Is there really a war on Christianity?

[acbytesla]

My apologies. I shouldn't be posting today, as I'm behind on a lot of other things at the moment, but can't resist turning on computer occasionally, saw mgidm86's comment about psychotic dicks, and impulsively wrote a reply rather than sensibly turning computer off and getting back outside. When you replied to my comment I mistakenly thought you were the person I had written my reply to (and was in too much of a hurry to check up thread more carefully, as I should have done).

My comment should have been addressed to mgidm86. I agree that your comments and mgidm's are quite different.

From a quick glance at your comments on this page, on the whole I think your comments are fairly reasonable -- but I also think you may be prone to over-generalize a bit. For instance, you wrote:




I think it would be more accurate to write: Why is it that some Christians play victims? Or, if you prefer, Why is it that many Christians play victims? But while there are many who do, there are many who do not.

(I think there are more who don't than who do -- and that the ones who do are simply louder and have more access to echo-chamber media -- but that's just my impression. I don't know of any accurate polling on this. Clearly there are a lot of conservative Christians who act this way, but it's no more accurate to say all Christians act this way than to say all atheists act in a way that some noticeable segment of the atheist population does. Christians, like atheists, are a very diverse group of people. If you were to put a group of people from the Church of Christ in with a group of people from the United Church of Christ, for instance, you might find more disagreements than if you'd put the United Church of Christ people in with a group of atheists.)

Similarly, I think you're mistaken to write:




Again, there are some Christians who want that; there are a great many who don't.




That depends on how you define atheist. A hundred fifty years ago, a hundred years ago, even fifty years ago I'd say that was true, if we define atheists as people who publicly called themselves atheists. It took a fair amount of courage to do that, and many of the people who did that took it upon themselves to read the Bible and be well-versed in it in order to defend their views.

But today there are many who define atheist as simply someone who lacks a clear belief in god. That greatly increases the number of people who can be claimed as atheists (especially if you count babies as atheists, as some folks now do), but it also greatly lowers the amount of knowledge of the Bible held by the average atheist. It's true that many Christians are not that knowledgeable about the actual contents of the Bible, apart from a few parts that are repeatedly brought up; but it's also true, I think, that many atheists are similarly not that knowledgeable about the actual contents of the Bible.

That's why I found Farrell Till's Skeptical Review so enjoyable: because he did have very extensive knowledge about the topics he wrote about. In contrast, many atheist websites I've visited engage in the same kind of echo-chamber copy-pasting (without bothering to verify the material they're copying and echoing) that political and religious conservatives too often do.

And now I'm going to turn the computer off and get back outside where I belong at this time of day. Again, my apologies for confusing you with mgidm86.

I'd agree with you that my description about Christians should have included the qualifier 'some', but the theme of the thread 'is there is a war on Christianity?' It suggests persecution, don't you think?

As for the contention regarding knowledge of the Bible. It's not me claiming that, those are the results of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. In fact the more people know about religion the more likely they will become atheists. It's one reason I think everyone should take a comparative religions course.

 

[Nova Land]

The only reasonable definition of an atheist is someone who lacks a belief in God.

No, there are two reasonable definitions.

One, a broader one which includes a lot of people who 50 years ago would not have been considered atheists (such as babies), is the one you mentioned -- someone who lacks a belief in God.

The other, a narrower one which I believe used to be the commonly accepted definition, is someone who disbelieves in God (i.e. believes there is no God).

Lacking belief and disbelieving are not the same.

For instance, I disbelieve in Santa Claus. I disbelieve in the Tooth Fairy. I disbelieve in astrology and numerology. I'm not waiting for more evidence before I make up my mind; I've seen enough evidence to be reasonably certain Santa Claus is fictional, the Tooth Fairy is fictional, and that astrology and numerology may be entertaining diversions but neither has any real ability to reveal to us knowledge we don't already have.

In contrast, I lack belief that there is intelligent life on any planet in the Alpha Centauri system, but I don't disbelieve there is intelligent life there. There may very well be. I simply don't know; there's not enough information for me to know there is or to know there isn't. Since I lack evidence that there is, I lack belief that there is.

Similarly, there's a thread in the Trials and Errors section about the (still unsolved) Jon Benet Ramsey case. One poster keeps putting forward the theory that Fleet White is the person behind Jon Benet's death. I lack belief in that theory, because I don't find that person's posts very convincing. But I don't disbelieve the theory. It could very well be right; I am not knowledgeable enough about the case to know. But until I do have enough good evidence to think the theory is a reasonable and likely explanation, I lack belief in it.

I wish there were a library I could visit which has bound copies or microfilm of American Atheist from the 1960s, because I'm pretty sure Madalyn Murray O'Hair was a strong subscriber to the second definition of atheist -- that atheists don't simply lack belief in God, they disbelieve in God. The other definition, that an atheist is someone who simply lacks belief, feels to me like a more recent development.

The broader definition has become popular enough among a large enough number of people that I accept it as a legitimate alternative definition. But it is by no means the only reasonable definition.

 

[Nova Land]

I'd agree with you that my description about Christians should have included the qualifier 'some', but the theme of the thread 'is there is a war on Christianity?' It suggests persecution, don't you think?

Yes. And I fully agree that a significant number of Christians do hold the belief that there is a war on Christianity.

But it's also important to realize that the belief in a war on Christianity is almost exclusively held by conservative Christians -- and not even by all of them. I think you'd have a very difficult time finding any liberal Christians who believe in the existence of such a war.

That's why it's important not to give the impression that all Christians believe there's a war on Christianity. That would be as false as to say that no Christians believe threre's a war on Christianity.

As for the contention regarding knowledge of the Bible. It's not me claiming that, those are the results of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

That's interesting!

When you have time, could you post a link (or PM me a link) to more information about the study the Pew Forum did to determine that? I'm not familiar with it and would enjoy learning more about it.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes. And I fully agree that a significant number of Christians do hold the belief that there is a war on Christianity.

But it's also important to realize that the belief in a war on Christianity is almost exclusively held by conservative Christians -- and not even by all of them. I think you'd have a very difficult time finding any liberal Christians who believe in the existence of such a war.

That's why it's important not to give the impression that all Christians believe there's a war on Christianity. That would be as false as to say that no Christians believe threre's a war on Christianity.

I'd agree with all of this. But as I said, I was addressing the woe is us Christians in even the suggestion that there is some kind of war being waged. It's particularly ironic at Christmas time. I'm convinced that conservative pastors drum it up every year for fundraising and the media are their unwitting allies because even a phoney controversy results in traffic.

That's interesting!

When you have time, could you post a link (or PM me a link) to more information about the study the Pew Forum did to determine that? I'm not familiar with it and would enjoy learning more about it.

http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey

 

[Marcus]

No, there are two reasonable definitions.

One, a broader one which includes a lot of people who 50 years ago would not have been considered atheists (such as babies), is the one you mentioned -- someone who lacks a belief in God.

The other, a narrower one which I believe used to be the commonly accepted definition, is someone who disbelieves in God (i.e. believes there is no God).

Lacking belief and disbelieving are not the same.

For instance, I disbelieve in Santa Claus. I disbelieve in the Tooth Fairy. I disbelieve in astrology and numerology. I'm not waiting for more evidence before I make up my mind; I've seen enough evidence to be reasonably certain Santa Claus is fictional, the Tooth Fairy is fictional, and that astrology and numerology may be entertaining diversions but neither has any real ability to reveal to us knowledge we don't already have.

In contrast, I lack belief that there is intelligent life on any planet in the Alpha Centauri system, but I don't disbelieve there is intelligent life there. There may very well be. I simply don't know; there's not enough information for me to know there is or to know there isn't. Since I lack evidence that there is, I lack belief that there is.

Similarly, there's a thread in the Trials and Errors section about the (still unsolved) Jon Benet Ramsey case. One poster keeps putting forward the theory that Fleet White is the person behind Jon Benet's death. I lack belief in that theory, because I don't find that person's posts very convincing. But I don't disbelieve the theory. It could very well be right; I am not knowledgeable enough about the case to know. But until I do have enough good evidence to think the theory is a reasonable and likely explanation, I lack belief in it.

I wish there were a library I could visit which has bound copies or microfilm of American Atheist from the 1960s, because I'm pretty sure Madalyn Murray O'Hair was a strong subscriber to the second definition of atheist -- that atheists don't simply lack belief in God, they disbelieve in God. The other definition, that an atheist is someone who simply lacks belief, feels to me like a more recent development.

The broader definition has become popular enough among a large enough number of people that I accept it as a legitimate alternative definition. But it is by no means the only reasonable definition.

A person who lacks the information to make the determination and is therefore undecided, like you and the Jon Benet case, would be agnostic rather than atheist. By the current definition, not an historical one. At least that is the way I understand it.

I like the verbiage of "lacking a belief in God" because of the claim of some theists that atheism is a religion. It's not, anymore than not collecting stamps is a hobby.

 

[acbytesla]

No, there are two reasonable definitions.

One, a broader one which includes a lot of people who 50 years ago would not have been considered atheists (such as babies), is the one you mentioned -- someone who lacks a belief in God.

The other, a narrower one which I believe used to be the commonly accepted definition, is someone who disbelieves in God (i.e. believes there is no God).

Lacking belief and disbelieving are not the same.

For instance, I disbelieve in Santa Claus. I disbelieve in the Tooth Fairy. I disbelieve in astrology and numerology. I'm not waiting for more evidence before I make up my mind; I've seen enough evidence to be reasonably certain Santa Claus is fictional, the Tooth Fairy is fictional, and that astrology and numerology may be entertaining diversions but neither has any real ability to reveal to us knowledge we don't already have.

In contrast, I lack belief that there is intelligent life on any planet in the Alpha Centauri system, but I don't disbelieve there is intelligent life there. There may very well be. I simply don't know; there's not enough information for me to know there is or to know there isn't. Since I lack evidence that there is, I lack belief that there is.

Similarly, there's a thread in the Trials and Errors section about the (still unsolved) Jon Benet Ramsey case. One poster keeps putting forward the theory that Fleet White is the person behind Jon Benet's death. I lack belief in that theory, because I don't find that person's posts very convincing. But I don't disbelieve the theory. It could very well be right; I am not knowledgeable enough about the case to know. But until I do have enough good evidence to think the theory is a reasonable and likely explanation, I lack belief in it.

I wish there were a library I could visit which has bound copies or microfilm of American Atheist from the 1960s, because I'm pretty sure Madalyn Murray O'Hair was a strong subscriber to the second definition of atheist -- that atheists don't simply lack belief in God, they disbelieve in God. The other definition, that an atheist is someone who simply lacks belief, feels to me like a more recent development.

The broader definition has become popular enough among a large enough number of people that I accept it as a legitimate alternative definition. But it is by no means the only reasonable definition.

You're describing two different kinds of atheists, not different definitions of atheism. I've seen it described as soft atheism and hard atheism. Sometimes referred to as gnostic or agnostic atheism. Gnostic meaning 'knowing' and agnostic meaning 'not knowing'. Atheism is about what you believe, not what you know. I would describe myself as an agnostic atheist. I don't know there are no god or gods. I dont believe there are, but I don't know.

And until I see some credible evidence of any, just like Big Foot, I don't believe.

 

[pgwenthold]

You're describing two different kinds of atheists, not different definitions of atheism. I've seen it described as soft atheism and hard atheism. Sometimes referred to as gnostic or agnostic atheism. Gnostic meaning 'knowing' and agnostic meaning 'not knowing'. Atheism is about what you believe, not what you know. I would describe myself as an agnostic atheist. I don't know there are no god or gods. I dont believe there are, but I don't know.

And until I see some credible evidence of any, just like Big Foot, I don't believe.

Someone who believes there is no God also does not hold belief that there is a God, and so the "hard atheism" you note is not different from soft atheism, it is a subset.

 

[acbytesla]

Someone who believes there is no God also does not hold belief that there is a God, and so the "hard atheism" you note is not different from soft atheism, it is a subset.

Yes and no. But this is all kind of picky crap that drives me crazy.

An atheist is simply anyone who doesn't hold a belief in God or gods. How certain they might be of how sure they are is really irrelevant. I hate the term atheist honestly. There is no term for not believing in fairies or the Loch Ness monster . It's insane that the position of not believing in a big buddy in the sky needs a term. How about I'm not 'God delusional' for Christ sakes?

 

[Thor 2]

You insult a fellow poster, then you accuse him of being insulting.

On topic - I never met a Gawd who wasn't a psychotic dick, Christian or otherwise. I'm at war with anyone who wants to force their religion into my life, whether it be via policy or any other method. That's about all I got for the religion forum.

Cheers!

Well you're one up on me then. I haven't met a Gawd of any description.

 

[acbytesla]

Well you're one up on me then. I haven't met a Gawd of any description.

I love it when Xians accuse me of 'hating god'. Somebody please tell me how I can hate something that I don't believe exists?

 

[Marcus]

I love it when Xians accuse me of 'hating god'. Somebody please tell me how I can hate something that I don't believe exists?

I've had this discussion many times here with theists over the years. What it amounts to is that some of them believe that everyone secretly believes in Sky Daddy. All of us atheists are either mad at God, or pretending not to believe for some other reason.

Kurious Kathy said it succinctly when she referred to "so called atheists". In her mind, actual atheists didn't exist.

 

[acbytesla]

I've had this discussion many times here with theists over the years. What it amounts to is that some of them believe that everyone secretly believes in Sky Daddy. All of us atheists are either mad at God, or pretending not to believe for some other reason.

Kurious Kathy said it succinctly when she referred to "so called atheists". In her mind, actual atheists didn't exist.

I've heard all that too. I've also been asked whether it was just that I wanted to sin? That cracks me up so much i can't resist saying 'yes of course. I want to steal and bed as many people as possible and the whole Christian thing gets in the way.'

 

[stevea]

No, there are two reasonable definitions.

One, a broader one which includes a lot of people who 50 years ago would not have been considered atheists (such as babies), is the one you mentioned -- someone who lacks a belief in God.

The other, a narrower one which I believe used to be the commonly accepted definition, is someone who disbelieves in God (i.e. believes there is no God).

Lacking belief and disbelieving are not the same.

I like your post very much, tho' my ideas differ a bit from yours - I think there are more 'gradations of belief'.

The first case you describe may be the result of ignorance or indifference or lack of knowledge. I *believe* there are 67 moons of Jupiter, but I a/ don't care much, and b/ fully expect that further examinations and definitions will modify that count, so it's a rather weak belief. A not-unreasonable default.

Your second case is much stronger a stand on an issue based on *something* you consider knowledge, while I instead withhold judgment.

For instance, I disbelieve in Santa Claus. I disbelieve in the Tooth Fairy. I disbelieve in astrology and numerology. I'm not waiting for more evidence before I make up my mind; [...]

I refuse to act on any claim that is without evidence, and I have no credible evidence that Santa .. exist. OTOH I see absolutely no reason to "make up my mind", or otherwise preclude future evidence or create bias. The scientific method is entirely about being open to revision based on new evidence. IF some new evidence appears that Santa is real - THEN I'm perfectly willing to revise my (provisional) beliefs. My main point is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. argumentum ad ignorantiam is a logical, not empirical, fallacy.

When it comes to deism, there is an added issue. A deityis often defined n a way that allows them to evade normal evidence; a 'God' could hide his existence if it chose. That alone puts 'God' outside the realm of the scientific/empirical method. Unlike Santa or numerology, 'God' is not a scientifically testable hypothesis. So we can't even in theory dispute the existence of a J-C type God based on empirical evidence. Those rules are irrelevant.

So hypotheses like 'Santa' is potentially disprovable based on say a thorough examination of the North pole. There is no evidence that could 'disprove' some common 'God' hypotheses. I categorize both into the 'don't care till evidence appears' bin. If someone provides credible evidence of a Santa, then I will actively 'believe'. If some God reveals himself to m,e I will similarly 'believe' (right after I consult a shrink).

So I would place all sorts of these unevidenced beliefs into the 'no evidence, don't care' bin whilst you prefer to take an activist stance against those beliefs that *seem* particularly improbable. My comment is that you can't assess the probability of non-empirical hypotheses like 'God'. It's just noise. OTOH if you observed some personal deity revelation (you had a burning bush moment) - then you might have evidence unavailable to me (.... or a psychotic episode).

In contrast, I lack belief that there is intelligent life on any planet in the Alpha Centauri system, but I don't disbelieve there is intelligent life there. There may very well be. I simply don't know; there's not enough information for me to know there is or to know there isn't.

I agree that it is an unknown, but unlike you I am forced to declare 'other intelligent life' is just another unevidenced notion, like leprechauns with pots of gold. [Frankly there are loads of reasons to think 'life' itself is unlikely and perhaps unique].

Since I lack evidence that there is, I lack belief that there is

Right, but there is no 'potential' evidence against most deism. It's not an empirical issue. So active disbelief is illogical. It's just another unevidenced claim - like a zillion others we can ignore till evidence appears.

Active disbelief (like the strong atheism you describe) IMO requires (contrary) evidence just as active belief requires (positive) evidence. I don't have either wrt deism. I can't even see how contrary evidence is potentially possible wrt most deism.