little idea who claims to be what.

And I hope those who can spare a bit of money would move that fundraising bar to the right some more.

 

[crazyfingers]

I'm reminded of the The Christian Forums Outcast threads here. Those were a trip.

Ya I was banned from there for not being Christian. If I recall correctly nonchristians were only allowed in one topic area as it was. They sure hated being challenged. That was so long ago..

 

[rousseau]

... should they only be allowed to post secular messages?

Yikes. How boring it'd be...

Hopefully you don't feel unwelcome because of the strong stance of some secular ideologues proclaiming that all religion is wrong and it's ruining the world. IMV the diversity of POV's and cultures/subcultures makes the world more interesting, there are more ideas on offer. The "get rid of all religion" secular activists are the secular version of fundagelicals. There are a few zealots in any gathering of humans.

This is largely how I feel. Anymore I feel that the militant atheist can be just as religious and dogmatic as those who actually follow religion. Their framing and understanding of religion is often a bit off-base, and reason becomes the new point of worship. There is a false notion that human-kind is making progress, and that reason is the only way to progress. And yet we've done more damage to our future since the age of Enlightenment than in any other era, which I think speaks to the fact that reason has to actually be reasonable, founded in actual wisdom and knowledge - not just how to exploit the environment to be more comfortable.

It'd be easy to criticize the secular ideologue, but in another light they're just another brand of the religious that should be accepted in the same way we do Christians. But if you're Christian, just don't expect to have a good time speaking with them.

 

[abaddon]

some secular ideologues proclaiming that all religion is wrong and it's ruining the world. IMV the diversity of POV's and cultures/subcultures makes the world more interesting, there are more ideas on offer.

Are there any limits at all to that mentality though?

Limits to irrationality was my point.

For instance, would you look...

Being specific about which beliefs are a problem is what I support. Switching from the totalizing about "all religion" to specifics is always the better approach.

Are there some beliefs that are simply wrong, and even harmful? We as a human species would generally and likely be better off if nobody held them, than if some people did?

Yep. Agreed. You're not saying anything at all that challenges what I said. I'd just add it all applies to secular beliefs too.

-------

ETA: When I say "diversity of POV's" I don't mean being over-tolerant of everything, I mean putting more ideas (all of them debatable) out there. I know of ideas in religions that aren't demonstrably false or harmful (maybe even beneficial) and prefer understanding the POV to being dismissive merely on grounds it's religious. Too often such ideas get the short end of the stick by persons who dismiss them because they're not secular-enough or scientific-enough to suit their overly guarded minds. I'm interested in exploring, not merely defending a 'worldview' against others.

 

[Brian63]

I know of ideas in religions that aren't demonstrably false or harmful (maybe even beneficial)

Me also. The point though is that I have not come across anything beneficial to the human condition that religion offers, which secularism is incapable of offering. In other words, secularism is capable of offering the same, plus some more. It has more potential. That is because if people act rationally and reasonably, that will lead them to secular worldviews and out of religious ones in the same way that they would exit worldviews based on witchcraft, superstition, astrology, etc. Whatever benefits those latter views are capable to any individuals, secular worldviews can also provide them. Secular worldviews have an added advantage. So it is to our overall general benefit to try to be more reasonable, and realize that remaining religious stands as a barrier to progress overall to the human condition. Same as if we were believed in witchcraft, superstition, astrology, etc. If people believe in witchcraft because all their neighbors believe in witchcraft and they get a good community support out of it, then yes that is a positive effect from it. Non-witchcraft worldviews are also capable of providing community comfort, as long as its members strive to do so. Plus they are more reasonable and rational by rejecting witchcraft, and not relying on it to make decisions in the daily lives of the members.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Right, right, right. I love it when religionists imply that without their faith, they'd be criminals, because what would be the basis of morality if there wasn't a god? That is so screwed-up it's hard to fathom. 'You mean, the only reason you didn't shoot me and take my wallet is that you believe some stories from Old Palestine? Trust me, I'm steering clear of you if you ever get a subscription to Freethought Today.'

 

[bilby]

... should they only be allowed to post secular messages?

Yikes. How boring it'd be...

Hopefully you don't feel unwelcome because of the strong stance of some secular ideologues proclaiming that all religion is wrong and it's ruining the world. IMV the diversity of POV's and cultures/subcultures makes the world more interesting, there are more ideas on offer. The "get rid of all religion" secular activists are the secular version of fundagelicals. There are a few zealots in any gathering of humans.

This is largely how I feel. Anymore I feel that the militant atheist can be just as religious and dogmatic as those who actually follow religion. Their framing and understanding of religion is often a bit off-base, and reason becomes the new point of worship. There is a false notion that human-kind is making progress, and that reason is the only way to progress. And yet we've done more damage to our future since the age of Enlightenment than in any other era, which I think speaks to the fact that reason has to actually be reasonable, founded in actual wisdom and knowledge - not just how to exploit the environment to be more comfortable.

It'd be easy to criticize the secular ideologue, but in another light they're just another brand of the religious that should be accepted in the same way we do Christians. But if you're Christian, just don't expect to have a good time speaking with them.

I am happy to accept hypothetical damage to our future, if it prevents very real damage to our present.

Things are almost infinitely better for almost every living human today than they were pre-Enlightenment. And one of the ways in which things are better is that we are now able to foresee, with solid justification, the problems that will need to be handled in the future.

Without modern technology we wouldn't have anthropogenic climate change, sure. But we also wouldn't have low infant mortality, high life expectancy, and the ability to support eight billion people at a level of comfort that would have been unthinkable as recently as a few centuries ago. Henry VIII was one of the wealthiest and most powerful people of his time, and never saw a flushing toilet or used soft toilet paper.

The benefits massively outweigh the problems; And the problems are all amenable to technological solutions (if neo-Luddism doesn't block their application).

There's not a single future problem caused by technology and science that we don't already have the capability to resolve. And the notion that we are making progress is not false - indeed it's bleeding obvious, as Henry VIII would tell you if he were still around. Exploiting the resources at our disposal to become more comfortable is the whole point of human life.

 

[Politesse]

Right, right, right. I love it when religionists imply that without their faith, they'd be criminals, because what would be the basis of morality if there wasn't a god? That is so screwed-up it's hard to fathom. 'You mean, the only reason you didn't shoot me and take my wallet is that you believe some stories from Old Palestine? Trust me, I'm steering clear of you if you ever get a subscription to Freethought Today.'

Eh, plenty of atheists state or imply that they would immediately become vicious, violent social conservatives if they were to find Jesus. If you haven't met very many people, it is easy to imagine that the moral life of people who believe differently than you must be entirely decrepit.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Right, right, right. I love it when religionists imply that without their faith, they'd be criminals, because what would be the basis of morality if there wasn't a god? That is so screwed-up it's hard to fathom. 'You mean, the only reason you didn't shoot me and take my wallet is that you believe some stories from Old Palestine? Trust me, I'm steering clear of you if you ever get a subscription to Freethought Today.'

Eh, plenty of atheists state or imply that they would immediately become vicious, violent social conservatives if they were to find Jesus. If you haven't met very many people, it is easy to imagine that the moral life of people who believe differently than you must be entirely decrepit.

I didn't make my point well. It's screwed up because I don't believe they'd revert to lawless behavior if they lost faith. It's their view of debased humanity lacking any central goodness that's implied in the line that 'this is what holds society together and keeps us moral.'

 

[rousseau]

This is largely how I feel. Anymore I feel that the militant atheist can be just as religious and dogmatic as those who actually follow religion. Their framing and understanding of religion is often a bit off-base, and reason becomes the new point of worship. There is a false notion that human-kind is making progress, and that reason is the only way to progress. And yet we've done more damage to our future since the age of Enlightenment than in any other era, which I think speaks to the fact that reason has to actually be reasonable, founded in actual wisdom and knowledge - not just how to exploit the environment to be more comfortable.

It'd be easy to criticize the secular ideologue, but in another light they're just another brand of the religious that should be accepted in the same way we do Christians. But if you're Christian, just don't expect to have a good time speaking with them.

I am happy to accept hypothetical damage to our future, if it prevents very real damage to our present.

Things are almost infinitely better for almost every living human today than they were pre-Enlightenment. And one of the ways in which things are better is that we are now able to foresee, with solid justification, the problems that will need to be handled in the future.

Without modern technology we wouldn't have anthropogenic climate change, sure. But we also wouldn't have low infant mortality, high life expectancy, and the ability to support eight billion people at a level of comfort that would have been unthinkable as recently as a few centuries ago. Henry VIII was one of the wealthiest and most powerful people of his time, and never saw a flushing toilet or used soft toilet paper.

The benefits massively outweigh the problems; And the problems are all amenable to technological solutions (if neo-Luddism doesn't block their application).

There's not a single future problem caused by technology and science that we don't already have the capability to resolve. And the notion that we are making progress is not false - indeed it's bleeding obvious, as Henry VIII would tell you if he were still around. Exploiting the resources at our disposal to become more comfortable is the whole point of human life.

I'd like to provide a proper response but it really needs a long-form essay that I just do not have the time or energy for these days. Needless to say I think there a few things to keep in mind:

- is humanity as a whole a tenable concept? Yes science has had massive benefits, but it's also caused massive suffering, and a significant proportion of our species is still suffering and not really benefiting much from it

- much of it's benefits are stop-gap measures - yes the infant mortality rate is low, but we've also become extremely reliant on technology, possibly at the genetic level (think reliance on formula and breast-pumps). Similarly we have the means to protect people with health care, but this also kicks the can down the road to when this technology ceases to exist. We've also deskilled an enormous amount of the world's population who is no longer able to survive without reliance on complex civilization

- much of the 'benefit' doesn't actually exist - some of us have been comfortable for a short amount of time, but it's taken about one century to alter our planet's climate and deplete an enormous amount of resources

All of this isn't to say that there's anything wrong with technology, just that humanity doesn't progress in any meaningful sense, and that those who have a kind of faith in reason and progress are over-simplifying what our world actually looks like and how it evolves. Many are looking at history from a small view-point - a few hundred years - not the inevitable problems that are going to arise in 500 - 1000, maybe even 10 000 years. Many are also not cognizant of the immense suffering that is still happening today.

So to tie this back to religion, when you hear an atheist talking about downplaying religion for the good of our species there is something missing in their argument. What they're often really saying is I want to better my condition within the context of the United States.

To me what this boils down to is that the conclusion of scientific understanding isn't faith in reason, and the idea that we need to eradicate irrationality and make the world a paradise, it's that, as an individual, we have absolutely no control over anything and that we should just enjoy the world in it's variety and splendor before we die.

 

[Brian63]

So to tie this back to religion, when you hear an atheist talking about downplaying religion for the good of our species there is something missing in their argument. What they're often really saying is I want to better my condition within the context of the United States.

That is quite the presumption. Maybe it is true for many atheists, but false when it applied to me for instance. I am in the U.S., and I think other religious beliefs other around the world also stifle human progress for their residents.

To me what this boils down to is that the conclusion of scientific understanding isn't faith in reason,

It’s not “faith in reason” to begin with. Reason, empiricism, and the scientific method have been tested and have been far more effective than religion at learning about the physical universe. Trying to equate the value of the two by applying the slippery word “faith” to them both is a categorical error.

and the idea that we need to eradicate irrationality and make the world a paradise,

That is a strawman. The world will not be a paradise. We each even have different ideas on what constitutes a paradise, so let’s not even pretend that term is appropriate or applies. We still want to overall improve the human condition even though it will never come to perfection, and that includes discovering more about how the natural universe around us works.

it's that, as an individual, we have absolutely no control over anything and that we should just enjoy the world in it's variety and splendor before we die.

What about when the beliefs of others impede that objective? When John Smith’s religious beliefs negatively impact Elizabeth Martin, for instance? We live in a very interconnected world, not a laissez-faire one. The beliefs of the individual members of the community will impact not only themselves, but also others. Even when the beliefs of individual A are not being “forced” onto others, they will still impact them in other ways. The notion that we can or should ignore the beliefs of the people around us, except when we can see them harming others, is nonsensical. The reason you may not see the harm it does to you and others is because you would have your eyes closed to it. Religions often operate in a very subtle and nuanced manner. The effects will not be seen clearly, completely, and immediately. They will instead be hidden, only partly visible, and after significant time has elapsed.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So to tie this back to religion, when you hear an atheist talking about downplaying religion for the good of our species there is something missing in their argument. What they're often really saying is I want to better my condition within the context of the United States.

To me what this boils down to is that the conclusion of scientific understanding isn't faith in reason, and the idea that we need to eradicate irrationality and make the world a paradise, it's that, as an individual, we have absolutely no control over anything and that we should just enjoy the world in it's variety and splendor before we die.

Does that square with the results in the OP? Maybe it's just that what people say and do can be very different things. In the end our actions carry the most weight.