|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Open letter to all Atheists. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Re: Hijacked thread....of course People who post single sentence OPs that spawn discussion for more than 30 posts will find this happens to them
I've been in here since 2003. So you lurked 6-18 months before registering? I think I only lasted a month!
In many threads and debates there are many "standards" of reason that atheists seem to use. There are many atheists, and many ways to think.
I call it "the robot response" when ever a Christian tries to apply his faith. I.E. Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Unicorns, and many other illogical comparisons. Are robot responses different from kneejerk ones? The metaphor seems to imply a kind of automatic response, though yours carries repetitive or monotonous along with it which is maybe intentional? Are you saying you don't understand those kinds of comparison, or you do and that it is not logical? To be an effective comparison it would need to be an entity that shares as many attributes with (for example) God as possible within the context of the comparison while not actually being considered itself a deity. It also helps if belief in the entity used as a comparison is rare among adults. Can you think of better ones?
One that always struck me was the one about people in the church have the same divorce rate as people outside the church. Did you mean 'eg' rather than 'ie' in your previous response? Are you saying that the divorce comment is another example of a 'robot response' or is this another type of thing you want to add to your letter to atheists?
Being the critical thinker that I am (yes I am) it really bothered me that statement. It's evidence and observation that you use to draw a conclusion. Any logical person would ask themselves, if the bible is so right about marriage, and Jesus's way so righteous, why is the divorce rate the same? I would fully expect it to be different. Indeed, and given Jesus in the gospels is pretty clear on divorce, and in general he's not in favour. You'd think if Christians were following their own religion this might motivate them to stick with the marriage as no man can tear it asunder.
I would tend to believe this article as in my 48 years of life I have not observed a 50% divorce rate among Christians in the church. The overall statistic is based on the observation that there are twice as many marriages per year as there are divorces, but it is confounded by the effect that many people are getting married later in recent years which has historically shown to reduce divorce rates as well as population and other cultural effects. In short - it's a rough estimated projection. The debunking doesn't really debunk anything. As it implies, it is about spinning the numbers to look good, it's called 'The Good News About Marriage' and the author states 'It started pretty casually, but it became a drive for me and Tally Whitehead, my senior researcher, to understand and dig out any good news that was there... it ended up taking eight years!' It took eight years to complete a single study looking at five claims and write a book about it? It must have taken a lot of looking and considerable spinning! Anyway, the point was to look and publish stuff that was 'good news', rather than just 'the truth'. The article mentions two. 1) 72% of the population is currently married to their first spouse.
this section includes what appears to be the pertinent table - Table 6. I estimate about 78 million people over 15 have ever married.49 million people are still married for the first time. 49/78 := 63% The number she seems to have picked is from Table 10 quote: Instead of honestly saying that '72% of currently married people are composed of two people in their first marriage', she said '72% of people are still married to their first spouse., which is wrong. The biggest issue here is that her statistic seems to ignore people who have been divorced or widowed and have not subsequently remarried. According to Table 6, 9% are currently divorced and 3% are currently widowed. 8 years of research didn't catch that? Maybe I'm wrong, can you correct me? 2) {An claim based on a study or meta-analysis the article does not reference, nor does her website}So I can't say. I believe religiosity has been shown to have an affect on divorce (and I believe it), but it's not as significant as one might expect considering the stakes at play. If you play hunt a stat you might find a few that seem to show divorce rate is much lower when religion is in the mix, but I'd sooner see the numbers after the issue in point 1) above. So there's a lot of conclusions I could draw from that. Everything from she is full of it, or someone else is full of it. I took a look at her website, spent a little time assessing what I could of the evidence, and it seems to me, she's full of it. I don't give credibility to a Harvard graduated financial analyst making these kinds of errors during an eight year long study when it is one of the 5 key pieces of data the study is highlighting, with at least one peer (does a degree in Practical Theology count?) reviewing the material.
it exemplifies what I mean when I say "critical thinking is only as good as the information used. Indeed. But don't worry - she's just released a book that explains everything - buy now, pay later!
I would tend to believe this article as in my 48 years of life I have not observed a 50% divorce rate among Christians in the church. Daily experiences can only give you so much information - you should be careful of extending your local circumstances generally. Maybe your church teaches things so well that people marry the right people and stay with them forever because they love them. Or maybe they fear divorcing because of the community backlash. Or maybe, maybe after they get quietly divorced they don't say anything to you and keep up appearances in public, or maybe they just both change to a church you don't attend. Too many maybes to be able to be sure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
You don't see a difference between discussing both sides of a religious issue on an internet forum and making one side the official stance of the government?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Repeating the verse from message 3:
quote: riVeRraT writes: That verse is about hypocrisy, not praying in public. Verse 7 seems to be the hypocrisy aspect of praying in public. {Added by edit #2 - OK (do'h), there's more about hypocrisy there than just verse 7. But so what. It makes the anti-public prayer message even stronger. You're being an advocate of hypocritical prayer.}
Faceman, in message 13, writes: I've always loved those verses, since I hate praying in public. It always feels like I'm just saying "ditto" to whatever the lead person is praying about. Watch out for doing that "meaningless repetition" thing.
quote: I'm sure that, even in a crowd, one could "go into your inner room", and pray without making a public display of it. Or does prayer to you mean you have to include some sort of physical display? In other words, make a show of it? Moose Edited by Minnemooseus, : Screwed up a quote box. Edited by Minnemooseus, : Edit #2.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I am sure I can find many more examples of public prayer. Not even the most severe critics of the Bible have ever accused it of being consistent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
Not even the most severe critics of the Bible have ever accused it of being consistent. That's of course because its consistency is something that is spiritually discerned, seen clearly only by believers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Zippy writes: I'm sure that, even in a crowd, one could "go into your inner room", and pray without making a public display of it. Or does prayer to you mean you have to include some sort of physical display? In other words, make a show of it? Prayer can be silent and introspective. It need not be even uttered...thinking it is good enough.When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to meannothing more nor less.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
riVeRraT is arguing against a clear cut teaching directly from Jesus. The atheists have Jesus on theirs sides here!!!
riVeRraT, in message 2003, writes: Luke 11:1 [ Jesus’ Teaching on Prayer ] One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples. This verse is the lead in to the Lords Prayer. Which, if not initially, now seems to kind of be an example that contradicts Jesus' instructions in Mathew 6:7:
Jesus writes: "And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. Maybe it's Jesus being against organized religion. Moose ps. The avatar is "Hissy" not "Zippy".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 857 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
his verse is the lead in to the Lords Prayer. Which, if not initially, now seems to kind of be an example that contradicts Jesus' instructions in Mathew 6:7: It is typically considered that the Lord's Prayer is a pattern to follow in praying. In other words, rather than simply reciting "forgive us our sins..." one should deal with specific sins which you yourself are guilty of. And when asking to "give us this day, our daily bread." we should be bringing our specific, daily needs to him.
Maybe it's Jesus being against organized religion. He certainly had his most harsh words for those who were most "religious." IMO, the problem with organized religion is that it is all too easy to make the organized religious practices themselves the focus and primary significance rather than the purpose behind those practices. So for this case as an example, praying the Lord's Prayer verbatim can become a religious practice with no real meaning that becomes the focus rather than the actual principals behind it. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
Praying at a government function also does not force you to participate. Again, the majority rules only apply when it supports your position. The participation is not the issue. The fact that a prayer is being leveraged as part of an official government meeting is the actual issue. I am curious how all you Christians would react if government meetings starting having Muslim prayers. Or Jewish prayers. Or better yet, a bunch of atheists starting the government function basically invoking statements that there is no god. You claim this would not bother you, but I am pretty certain Christian's would be up in arms over such behavior. And I find it ironic that you keep complaining about 'majority rules'. That is the crux of the problem in that the majority of this country is Christian and they have been continually trying to push their agenda on everyone else for a long time. Blue laws in states. Prohibition. Banning gay marriage. You and your ilk have been using 'tyranny of the majority' to get your way for decades. The only thing that has kept you in check is the Constitution. If that was not around, we would likely be a backwards theocracy by now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Praying at a government function also does not force you to participate. Again, the majority rules only apply when it supports your position. It all depends on who is doing the praying. As long as it is not the Government sanctioning and endorsing the prayer and it is simply a citizen doing the praying it should be legal in the US to pray at an government function. And while you are right, a lot of Christians would get their feathers ruffled by an Imam opening a governmental function I think it would be great. The National Cathedral in DC often has clerics from other faiths not just attend but rather perform services, give talks and lectures and teach classes on their religion.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 857 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
You claim this would not bother you, but I am pretty certain Christian's would be up in arms over such behavior. Yea, I see this as the crux of the problem in allowing state-sponsored prayer. If only Christian prayers were allowed at the beginning of Congress or in school, that would be the state sponsoring a particular religious affiliation. Would they have to take the time to allow every possible religious group a time to offer a prayer? Seems a big waste of time to me. No, I would not be pleased if my child's classroom began everyday with a Muslim prayer or some Buddist meditation. And it really doesn't make sense to use some generic prayer "Oh [insert name of personal god here], helps us this day..." Kinda pointless. Maybe a good compromise would be to have a few moments of silence for prayer/meditation/reflection to get your heart and mind prepared for the task at hand and to commit to unselfishly doing the right thing. Our Congressmen/women could certainly use such a time HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
Maybe a good compromise would be to have a few moments of silence for prayer/meditation/reflection to get your heart and mind prepared for the task at hand and to commit to unselfishly doing the right thing. Our Congressmen/women could certainly use such a time Interestingly enough, that was what the public schools did when I was growing up in Canada. We originally had a mandated Lord's Prayer when I was in elementary and middle school. However, this was eventually phased out in favor of a 'moment of silence'. I think in the end, even that was removed as many people stated if someone wanted to start their day with a prayer or a moment of reflection, they can do that first thing in the morning. School, after-all, is meant to be for book-learnin'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
It all depends on who is doing the praying. As long as it is not the Government sanctioning and endorsing the prayer and it is simply a citizen doing the praying it should be legal in the US to pray at an government function. And I wouldn't have a problem with this either.
And while you are right, a lot of Christians would get their feathers ruffled by an Imam opening a governmental function I think it would be great. As an atheist, I would actually enjoy seeing the aftermath of such an occurrence.A similar issue happened in a Texas town several years ago. They used a loophole to allow for 'religious materials' to be distributed to students as part of a school function. As a means to get bible verses passed around. Unfortunately, several Pagans and Muslims decided to use this loophole to pass around their religious propaganda. And guess who was irate over this situation? Yup, the fundamentalist Christians. We atheists would have been upset, but we were too busy laughing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 857 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
That's pretty much all I can find that's relevant and to do with Jesus' instructions. His longest and most detailed recorded prayer was at the Passover meal when he prayed for himself, the disciples, their future and for all future believers - recorded in John 17. Not really a public prayer, but it was in a group setting. There is also Luke 18 where Jesus tells some parables about prayer. One is about persistence and one is about is praying in humility. If you take an overall look at what Jesus taught about prayer and religious conduct in general, he insists that it is not to be used for person glorification, but is to be done in humility, for the glorification of God and for other people. I think you pretty much got the gist of it, I just wanted to add those couple of examples to your list of instructions. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 857 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
School, after-all, is meant to be for book-learnin'. Lol. Yea students would only use that time to pick their nose, or write a note to their friend or sneak a peak up little Suzy's skirt. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024