HOW RELIGION MOTIVATES NANCY

[Thats my opinion]

Nancy’s faith did not come from some voice in the sky, but from deep within where she heard the cries of hurting people. Upon being admitted to the bar she began her practice in a garage behind a Catholic Workers skid row food kitchen. Dozens of visionary young attorneys and physicians have since worked with the poorest of the poor, and Nancy’s NFP pays their education debts. There are a half dozen other life-saving projects she maintains. “EMPOWER THE POOR, PRESERVE THE PLANET,” is the mission statement.

Her concerns have led to a building which will have no carbon footprint—even the construction is being done with solar panels. Funding for this Superadobe, “Greenspace, ”on the grounds of a United Methodist church, is being financed via a lawsuit against a large oil company, which was polluting the air in the reformulation of gasoline. I love it! (If you want to know more, check out my DU posting yesterday in “editorials” titled, “Maybe it’s only a dirt building—or maybe it isn’t”.

Why would someone with these academic and professional skills give herself to often hopeless causes? It is what her Christian commitment led her to do. Her’s is just one of thousands of similar examples of persons lured by a profound faith. Others do powerful loving things for a variety of both religious and non-religious reasons. Nancy’s is an example of how faith and the public good can work together.

[Enrique]

1. that's your imagination

which is fine, as long as you realize that you have no basis for those claims about her motivations.

[Thats my opinion]

13. On private experience

I learned long ago not to question the private experience or motivation of someone else, but to listen carefully to their testimony. If you have a way to dismiss esoteric experience I guess that is how you would approach any loving compassionate act that does not seem to have public or scientific evidence.

[Enrique]

18. yeah, but that kind of generous attitude shouldn't extend toward politicians

nor toward anyone asking you for money.

[Taverner]

2. Perhaps, and good for her.

But that still speaks nothing to the thousands of years of abuse at the hand of "The Body of Christ"

Christianity has been used as an excuse for everything from the Jewish Pogroms, The Inquisition, The War of the Roses, The First and Second Crusades, The Third Reich and even today, it is used as pretext in flyover America to be homophobic and "beat up queers"

In fact I remember a recent story where a developmentally disabled gay man was denied access to a public pool in TN because of the "Bible"

So when the occasional Dorothy Day, Nancy or MLK sneaks through the system - its an anomaly

[Thats my opinion]

11. Maybe

Profound religious experience that is positive may appear to be an anomaly. But instead of falling back into our natural prejudices and knocking it, we might just be thankful for any gleam of light in what we think to be utter darkness. Even so, history is replete with millions of examples of religiously motivated Nancies. Put any prejudicial magnet over history and it will lift out those things the magnet is programmed to find.

[Taverner]

12. But does the amount of good Christianity has brought us truly make up for the bad?

I am glad people can find meaning in religion, but it also seems many find ways to reinforce their prejudices

Yes, my opinion is prejudiced, but based on experience

I have never found any Christian Flavor outside Unitarianism that views humans as "capable of good"

It's always the same "Oh woe is me! I'm a dirty rotten sinner! I don't deserve grace!"

And right now, I think that ends up becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy

[Thats my opinion]

14. Hang around

Maybe you have not looked with an open heart. I don't want to bore this site with examples, but for a while I'll give it a shot. It is just inaccurate to say "It's always the same ................" Increasingly it is far from always the same.
The problem is that the position you assume is all but universal gets the attention. Others work quietly and massively, and have over the centuries..

[Taverner]

20. One has to admit, however, that when Christianity gets evil (just like all religions) people die

Lots of people die

People point to the Soviet System as an Atheistic government, but they would be wrong. Communism itself was a religion, and one need look no further then Stalin's favorite "Scientist" Trofim Lysenko. Faith in his anti-genetic programs caused millions to starve to death, and prompted Uncle Joe himself to declare 'One death is tragic, a million is a statistic'

[okasha]

27. Communism is an economic system.

It is not a religion. What a tawdry, cheap little dodge.

When any system of thought "gets evil" and has political power, people die.

[Taverner]

31. "If Uncle Joe only knew"

Look that one up. Then tell me how this was not a religion. Tell me how Trofim Lysenko was accepted, despite scientific evidence pointing to the contrary.

[okasha]

33. You made the claim that iCommunism is a religion. Burden of proof is on you.

Some questions for you to answer:

Who are its deities? What are their supernatural attributes?

What are its specifically spiritual doctrines?

What are its rituals?

What spiritual practices do its members follow?

What claims does it make beyond those which can be met by non-religious means?


There's more, but those should get you started.

[Taverner]

35. Answers

Who are its deities? Marx, Lenin, Mao

What are their supernatural attributes? None. Religions do not need supernatural elements

What are its specifically spiritual doctrines? Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital

What are its rituals? May day Parade

What spiritual practices do its members follow? Collectivism

What claims does it make beyond those which can be met by non-religious means? None - it doesn't need them

[humblebum]

36. Well given those standards for defining a religion, then atheism

itself fits the bill.

[Taverner]

39. Not really - Atheism is to religion what baldness is to a hairstyle

Atheism is the belief in a natural explanation rather than metaphysical

As Dawkins said, we are all Atheists to some degree. You don't believe in Odin, Wotan, Zeus, Jupiter, etc. Neither do I. I just take it one step further.

[humblebum]

40. Again you prove my point by reciting a common atheist mantra.

Very religion-like.

[Taverner]

41. Well then, by your definition, being a Democrat is a religion, being a Republican is a religion

Being a Freemason, or a Knight of Columbus is a religion

Communism can be effectively be called a religion because there is that leap of faith: I know Uncle Joe is working for the collective good. I know that the government censors materials because they care about our happiness. Etc.

Atheism has none of that. Make a claim to an Atheist, and even if he or she agrees, they will say "Prove it!"

You cannot prove there is a God just like a party member couldn't prove that Uncle Joe was working in the worker's interest

Faith is where religion fails

And there is no faith in Atheism

"Ah but you are making a similar leap of faith that there is no god"

No, I am drawing a conclusion based on evidence. The bible has been consistently wrong on everything from math (the bible states to use 3, not 3.14 to calculate circles) to history (jury is out on whether there even was a Bethlehem, or Herod had all the kids killed, or whether Jesus actually existed) to science (the world is not flat, and where you would go if you "rose up in the sky" depends on what time of day, where on the planet, and at what point in the milky way galaxy the solar system was)

There has never been any evidence to convince me there is a god. None. I do not take antecdotes about people "feeling it in their hearts" that there is a god as evidence. Besides, your heart has no nerve endings in it. It cannot 'feel' anything.

[humblebum]

46. if communism can be called a religion then so can anything else. And

the method of worship they espoused was called "Scientific Atheism."

[Taverner]

49. Why Communism is a religion (a cult, specifically)

-People are put in physically or emotionally distressing situations; (sounds like the old USSR)
-Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized; (Class inequality is solved by communism)
-They receive unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from the leader; (Less of this one, but the old soviet artwork did emphasize Stalin as loving... sort of a father figure to the country)
-They get a new identity based on the group; (reeducation camps)
-They are subject to entrapment and their access to information is severely controlled. (KGB/STASI)

Let me ask you this: North Korea. How is that NOT a religious cult?

Take into account to battle Christmas, around December the USSR used to depict the Baby Lenin in the same ways the Baby Christ was portrayed. It was kind of sad really.

[okasha]

54. Every one of those charcteristics could also be applied to chattel slavery

or patriarchal marriage. Are those religions or cults?

What you're describing is the process of brainwashing, not a set of beliefs or spiritual practices.

[Taverner]

58. What do you think religion is but willful brainwashing?

[humblebum]

63. So then what is atheism, but willful narrow-mindedness?

Not everyone confines their thinking processes to what they can see, hear, smell, taste, or touch. But that's your business.

[Taverner]

64. Atheism is the lack of god. Atheists don't believe in atheism, they believe in science

Atheism has never saved me, helped me or made me feel better

Science, on the other hand...has done all three

[humblebum]

65. Well, science is certainly not the domain solely of atheists. So,

again, what is atheism, but willful narrow-mindedness?

[Taverner]

72. No it isn't

Again, atheism really isn't an 'ism'

And I have to agree with Dawkins that its high time we stopped being defined by you people as somehow lacking something...

Therefore, I am a Bright

[humblebum]

84. I think even Dawkins has a cult following. You can call yourself

whatever you feel like, but the ideas are still the same.

[Taverner]

97. "Cult Following" =/= Cult

It's not as if David Lynch could say we should all hold logs, and suddenly a bunch of Twin Peaks fans would do it.

However, get that Pope to say anything, and his followers will twist reason, ethics and morals to make what he said seem right.

And the same thing happened under Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot

That's the difference.

[humblebum]

102. And just like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, the Pope is

NOT considered diety. I believe that you asserted that they were considered as such. How could your so called religious leaders be promoting scientific atheism - unless of course you consider atheism a religion too. However if you broaden your definition of religion to include movements that attract a strong adherence to certain doctrines/dogma, then atheism could be classified as a religion without a god.

[Taverner]

103. So funny how Christians just don't *get* it

I understand. When my mind had the Christian Mind Virus I didn't get it either

Read some Sagan - that's where I started

Your friend the Bright,

Taverner

[humblebum]

105. The thing is that Christians who spent a great deal of their time

as atheists DO get it.

[Taverner]

119. Wow...what happened? Did you suffer from some brain injury or something?

[rrneck]

71. Your description

may well qualify as a religion.

[skepticscott]

66. Atheism is a manifestation of

skeptical, rational thought, which dictates that the strength of one's convictions should be related to the strength of the evidence supporting them. Apparently you have some difficulty with that.

And no one "confines their thinking processes to what they can see, hear, smell, taste, or touch". But I suppose you think that if you fling that BS at the wall enough times, it will eventually stick.

[Taverner]

73. Posters like him really make the "Bright" movement that more necesarry

Somehow if I don't believe in someone's favorite imaginary friend, I am 'lacking' something.

Even the term 'Atheism' defines us by our lack of god, rather than as someone who uses reason, not fairy tales, to define oneself

I know the term 'Bright' has taken a lot of flack, especially from so-called progressives

But its high time we defined ourselves by our reason, not our lack of gullibility

[cleanhippie]

81. I prefer the term "freethinker".

[humblebum]

106. I find the term "freethinker" as used by secularists to be a misnomer

because one is only free to think as one pleases until abstract and religious thinking come into play. Then all of a sudden free thought is given limitations. Your style of free thinking is bunk.

[cleanhippie]

109. *yawn* "until abstract and religious thinking come into play" *yawn*

:boring:

[dmallind]

117. if you knew, and understood the root of the word 'religion'

Then it would make more sense. And so, possibly, might you

[humblebum]

118. Why stop there? Elaborate. nt

[Taverner]

120. Abstract and Religious Thinking = Fairy Tales

Maher was right. Jonah and the Whale, the big bad Wolf, Twelve Disciples, Seven Dwarves - if they replaced the two would anyone notice?

[humblebum]

123. Maher is also one of the most prolific bigots around today. Definitely

not one of the world's deep thinkers.

[Taverner]

130. No, he just has a low tolerance for bullshit

And bullshit is what makes up religion

Seriously, you really believe in a virgin birth? Rising from the dead? Jonah swallowed by a whale?

[humblebum]

131. What he does is called bigotry - plain and simple. nt

[Taverner]

132. Only by the religious.

Only by those who in the back of their minds, know religion is silly and take umbrage to that truth

[humblebum]

179. Actually, the definition in the dictionary does not support your contention.

"A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, inter-regional prejudice, gender and sexual orientation, homelessness, various medical disorders particularly behavioral disorders and addictive disorders and religion or spirituality."

Sounds like Mahre to me.

[Taverner]

186. Some things are worth being prejudice about. I, for example, am prejudice against Nazis

[humblebum]

188. I agree. And they also thought that it was quite fashionable to

discriminate against and harrass religious people.

[Taverner]

192. Not all religious people: Mormons, Lutherans and Catholics were fine with the NAZIs

[humblebum]

195. Did I say ALL religious people. Now tell me, what religion were

the Americans and Canadians, etc. who defeated the Axis powers?

[Taverner]

196. Depends on the American, Canadian, Englishman or Russian

Christianity did not make the USA

If anything, it was the lack of Christianity at its inception that made us

[humblebum]

207. "lack of Christianity at its inception that made us" ?

Oh this should be good.

[Taverner]

208. Don't get me wrong, Christianity was there - but it didn't do us any good

Salem Witch Trials, "Under God" in the Pledge, Manifest Destiny - all of our least desirable outcomes came from Christianity

One man, one vote, Separation of Church and State, GI Bill - all which made us great came from Science and Secularism

[humblebum]

215. "all of our least desirable outcomes came from Christianity"

Yes, like hospitals, universities, social programs, orphanages, homeless shelters, etc. Your opinion and ideas are quite telling and speak volumns. Are you sure you are not related to Maher?

[cleanhippie]

216. I had no idea that ALL of things "came from christianity." That is AMAZING!!!!!

[humblebum]

217. Where did I say that "ALL of things 'came from christianity?'"

But I did credit just a few of the things that religious organizations did contribute. The disinformation that radical atheists try to project is either an example of pure ignorance or willful deceit.

[cleanhippie]

220. Typo. I meant to say ALL of those things came from christianity?

"Yes, like hospitals, universities, social programs, orphanages, homeless shelters, etc."


I had no idea that those things came from christianity, as you implied in your post. Is that what you meant?

[humblebum]

226. You know that is NOT what I meant, nor was it implied, but many

of such institutions were started by Christians in the early years of the country.

[cleanhippie]

227. You meant exactly what I thought you meant.

"such institutions were started by Christians in the early years of the country."


That has NOTHING to do with the original point you attempted to refute. But then again, your goalposts have wheels on them, so I am not surprised to see them moved, again.

[humblebum]

228. "such institutions were started by Christians in the early years of the country."

That is the truth. I never said that those were the first institutions of their kind. I will stand by my original statements. If any goalposts are being moved it is by you.

[cleanhippie]

235. Yeah, I know, "where I see contradiction, you see confirmation."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:






Sweet Jesus, do you really understand how ridiculous that statement is?

[humblebum]

85. I would very much like to see how someone who bases their beliefs

or lack of them on anything but what "they can see, hear, smell, taste, or touch". We've been this route many times before, and you know that that is an apt description of empiricism. If you can tell me how it is possible to conduct the process of observation in any other way, be my guest.

[Taverner]

91. Yes even the dumbest Atheist knows that there are these things called 'radio waves'

...that we can't observe directly

[humblebum]

93. You said it, I didn't. Tell me. How is it that radio waves are known to exist

if they are not observed. Are you not using the sense of hearing when you listen to the radio, or your eyes and ears when you observe television. Who said that something must be observed directly? Nonetheless observation cannot be conducted without using the senses for purposes of verification. Whether you use a radio receiver or an oscilloscope to observe radio waves you are still utilizing one or more of the senses.

[Taverner]

95. Yes, but now you're going into silly season here...

The burden of proof is on the claimant.

Christians say there is a god, despite a complete lack of evidence. They don't care. This is why Christianity is fatally flawed.

It's not that there isn't enough evidence, it's that there is NO EVIDENCE.

None. Zip. Even prayers don't work.

There is no evidence to suggest a Creator of the universe, or even a soul. What you think is your soul is just your brain. We suffer from a confusion of the mind and body.

[humblebum]

99. What is with the strawman here? We were discussing empiricism

and all of a sudden you switch to religious belief.

[cleanhippie]

111. "now you're going into silly season" - Silliness is all there is here.

You are not going to get anything BUT silliness from him.

[cleanhippie]

110. *yawn*

:boring:

[humblebum]

115. It must be very frustrating never being able to

defend your own points of view.

[skepticscott]

112. And as usual, you bait and switch

with breathtaking intellectual dishonesty.

Above it was "Not everyone confines their thinking processes to what they can see, hear, smell, taste, or touch." and now it's their beliefs. Sorry, but they aren't remotely the same. And whether it is an apt description of empiricism or not, no person's thinking process are confined to empiricism. Every person's thinking processes involve concepts that are not perceivable by the five senses.

[humblebum]

116. Now you are finally showing that you are not quite as one dimensional

as I had thought. Still, if assumptions of reality are based only upon what can be observed or experienced, then you are indeed limiting your reasoning to your senses. And if all emotions and intuitive processes are nothing more than electro-chemical reactions in the brain, then any perceived reality is purely physical.

[okasha]

69. A religion

is a set of beliefs and practices.

Brainwashing is a process that can be employed in the service of any proposition, from its milder forms in advertising to full-out indoctrination. Mao's Red Guards from the Cultural Revolution come to mind.

[skepticscott]

75. And exactly how do people come to adopt

the beliefs and practices of their chosen religion? I'm sure you're familiar with some of the mechanisms, so let's see if you can lay them out honestly.

[okasha]

76. You're aware, I hope, that it's a highly individual process?

Some simply adopt whatever the cultural norm is where they're raised. Others come to their faith through a process of trial and error, finding what fits for them. That was my own experience.

And yes, some go through a process that can only be called brainwashing. All "isms" include a certain number of abusers, with that number correlating pretty much with the degree of authoritarianism of the organization. And it's hardly peculiar to religion. As Taverner has pointed out, it's even been adopted by an officially atheist group.

[Taverner]

92. Just because it's "right for you" does not make it correct

I require evidence. Empirical evidence. Not anecdotal.

[okasha]

100. Fine.

Go find your nearest Native American spiritual leader and demand to be admitted to ceremony so you can gather such evidence.

Don't forget to to tell her/him how "bright" you are.

[skepticscott]

113. So in other words

religion can be just as much brainwashing as anything else. And do you know what distinguishes brainwashing from education?

[okasha]

114. Can be, yes. Not always is.

And yes, having taught at college/university level for more years than I care to think about, I do know the difference between brainwashing and education.

Do you?

[cleanhippie]

82. Correct. Just like what is done a Sunday School for children.

Brainwashing.

[Taverner]

96. +1000

[humblebum]

55. Now you are stretching it and going from religion to cult and certainly

the same can be done for capitalism or virtually anything else. When something such as marxist communism, which adamently opposes religion is called a religion, you have a problem. dThen certainly atheism is a religion.

"They receive unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from the leader..." 100 million died at the hands of their blessed leaders!

[cleanhippie]

60. The only difference between a religion and a cult is the size of the congregation.

[humblebum]

61. And what might the limits on the size of the congregations be?

So if the cult following for 'The Rocky Horror Picture Show' grows continually, then does it become a religious following?

[cleanhippie]

79. *yawn* As usual, you conflate two different meanings to suit your ignorant purposes.

:boring:

It's a saying that has been around for a long time, and its meaning and point are quite clear.


Words can and do have different meanings for different applications, but you know that. Its pretty standard, not one of those "other" ways of knowing. :crazy:


But go ahead and display some more of your ignorance with your reply. :bounce:





:popcorn:

[humblebum]

86. As usual, avoidance. nt

[cleanhippie]

89. Correct. I avoid your ignorance.

[okasha]

43. Laughable.

By your standards, the Democratic Party is a religious institution:

Who are its deities? Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy.

What are their supernatural attributes? None. Religions do not need supernatural elements.

What are its specifically spiritual doctrines? The Constitution. The Scriptures according to the Founders.

What are its rituals? Fourth of July, Flag Day, Veterans Day, conventions.

What spiritual practices do its members follow? Democracy.

What claims does it make beyond those which can be met by non-religious means? None--it doesn't need them.

Beter run now: you're practicing a religion.

Better yet, go back to school. Learn the difference between a religion and a political/economic system.

Teh ignorance--it burns.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Goblinmonger]

74. Talk about laughable

By your standards, the Democratic Party is a religious institution:
Are you talking about the Democratic Party or democracy. Because you have some problems if the former.

Who are its deities? Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy.
Um, Lincoln was a Republican. Jefferson would have some problems with the current Dem party, too.

What are its specifically spiritual doctrines? The Constitution. The Scriptures according to the Founders.
How is The Constitution specific to the Dem party? This is more about the United States.

What are its rituals? Fourth of July, Flag Day, Veterans Day, conventions.
Again, more about the U.S. Not really rituals, either.

What spiritual practices do its members follow? Democracy.
Republicanism? We aren't really a democracy now, are we?


The ignorance--it burns.
Yep, it does. Are you seriously saying that the communists leaders in China and USSR weren't trying to replace traditional deities with themselves? That they didn't want religious devotion to the cause (much different than that of democracy, by the way)?

[okasha]

80. I was simply applying Taverner's own rubric (see post 35)

And yes, it's absurd.

That was the point.

[okasha]

44. Inadvertent double post.

n/t

[Taverner]

48. Your ignorance x2

[humblebum]

19. It is not anomaly.

"So when the occasional Dorothy Day, Nancy or MLK sneaks through the system - its an anomaly"

"The Church" - inclusive, has a very long history, in many cultures, involving ALL types of people. Some have used its teaching for evil, some for good. However, there are literally millions who are benefiting from the work of Christian organizations at this very moment. To say that this is an anomaly is a purposeful falsehood.

[Taverner]

23. I saw missionary work in Thailand

And let me say the "good" you hear from these guys is all lies. Most missionaries are vacationing on the church's funds. When they "sell" Christianity, they are making unsubstantiated claims ("You'll be richer!""You'll be smarter!") I wish I could say I met one good missionary in all of the time I was in Thailand, but I did not, and I met many missionaries.

Or perhaps you'd like to cite Mother Theresa, who herself said that she wants the poor to suffer as much as they can so that they can have more grace.

Or maybe you mean those fighting for justice. The church doesn't have their backs, and they falsely attribute their work to "God," as if he had anything to do with it.

No - I've seen where the Christianity road goes, and its anti-critical thought doctrine (Think Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) its blame-yourself-first doctrine and its over emphasis on top-down leadership makes it ill suited for the 21st century.

But hey, that's just my opinion. Opinions are like assholes: we all got 'em and they all stink.

[Thats my opinion]

26. Come around

If you are ever in my part of southern California I will introduce you and lunch with half a dozen missionaries from Thailand whom you haven't met and who don't fall into the category you described.
Just contact me on my inbox.

[humblebum]

34. You merely confirmed what I pointed out and it is obvious that you

have an opinion and a very biased one at that. I spent a substantial amount of time with a religious organization, a few years back, in Laos. Very little preaching, but many thousands of war era explosives defused and destroyed. Never met a declared atheist over there either.

If you want to rant about the evils of religion, then I must point out that overwhelmingly more people have been murdered and maimed by non-religious people than in the name of religion. Funny how that gets conveniently ignored.

[skepticscott]

51. Talk about a dishonest dodge

"I must point out that overwhelmingly more people have been murdered and maimed by non-religious people than in the name of religion."

Idiotic false equivalency between "non-religious people" and "in the name of religion", but nothing less than should be expected from you. Try comparing "non-religious people" to "religious people" and see how your numbers come out. Or "in the name of religion" to "in the name of atheism".

[humblebum]

57. Truth is hard to handle, huh? nt

[skepticscott]

67. Seems that being pinned on a point

is even harder for you to handle.

Nice try, but miserable fail. Doesn't it embarrass you to post stuff you know nobody believes, not even you?

[humblebum]

94. And what point exactly would that be? nt

[skepticscott]

52. Trying to convert people to your religion

whether by force or persuasion is an inherently despicable practice. It amounts to saying "Your god doesn't exist and your religion is false, and I'm here to save you from that with my real god and my true religion."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

70. You ran into some prosperity cult missionaries

The prosperity cults are a peculiarly American corruption of the original teachings of Jesus, whose most consistent preaching was against greed and selfishness.

The mainline churches don't do that.

A family from my parish went to Uganda for a year. They weren't on vacation. They were volunteering at a home for AIDS orphans, of which Uganda has over 100,000, and the Anglican and Catholic churches are the only institutions in the country that are taking care of children who would otherwise be on the streets, having lost all their adult relatives to AIDS.

In the colonial era, the missionaries unwittingly created the first generation of fighters for independence by being the only ones who taught the indigenous people to read and write in their own language and in the colonial language, something that the colonial government authorities were completely uninterested in doing.

Personally, I've become somewhat of a universalist. I don't believe that non-Christians are going to hell. But if missionaries are successful, it's because they are somehow meeting a need of the person they convert.

Think about it. If someone proclaiming a religion that you don't follow, either because you are an atheist or follow another religion, preached at you, would you convert? No. Not unless the preacher's message touched you deeply somehow.

I can't imagine missionaries in Thailand being very successful. That country is so thoroughly Buddhist that anyone who converted to another religion would be cut out of much of daily life.

[Taverner]

121. Actually one of them was Baptist, and the other Presbetyrian

Not Creflo Dollar stuff here...straight up mainline Christianity

And don't even get me started on the Mormons...

[okasha]

25. "Christianity" had nothing what soever

to do with the Wars of the Roses.

The Crusades had a number of causes, one of which was the Pope's (and several other political leaders') desire to get the whole quarrelsome second-tier nobility composed of younger sons and landless knights out of Europe, where they were tearing up the landscape with their depredations. Many saw it as an opportunity to gain lands and wealth unavailable under the then-current system of eldest-son-takes-all. One recorded Crusader prayer goes "By the grace of God, we will gain much booty." Now, it was preached as a religious endeavor, and many participated out of religious motives. But it was a whole lot more complicated than that.

And BTW, the Inquisition was shut down centuries ago. And the only "pogroms" taking place since the Holocaust were in the Soviet Union, which held its remaining Jewish population hostage for concessions by the United States and other western powers.

[Taverner]

30. I'll give you the Wars of the Roses - even though there was a religious element

The Pogroms of the Jews, I believe it was a certain Martin Luther who encouraged them

And What was the Third Reich if not a huge Jewish Pogrom all over Europe. And yes, Hitler and the Catholic Church were buddy buddy, and religion was used as pretext

Inquisition, it officially ended in the 1800s. That's over 400 years. I don't think that is at all insignificant

The Crusades were ALL about religion - after all, the "holy land" was in the hands of the evil Musselmen!

I always get "oh it was really about money/sex/power/twinkies/batshit" and I would like to refer you to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy

Yes, these were all Christian endeavors

And do I even have to start off with John Knox and Calvinism?

Face it: there is much blood on the hands of religion. Even Buddhism - for Buddhism was the drive behind Imperial Japan. Look it up, it's all there in black and white.

[onager]

122. Xianity certainly contributed to the Wars of the Roses

That war had its roots in a earlier power struggle between the Duke of Gloucester and a high-ranking Xian - Cardinal Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Westminster:

As early as October 1425 the Cardinal brought armed men and archers from Lancashire and Cheshire into London to confront the Duke's supporters, where they were met by armed apprentices and 300 men of the city militia under the lord mayor. A pitched battle in the streets was only avoided by the hurried intervention of the Archbishop of Canterbury. - "The Wars of the Roses" by Robin Niellands

A more immediate cause of the wars may have been the Xian religious mania of King Henry VI, who didn't pay much attention to anything else...even while his country fell apart:

His greatest pleasure was in prayers. His favorite companions were priests - those priests who, his councilors had made sure, would not preach against the ills that ravaged the land. The sight of a low-necked gown would drive him from his chamber, crying "Fie! For shame!" "Richard III" by Paul Murry Kendall

His religious mania did have a couple of benefits - he founded Eton and King's College, Cambridge. Though he spent a fortune on both schools that he (and the State) couldn't afford.

He also seems to have had a morbid fear of sex and women. He was offended by nudity, even in men, and he was constantly warning Eton scholars...that his Court was full of sin and wickedness...

As he grew older, his religious fervour deepened. He wore a hair shirt on Church festivals and feast days, even ordering that his meals should begin with a bloody piece of meat in remembrance of the wounds of Christ. When he was a youth, none of this mattered too much. A devout prince was an asset. The King was allowed his ways and whims, for his Court hoped he would grow out of them and learn that goodness alone was not enough in a prince. - Niellands

But he never did. In August 1453, he finally cracked up completely and went as crazy as his grandfather, Charles VI of France (who believed he was made of glass and would shatter if touched). Until 1471 Henry's very sane, strong-willed and aggressive wife, Margaret, dragged him around various battlefields as a sort of living stage prop.

[okasha]

128. There was no religious component to the Wars of the Roses

except for the involvement of churchman-politicians born into one of the two factions. It was essentially a decades-long family quarrel: the descendants of Edward III's second (Lionel) and fourth (Edmund) sons, who comprised the Yorkist party, versus descendants of the third (John), the Lancastrians. All participants were orthodox Catholics--the only hint of something a little out of bounds might have been Richard III's ownership of a Wycliffe New Testament--and no one was excommunicating anyone over Church doctrine. Nor was doctrine ever at issue.

It's always difficult to diagnose someone across five centuries, but the best guesses as to the causes of Henry VI's inability to rule or to interact normally with members of his family and court are porphyria, which later shows up clearly in the Tudor-Stewart line, and schizophrenia. Both of these tend to onset by early to mid twenties, as porphyria did in Mary, Queen of Scots and schizophernia apparently did in Henry's grandfather, Charles VI of France. The description of Henry's first episode sounds a lot like catatonic schizophrenia--total withdrawal, not speaking, not recognizing his wife or courtiers. Yes, he was extremely pious, but no more so than say, Louis VII of France or Louis IX a century later, both of whom managed to carry on normal marital and governmental functions.

Speaking of Henry's wife. Kendall describes Henry's marriage to Marguerite of Anjou as a "marriage of fire and milk." She was as strong as he was weak, but also very young when she found the burden of the kingdom largely on her shoulders, and she showed very poor judgement in promoting her favorites at the expense of the country's welfare. That, not Henry's piety or even Henry's mental illness, was what caused conflict between the crown and the Duke of York and his party, including the Nevilles and his other supporters. The Yorkists were something like the "good government league" of the day; they wanted governmental participation by a broader group of the nobility and by Parliament. It was a political misstep--York's premature claiming of the throne--and a "compromise" no one liked, making him Henry's heir and disinheriting Marguerite's son (who may or may not have been Henry's)that started the bloodletting in earnest.

There were churchmen involved on both sides, true. But they were involved not because they were churchmen but because they were members of the warring families. The Beauforts were Henry's cousins and therefore Lancastrians through their descent from John of Gaunt and his mistress/third wife, Katherine Swynford. George Neville, Archbishop of York, was a Yorkist because he was a Neville; the Duke of York was married to his aunt, Cecily, and his brother, "Warwick the Kingmaker," was one of the chief supporters York's son Edward until they fell out over his marriage. But they in no wise represented a religious dispute, only a political one.

[trotsky]

37. No, no, no.

We are not allowed to mention the negative aspects of religion in one of his threads.

[MineralMan]

3. Could you provide a little background here.

Nancy Who? Nancy Where? Sounds like an interesting story. Where did you find it? Help us out, OK? Link? Or do you expect us to search for your earlier post?

I realize that you're new here, but such things are pretty standard everywhere on the net. You have to help your readers out.

[MineralMan]

6. Never mind. I found the other post and there is no background

information there, either. I have other stuff to do.

[Thats my opinion]

15. good advice

try www.uncommongood.org

I know this story first hand

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

29. Looks like an excellent charity, to which you did a great DISservice.

They don't mention religion anywhere. If (if) the founder happens to be a religious person, she surely doesn't feel any need to make the fact known.

Follow her example.

[Goblinmonger]

62. So when I do a google search for

site:uncommongood.org christian

I get two responses. One is for a person named Christian and the other is an article about not-Nancy. Why do you presume to think that Christianity is the key to Nancy's work since the site doesn't seem to make mention of it?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

4. Yeah, an atheist or agnostic could NEVER feel driven to work for the poor and oppressed.

Therefore, if person X works for the poor and oppressed, person X must be a believer. :eyes:

And don't "that's not what I said" me. This IS what you said, with other words.

[Thats my opinion]

16. prejudice sometimes

fails to read what it doesn't want to hear. Please check out what I said in the last couple of sentences ofd the post. Of course people of various faiths and no faith do the same thing!

[patrice]

5. Is there some reason I'm supposed to know "Nancy" whom? nt

[MineralMan]

7. Could be Nancy anyone, I guess. I looked at the earlier

post that was referenced, but there were no links there, either. I'm done.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MineralMan]

22. Oh, phooey. There's a freaking website about the organization.

I give up. I was just trying to get you to do the responsible thing and provide some actual information about your post. Never mind.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

24. Why should she be attacked?

Looks like a nice person. No reason to believe she is some sanctimonious, pretentious, moronic, holier-than-thou, tone-deaf jerk.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

8. I'm assuming Pelosi, but who knows?

There's only so much intent you can extract from word salad. :shrug:

[Thats my opinion]

17. no, why should you know?

[patrice]

9. Are you aware that this looks kind of presumptious?

[aquart]

10. Load o' crap.

Christians like to think everyone was a Satan-worshipping sadist until they showed up to murder and torture people into converting.

The mark of Christian goodness is everywhere.

[Thats my opinion]

28. Read all of the above

Is it really impossible to get away with saying anything positive about religion on this forum? It is certainly popular to say the opposite.

[Taverner]

32. Once bitten, twice shy I say...

[Iggo]

38. Cool story, Bro. (n/t)

[Jim__]

42. I read you post. I still have no idea how religion motivates Nancy.

It may be clear to you. But I didn't see anything that related Nancy's actions to her religion. I think you left out the meat of your story.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

45. See #4.

And no, there is no evidence at all that "religion motivates Nancy." If their website is any indication, what motivates them is just common human decency, that's all. Nothing else is needed.

[skepticscott]

50. Exactly what does "faith" have to do with any of this?

What does "Nancy" have faith in, and which of her attributed good deeds would have been impossible without it? If Nancy had not been raised religious, would it have been impossible for her to do good in the world? Do you credit people as being too weak and selfish to help others unless some supernatural entity is nipping at their heels? If not, what IS your argument for preserving all the baggage religion brings with it?

[Thats my opinion]

56. Should I have said more?

I had a vague hope, obviously ill-founded, that folk would take what I said about Nancy seriously without questioning her religious motivation I know for sure that what drives her is a profound trust in he gracious mercy and universal lovingkindness of God, which she has found in the life and teachings of Jesus. You will find her at Mass every weekday morning before she starts work. Her association with women of the Catholic Workers movement is foundational to who she is. Many of those who work with her--most in fact, are bodacious affirming Christians. I am sure there are others who are not, but who are just as dedicated out of human compassion. There is no religious litmus test. Her institution has headquartered in a Catholic church and with the completion of the new building will be in a Methodist Church, with the cooperation of a Protestant seminary. How much evidence do you want?

[Goblinmonger]

59. What the hell is your point, then?

Maybe she's religious and maybe she isn't. Some of the people working for her are religious but a lot of them probably aren't. Then what they hell does religion have to do with it. Some people do really cool stuff for other people. Isn't it enough just to say that without dragging religion into it (or not, who knows).

[skepticscott]

68. You might have actually tried to answer

the questions I raised instead of going off on another non-responsive ramble.

According to your description Nancy is very religious...so? Why can her dedication not also spring out of "Human compassion" without the need for god at all? And one might also wonder why she feels to do any of this. if she has such "profound trust in he gracious mercy and universal lovingkindness of God", why does she not simply trust in him to take care of these people, and to do everything she could, as well as what she and others can't? Wouldn't someone who doesn't think there is a god who will come riding to the rescue be at least as likely to help others out of compassion, since they don't expect any divine assistance. And please don't waste our time with the old dodge "she is part of god's plan".

[dimbear]

53. Nancy may have read early manuscripts which are entirely written in majuscules.

It makes them harder to read and understand. Minuscules are quite a useful innovation.

[Deep13]

77. STOP USING ALL CAPS

Really, it suggests that you have something truly imperative to say and it makes your thread-bare, dish watery arguments all the more disappointing.

"Nancy’s faith did not come from some voice in the sky, but from deep within where she heard the cries of hurting people."

So, not from god, but from her own humanity. Bravo for Nancy, assuming she is even real. What's her full name? Which city is it?

"...and Nancy’s NFP pays their education debts."

What's NFP and who paid Nancy's education debts? While we are on the subject, how the hell can she afford to build a building? If she's real at all, I suspect Nancy was already rich before she went to law school.

None of this is even relevant to the issue of whether or not god is real.

[Ninjaneer]

78. I guessed NFP was Not For Profit (org?) n/t

[Thats my opinion]

88. Correct

[Thats my opinion]

87. Several questions

1-I'll just ignore the put down "thread-bare watery arguments."
2- Neither she nor I believe God speaks from the sky. You have just articulated an outdated concept of religion, and I guess you just want to hang onto it because it acts as a club. The "still small voice" come from deep within.
3-When you are that bright a variety of scholarships pay the freight.
4-If you read the post you would have seen that a major oil company paid for the building with money they had to fork over when they were sued for air pollution in the reformulation of gasoline.
5-Nancy never had any money and never will. For her money is not important.

I can't figure out why you are so defensive that you cannot allow someone to see religion as a path to productive social witness. Why does that threaten you so much? It doesn't talk about you. It talks about Nancy and millions just like her.

[Deep13]

104. Answers.

"1-I'll just ignore the put down "thread-bare watery arguments.""

It's the same argument I have heard over and over again. Look what good things religious people do. Well, I'm sure religious people do good things. So do nonreligious people. And both do bad things too, although acting on supposed divine authority seems to be the key to get good people to do bad things. This argument is wholly immaterial to whether or not there is a god. Also, religious motives cast unselfish actions into a somewhat different light. If she is only doing it because god told her to do it, is it really all that noble? And if it is to avoid damnation or achieve an eternal reward, then the motives are even more questionable. So yeah, 'F' for originality and cogency.

"2- Neither she nor I believe God speaks from the sky. You have just articulated an outdated concept of religion, and I guess you just want to hang onto it because it acts as a club. The "still small voice" come from deep within."

You actually made that clear in your OP. The point is, there is no reason to think a still, small voice from within is anything more than ones own personal sensibilities. There's nothing divine in that. I agree that an external god is obsolete (even though most believers don't), but you're radical redefinition of god is simply untenable ab initio. She did what she did (again, assuming you have not cut the story from whole cloth) because she thought it was right and because she is a good person, not because a god. By removing the divine influence from the supernatural realm (be it in the sky or elsewhere) and putting it in ones personality, you have conceded that this is purely a human undertaking and that we do not need god to be good. There is simply no reason to assume that her charitable endeavors are motivated by anything other than her own conscience. Part of the definition of "god" is a being that is somehow separate from the natural world (which includes us) but is free to intervene in it. I submit you have redefined god out of existence.

"3-When you are that bright a variety of scholarships pay the freight."

So which ones paid for Nancy? Frankly, in my experience, scholarships for lawyers are pretty scarce. It's not like there is a shortage of us.

"4-If you read the post you would have seen that a major oil company paid for the building with money they had to fork over when they were sued for air pollution in the reformulation of gasoline.
5-Nancy never had any money and never will. For her money is not important."

Sorry, I must have missed that. Wouldn't the settlement award belong to the plaintiffs and not to Nancy?

"I can't figure out why you are so defensive that you cannot allow someone to see religion as a path to productive social witness. Why does that threaten you so much? It doesn't talk about you. It talks about Nancy and millions just like her."

Maybe you should stop trying to figure out how to attack my subjective motives and spend your energy finding a convincing argument based on the facts. I'm not sure just what a "productive social witness" is, but from the context I assume it means someone who is unselfish and charitable or community minded. I am sure religion can and does accomplish many charitable things. That's hardly the point. You are putting forth this probably made-up story as a justification for the existence of religion in society generally. That argument fails for two reasons. First, to measure the good in something we must weigh the harm that it does against the good it does. In the case of religion, the harm is pervasive, persistent and egregious while the good it does is marginal or else can be done by anyone and would be done by anyone if the church or whatever had not occupied the field. Second, frankly, it is based on a lie. There simply is no god watching and controlling things. The best case scenario is that there is no reason to accept that god is real. My own view of the evidence revealed enough counter-indications to make me convinced that the existence of god is impossible. Yes, people like you make efforts to change what the word "god" means, but all you do is either remove his supernatural nature or make his power so limited that in either case what remains cannot reasonably be called god. Unless the foundational myths of a religion are factually real, then the whole house of cards is built on a lie.

And there is my motivation. I hate lies and I hate people who abuse others based on lies. And that's what religion taken as a whole is.

[Thats my opinion]

148. Thanks for taking that much time and effort.

Let me respond to just a couple of your points without repeating myself or being argumentative.
1-2 Maybe what God really does is offer insights into compassion, and it is those insights which are the driving force--not that
God tells anyone what to do and they obey. You seem to be able to evaluate and judge the motivation of someone else. I really don't believe you hold to that. You sound like a more reasonable person than that. I have been deeply moved by great art and great music. I have also been deeply moved by the story of the Good Samaritan and other parables of Jesus.

4-In successful class action suits, after those in the class are compensated, there is always money left over that the attorneys in the case divide among NFPs that have a vested interest in the case. In this instance what Nancy's NPF does has a lot to do with protecting the air the oil company was sued for polluting. The NFP has some solid attorney's on the board who know how to access these awards. The organization just got $350,000 from a Skoal (?) tobacco company suit for causing a class to have lip cancer.

The post was not an argument for the existence God, but the story of someone who profoundly believes that her faith had led her into some very hard paths for some very needy people.

[skepticscott]

125. Re: #1

Why exactly do you find it necessary to post so many OP titles in ALL CAPS? Is it because you'd like us to think you're posting Really Important Ideas? Or are you afraid you won't get the attention you crave if you don't do the equivalent of shouting "Look at Me!"?

[dmallind]

83. Let's take this at face value for a minute.

So Nancy has done some great things because she thinks God would be pleased. Fine and dandy with me. But, admittedly a bit late and in passing, you mention nonreligious people can be motivated to do likewise. Bob Geldof's 287MM charity fundraising event springs to mind for one. So we are left with two questions:

1)Since we know both religious and humanist influences can cause people to do great works of charity, what makes religion any different from non-religion in this area?

2)What if anything can we say about alternatives? Would Nancy have worked with the homeless so much had she not thought God would want her to? Would Bob have energized a generation to raise a quarter billion in one day for starving Ethiopians had he thought their starving was God's plan or that God would take care of them? We have no way to answer either, and each example shows that the opposite philosophy is not a necessity.

A lot of the great hands-on charities have a religious connection. Doesn't mean that everyone helping out at St. Joseph's sehelter is a Catholic, or even that those who are are there because of catholicism. Three of the top 5 philanthropists on earth judged by endowment size belong to the tiny minority who are nonbelievers. A fourth may very well be given his education and industry, but is too much of a recluse to say one way or the other. The fifth is Jewish. Doesn't mean to say that a huge portion of those who use their funds to do great works of charity aren't believers. Most undoubtedly are (most of any group not connected to nonbelief or advanced life sciences undoubtedly are).

So while Nancy can easily be acknowledged as a believer who does good things motivated by her belief, we have no way to tell whether her belief is truly necessary for her to do so, and we certainly have no reason to assume others would be similarly motivated more by these beliefs or the lack of them.

And a quick question - since you obviously do take her word that she helps the poor because of her religion, do you similarly accept the word of those who have killed their own children and said it's because of their religion? The acts differ, but the basis for accepting the motivation for them is identical is it not?

[Thats my opinion]

90. A good thoughtful reply. Let me take a shot at answering some of the questions.

1-I don't question someone else's motivation for what they do. I celebrate what Bob has done.
If people do he same thing out of differing motivations, who am I, or you, to question why?
I often join hands with those with a completely different background, and motivation, and I never have to peer into their hearts to determine why they do what they do. I just accept them as they are. The goodness which is in the heart of the universe gets acted out with all kinds of people. I'm happy that we all don't need to be alike. Just why should you get in a twit because someone says their motivation came from a religious persuasion that is deep within?

2-Whether her belief has been necessary for her to do what she has done is not for us to question. All we can do is hear her--or anyone's testimony. She doesn't ask the question you raised. That sort of speculation is fruitless. Do you really want to speculate about that sort of thing? You would never get away with it in a law court or a philosophical discussion.

3-Bad, destructive religion --of which there is plenty-- does not negate religion based on a loving compassion. Bad atheism--of which there is plenty--Gordon Gekko, for instance, does not negate the solid stuff I see many non believers do. I'm not so defensive that I need to point out ad nauseam--read these responses above--to put down what any non-believer does.

[dmallind]

98. Well let's see.

I am pretty sure I WOULD "get away with" discussing the motivation for an action in both law courts and philosophical discussions. Moral philosophy is heavily concerned with motivation, and the legal term mens rea exists for this very purpose.

You are positing religious motivation as a positive force. How can we discuss this claim without addressing whether it is either necessary or superior to non-religious motivation?

I am far from in a twit about this claim. I think it's perfectly wonderful that she does these things and have no problem with personal claims of religious motivation for specific acts good or bad. But to determine whether religious motivation has a net positive utilitarian effect we must first ascertain that it actually HAS an effect (comparing religious and non-religious groups' behavior perhaps) and then determine whether it's positive in the aggregate.

What you seem to be arguing against is a claim I have never seen made - that nobody can ever do anything good for religious reasons. That claim is laughable and instantly refutable by simply pointing at, fot example, a church-sponsored homeless shelter or even the Duomo in Florence. This probably explains why I've never seen an atheist here or elsewhere make it. What several HAVE asked or suggested, me included, is that religious motivation is neither necessary nor superior to secular motivation, and that on the whole the influence of religion may very well be negative. The Duomo stands and is awesome in the true meaning of the word. The WTC towers don't and used to be. How do we score those together?

Oh, Gordon Gekko is fictional. Bill Gates isn't.

[Thats my opinion]

107. Thanks for a thoughtful response

A couple of things.
First Bill Gates cut his ethical teeth in the Sunday School of the University United Church of Christ of Seattle, Washington, where his father is still an official. He claims he owes his sensitivity to those two influences.

I don't care whether the motivation is religious or otherwise. The result is more important than the source of the motivation. If what she has done is positive in offering more good for more people, isn't that enough?

Now help me with this one--seriously.
I posted a story of a woman who has done amazing things. I have received a ton of responses most of them at least hostile all the way from
questioning her real motivation to calling the whole thing "crap." Just go back and read through the above and tell me why the hostility. If someone filed a story about an agnostic woman who did good things I doubt if anyone world expect 50 harsh put downs. One word which even slightly seems critical of non-belief draws a storm. Where does this defensiveness come from? And all on a forum about religion where any positive mention of the subject is greeted with gales of derision. I guess I am looking for just a bit of even-handedness.

[dmallind]

108. Honestly? The messenger is the issue rather than the message

You made the mistake a lot of believers do with atheists when you first started posting here - implicitly (and if I recall, even explicitly) equating positive attributes and religious belief as mutual prerequisites. That's going to rankle nonbelievers pretty badly every time, and we like any group have differing lengths of time before we're going to drop grudges. The OP could have been a bit better too, starting with the ending acceptance that motivation can come from non-religious sources too, then framing this example as one religious one. But even then it's not clear what you are seeking to show here or discuss what. Like I said, few people indeed are stupid enough to claim nobody can do anything good because of their religious faith (I cannot resist pointing out that it's far more likely for a believer to deny they can do anything bad because of it). So you are getting short-tempered reactions partly because your intent is not clear (and it's easy to infer a "look at the cool things only believers do" intent even if you may not have it) but mostly from a bad reaction to your initial approach.

If you care about improving things, only thing I could suggest is patience and a bit of, admittedly somewhat unnecessary if taken on its face, inclusive expressions. You see an awful lot of snappishness here, and I am far from an exception. But most of it is based on a history of mutual disrespect. If you want to avoid that, don't repeat the history before it's too late to recover. You'll note that even the most acerbic atheists can respond well to some believers, and vice versa. Thst's because they've done a better job of framing arguments with each other in the past. That's what I think both of us are trying to do here. It may take longer for you with other nonbelievers, and longer for me with other believers (although as an aside I suspect I can, not necessarily DO, do better with many believers than with those who persist in believing agnosticism is an ontological position not an epistemological one - something I just cannot let slide).

[rrneck]

126. It's fairly simple.

While we applaud Nancy 's good works, we deplore your efforts to leverage rhetorical fodder for the purpose of sectarian propoganda from her efforts.

Yours is just another fine example of religious marketing. I'm sure Phillip Morris has made tax deductable contributions to various charaties as well although I doubt they have done much to further cancer research.

Until you come here prepared to deal with the full scope of the impact of your faith on our culture, we will continue to do what you will not; act as the conscience that you have abandoned in yourself. What you call hostility is merely honesty. You are the defensive one here, and any one reading this will know it.

[okasha]

101. I don't get this endless nosy-parkering into other peoples' motives, either.

It's pretty much irrelevant, particularly to the problems Nancy is addressing.


"Survival of the world depends on our sharing what we have, and working together. If we do not the whole world will die. First the planet, and next the people." Wanblee Mato (Frank Fools Crow)

[skepticscott]

124. It's the OP who has endlessly

and in post after post tried to elevate religion and religious motivations as inspiring greater good and greater morality. He's the one who has made motivations into an issue. His responders, on the other hand, have pointed out over and over (and he has acknowledged only gradually) that good deeds are done by both religious and non-religious people, so there should be no point in harping on what motivates them. If the point is to demonstrate that the good motivated by religion is greater than the harm, and that religion, on balance, is a benefit to society, then that should be addressed directly. Except that the OP has also said over and over that he would prefer not to bring the bad stuff into the mix (while arguing in other places that both sides of an issue must be heard and understood), so he's pretty much put that discussion off-limits for himself.

[Thats my opinion]

127. But it has been an elephant and rabbit stew

In this forum it has been one elephant and one rabbit. I didn't think a rabbit would cause that much indigestion.

[skepticscott]

129. "Didn't think"

perhaps describes it best. But your attempts to play the poor, persecuted, outshouted victim here are wearing thin. If your arguments had real merit, you wouldn't find so many people here tearing them down and so few supporting them. That's the way the marketplace of ideas works, in case you weren't aware.

[kwassa]

135. This argument also carries no water.

The idea that an argument has value by the number of people supporting it versus the number of people tearing it down is also absurd on it's very face. This forum has an much larger presence of atheist than theist voices, therefore atheists would always "win", if numbers were the sole criteria of winning.

Fortunately, this is not the way the so-called marketplace of ideas works.

[skepticscott]

137. Nice job of completely misunderstanding

and misstating the argument. We don't decide the merit of an idea solely based on its popularity. We recognize that ideas with merit tend to gain popularity and those without it tend to lose popularity. Slowly, sometimes, but that IS what happens in the marketplace of ideas. Theists understandably become frustrated and dismayed at being unable to answer substantive and well-considered challenges to their claims, so they go places where they don't have to listen to their beliefs being dissected.

[kwassa]

140. I didn't misstate anything you said.

Theists understandably become frustrated and dismayed at being unable to answer substantive and well-considered challenges to their claims, so they go places where they don't have to listen to their beliefs being dissected.

No, they simply don't care what atheists think, as they are more interested in exploring their faith than attempting to justify that faith by someone else's yardstick that is irrelevant to them.

Frankly, I think many of the atheists in this forum have exceedingly narrow definitions of God and religion. This creates the equivalent of a religious straw man argument.

[skepticscott]

146. Except they don't care that much about exploring their faith

at least not on this site, they don't. Theists have whined and moaned on this board that they can't have a deep and serious discussion of faith and belief (because the mean atheists hurt their feewings), but when they go to a group like Christian Liberals/Progressive People of Faith, where no atheistic posts are allowed, they mainly just sit around and stare at each other, with nothing substantial to say. And for not caring what atheists think, they certainly put up a lot of OPs and responses here directed specifically at what atheists think. Gee.

And your argument that atheists and anti-theists only attack a caricature of religion that hardly anyone actually adheres to is so vacuous and long-discredited that you should be ashamed to even make it.

[kwassa]

163. of course they don't explore it on this site.

Occasionally, OPs are started in this forum about somebody's faith experience, some atheists butt in to mock beliefs, and so it goes down the drain.

Faith is highly subjective, and the experience is literally hard to talk about in any significant way, which is within the nature of spiritual experience. It is a different sense, often beyond description. I don't of any online forum that does it well, not to say that it doesn't exist.

And your argument that atheists and anti-theists only attack a caricature of religion that hardly anyone actually adheres to is so vacuous and long-discredited that you should be ashamed to even make it.

I never made this argument.

[okasha]

133. What much of the discussion of motivation in this forum comes down to is:

1. Any good deed done by a religious person would have been done without the influence of the person's religion. Religion was therefore irrelevant. (Let's not get into the screeds doubting the existence of such a person, despite websites and news articles tht bear out said existence.)

2. Any bad deed done by a religious person was directly caused by his/her religion.

The OP's posts are presenting some counter-arguments to those positions, and it seems to be mightily disturbing to you and some others. Let me ask you this: when someone presents a horror story about how, say, a woman shot her son because her schizophrenic delusions had a religious content, do you immediately rush to point out that religious motivation has also produced some admirable results in terms of human rights, health care, etc. and that it's only fair to address those, too? Of course you don't. You're demanding behavior of someone else that you certainly don't practice yourself.

[darkstar3]

170. Does carrying around that much straw make you itch?

Let's dissect, shall we?

Your first sentence in #1 is true. However, your following statement deliberately uses the wrong word in order to further your rhetorical point. Irrelevant? No. Unnecessary? Absolutely. The argument, as it has been made countless times here, is that religious motivation is unnecessary for good deeds. If you're going to try and refute a common argument, it might help if you fucking got it right.

As for your second point, well that's simply bullshit. No one here claims, for example, that Hitler's holocaust was directly caused by his Catholicism. It is certainly pointed out from time to time that Hitler was a Catholic, but only in response to someone attempting to claim that Hitler was an atheist or a non-Christian who hated religion and therefore felt it necessary to persecute it. As another counter-example, I don't see people here stating that George W. Bush's actions leading us into war with Iraq were directly caused by his religion, and that asshole actually told the world that God told him to invade Iraq.

Let me ask you this: Do rationalization and reinforcement of twisted ideas and ethics mean nothing? Does the ability of a person to feel justified in committing a crime like murder have nothing to do with the cause of that murderous action? If you are a sane and intelligent person, then the answer to both of those questions is "of course not." You may take issue with the fact that some god plays the role of absolver for many people, but just because you take issue with it doesn't change the fact.

Also, when a story of a bad deed motivated in some way by religion breaks, any attempt to state "look at all the good things religion has done," especially at temps including falsehoods, amounts to a hill of beans. Does it matter that a serial killer gave thousands of dollars to charity? Does it matter that a wife-beater volunteers at a soup kitchen? Absolutely not. The world doesn't work like some sort of balance sheet, and good actions can never balance, outweigh, or whitewash bad.

[kwassa]

175. Religious motivation is unneccessary to who? You?

Your characterization of many of the endless arguments on this forum is false. There have been many arguing that Hitler was a Christian mass murderer, when there is little evidence than he used the church as little but a political prop amidst his amalgam of nationalism, racism, paganism, and mish-mosh of different ideas that he used as rationalizations for his actions.

And, I've seen many argue that Bush's fundamentalist religious belief was responsible for many of his political actions, including the invasion of Iraq.

You believe that negative actions in the name of Christianity negate all positive actions in the name of the same. I don't. Positive actions are positive actions.

[darkstar3]

176. Religious motivation is unneccessary to do good, period.

I covered your Hitler claim, so :boring:

I don't buy your claim about arguments regarding Bush.

Postive actions don't outweigh or whitewash bad, no matter how many times you'd like to use quoting them as a smokescreen for horrifying shit.

[okasha]

181. Poor darkstar. You're slipping into fantasy here.

'As for your second point, well that's simply bullshit. No one here claims, for example, that Hitler's holocaust was directly caused by his Catholicism. It is certainly pointed out from time to time that Hitler was a Catholic, but only in response to someone attempting to claim that Hitler was an atheist or a non-Christian who hated religion and therefore felt it necessary to persecute it. As another counter-example, I don't see people here stating that George W. Bush's actions leading us into war with Iraq were directly caused by his religion, and that asshole actually told the world that God told him to invade Iraq."


I wish you a speedy recovery.

[darkstar3]

190. Poor okasha, unable to substantiate and flinging insult to cover bullshit.

[okasha]

193. Nah.

I'll just wait till it happens again--because it will happen again, complete with a photo of the Gott Mit Uns buckle from WWI and a picture of Hitler in a church doorway--and call your attention to it.

[darkstar3]

194. Go ahead,

and then remember to read what I wrote above. ;)

[kwassa]

134. Your logic is faulty

and in post after post tried to elevate religion and religious motivations as inspiring greater good and greater morality. He's the one who has made motivations into an issue. His responders, on the other hand, have pointed out over and over (and he has acknowledged only gradually) that good deeds are done by both religious and non-religious people, so there should be no point in harping on what motivates them.

What absurdity. To religious people, the source of their motivation to do good is their religion, so it IS important to harp on what motivates them, whether or not the atheists in this forum like it or not. This is the Religious and Theology forum after all, isn't it?

Discussing why religion is important to them is foundational.

[skepticscott]

136. Take it up with the OP

He's claiming that motivations don't matter. And if you want to log good deeds supposedly motivated by religion on the plus side, then you have to log all of the evil that is and has been motivated by religion on the minus side. Want to have that discussion?

[kwassa]

138. No, I don't have to have that discussion.

Just as I am not willing to accept that crimes committed in the name of Christ are not in the spirit of Christ .... some atheists here are unwilling to accept the crimes of officially atheist governments are not true atheism, or that the atheistic part of the belief was through some nonsensical reasoning was not responsible, or in Tavener's really nutty argument that Communism is a religion ( though it makes that an atheist religion, doesn't it?) and therefore not atheist at all. Pretzel logic to rid oneself of despicable history.

You are only willing to accept the parts of atheism you like, and I am only willing to accept the parts of Christianity that I like.

[cleanhippie]

139. No one has EVER done a bad deed because they DID NOT believe in a god.

A lack of belief has NEVER been a motivating factor for ANY deed, good OR bad.

[okasha]

141. Nonsense.

Reign of Terror, Red Guards, massacres of priests and nuns in Soviet Russia. Etc.

Fundies deny science, you deny history. Both positions are ideologically driven delusions meant to reinforce a sense of righteousness in the deniers.

[cleanhippie]

143. Really? Please demonstrate how a lack of belief was the motivating factor for any of that.

This should be interesting.


:popcorn:

[kwassa]

147. When was atheism only a lack of belief?

Speaking of historical revisionism.

Atheism, as traditionally understood, as most people understand, and as it is defined in any dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

a·the·ism
   
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin:
1580–90; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ism

—Related forms
an·ti·a·the·ism, adjective, noun
pro·a·the·ism, noun

[cleanhippie]

150. Lets review.

I stated, "A lack of belief has NEVER been a motivating factor for ANY deed, good OR bad."

You stated, "Reign of Terror, Red Guards, massacres of priests and nuns in Soviet Russia. Etc."

I stated, "Really? Please demonstrate how a lack of belief was the motivating factor for any of that."

Then you give me one version of the definition of the word "atheism".



So let me ask you again: Please demonstrate how a lack of belief was the motivating factor for any of that ("that" being Reign of Terror, Red Guards, massacres of priests and nuns in Soviet Russia. Etc)

[kwassa]

153. Hard atheism vs. soft atheism.

Let's review again.

Why does anyone have to demonstrate that lack of belief was the motivating factor?

They don't, is the answer. The hard atheistic belief that there is no God caused the persecution of religious figures and institutions.

Do you understand now, or do I have to make even a simpler explanation?

[cleanhippie]

154. Hard vs. Soft atheism? really?

You can try and paint the word atheism however you like, but the fact remains that it means nothing more than a "lack of belief", and that is how I chose to define it in my question to you. And a "lack of belief" has NEVER been the motivating factor for ANY deed, good or bad.

[kwassa]

157. I paint the word atheism the way the world understands it.

If you would like to change that definition, good luck.

Talk to Merriam Webster and everyone else.

There is no fact that it means nothing more than lack of belief. That is simply your definition, and the definition of a group of others, but not a definition that at this point in history is widely accepted.

It is a logic dodge, as it is used at this point. You "New Atheists" can simply avoid any historical responsibility simply because ... well .... you have no history. What you really need is a new name aside from "atheist". That name is already taken, and the meaning established.

[cleanhippie]

160. Since when did you become the authority on what the world understands?

And it really matters not what Merriam-Webster thinks, as I stated "a lack of belief has never been a motivating factor for any deed, good or bad." Then you replied that I was wrong.
I am still awaiting you to justify exactly how I was wrong in my statement. We can quibble of word definitions in a bit if you want, but lets clear up this current issue first, ok?


Please, tell me how a lack of belief, in ANYTHING, can be a motivating factor for any deed.

[kwassa]

164. Dictionaries are authoritative.

and you are attempting to avoid, duck, hide from the traditional definition and understanding of the word "atheism".

Good luck with that.

[cleanhippie]

183. Ok, you are unable to answer. I understand your reluctance.

And since you want to try and make this an argument over word definitions and not what I actually stated, I bud you a good day.

[dmallind]

212. on USAGES

Which is the original and traditional meaning of this word?

World English Dictionary
gay (ɡeɪ)

— adj
1. a. homosexual
b. of or for homosexuals: a gay club
2. a. carefree and merry: a gay temperament
b. brightly coloured; brilliant: a gay hat
c. given to pleasure, esp in social entertainment: a gay life

[darkstar3]

169. You paint only the way you understand. Do not presume to know the minds of all in the world.

[kwassa]

173. I don't presume to know all the minds in the world. However ...

I do know historical and dictionary definitions of atheism.

[darkstar3]

177. But pay attention only to the ones that fit your agenda.

After all, the most historical definition of atheism doesn't fit your rhetoric at all.

[trotsky]

180. EVEN IF we grant you your chosen definition of atheism...

You STILL have a giant chasm to cross.

Please explain, in detail, how one goes from "the doctrine there is no god" LOGICALLY to "I must kill people who believe in gods."

When you flesh this out, you will finally have the "argument" you THINK you have.

Until then, we'll just laugh at your sputtering.

[kwassa]

199. What chasm?

There are members of DU that literally hate religion, as there are people in society that literally hate religion. Having the power to act on that hatred, though, is a very different thing. If one is an absolute ruler in a country, and hates religion, it is quite easy to move to killing religious people, as it is to kill anyone who disagrees with an absolute ruler. No chasm. Just power.

[trotsky]

204. That huge one you are completely ignoring.

The one that exists between "I don't believe in god" and "I must kill religious people."

You know very well it's there, because now you are shifting the goalposts. It now must be people who "hate" religion who also have an "absolute ruler" that wants them to kill religious people. For some reason you haven't provided yet. Keep qualifying, keep equivocating, you might just get there. Of course once you do, you will find that you are saying something completely different than your initial claim. So congrats, you won big time! Unfortunately you just ended up beating yourself. Everyone else it just laughing. :rofl:

[kwassa]

205. I have provided the reason.

You don't accept it. So what?

I really don't think you read well, as you are attacking several things I never said.

I would try to explain it more simply so that you might understand it, but I suspect already that this is a waste of time. After years of arguing with you, I am well aware of your tendency to attempt to derail a discussion by creating an irrelevant or completely absurd tangent, and then beat that tangent to death.

There is no chasm.

Your imagined ability to speak for everyone else here is duly noted.

[trotsky]

209. It's not a matter of me accepting it.

It's a matter of YOU providing the chain of reasoning that leads from "I don't believe in gods" to "I must kill those who do."

You have failed miserably. Attempting to insult my intelligence is the old traditional sign that you realize you failed as well. Better luck next time, kwassa.

[dmallind]

213. No -you know the one of several that serves your purpose.

You are like someone who laughs at Victorian novels when they use the word "gay" to mean happy and frivolous. It is the original meaninhg of the word, obvious to anyone with even the bost basic linguistic skills, to which you object. Since tradition and history are your standards, what I wonder would someone who simply lacks belief because there is no evidence have been called in, say, 1800?

[kwassa]

218. I didn't create the definitions of atheism

Yes, it has several definitions. It appears that several of the most active atheist contributors in this forum only want to acknowledge the "lack of belief" definition.

Someone with lack of belief in 1800 would probably have been called an agnostic. They would probably have been called an agnostic in 1980, too.

[dmallind]

219. Hook line and sinker

The word agnostic was coined in 1869, as a stance against mystically revealed (rather than empirically determined) certainty, by Thomas Huxley. It was not and is not an ontological position, but an epistemological one, based on if/how we can know, not whether we believe. He wrote at length about what the word was coined for.

There are indeed some strong atheists on DU (one even has that handle) but by far the majority, as in "real life" are weak atheists who simply lack belief. We certainly acknowledge both meanings - we simply know what the word means and know that moat atheists are in the 2. usage. The first usage though is the one most often meant by those antithetical to atheists (who are far greater in number, hence their usage is most frequent even if the type of atheism to which they refer is not) to discredit atheism. Frankly, strong atheism is logically indefensible. Certain claims ABOUT gods can be dismissed categorically because they are internally contradictory or contradict accepted facts, but the existence of gods cannot be universally disproven. Stating that does not make me agnostic - it makes me a more typical atheist. For the record I am also agnostic, because I do not accept that truth can be achieved via gnosis or personal revelation, but that's an entirely separate question to atheism or theism.

The "a" prefix is a giveway. It's a binary condition like symmetrical and asymmetrical. A figure is either identical along an axis or it is not. You either believe or you don't. How we know the answer if at all doesn't enter into it.

[okasha]

159. Pay attention.

Kwassa stated no such thing.

[dmallind]

211. now look up "disbelief", and remind yourself how dictionaries work

1) they list usages.

2) they list different usages separately, typically in order of frequency

3) they make no distintion between vernacular and original usage (look up "gay" to see an example)

4) Christians outnumber any other group in English speaking countries, and either by wilful animus or hapless ignorance almost always use the word to describe strong atheism (definition 1)

5) Definition 2 - as any even half assed discussion with atheists themselves will reveal, is weak atheism which refers simply to a lack of belief and is by far the most frequently held atheist opinion.

[okasha]

149. Easy.

The extreme Jacobins were atheists who sought to establish the rule of Reason. They killed a lot of people in pursuit of that goal, including but not limited to clergy, and were driving forces behind the Terror.

The Red Guards targeted religious Chinese among others because they didn't conform to the state-sponsored atheism that the Party was attempting to enforce. They also targeted others, of course, including artists, scholars, scientists and anyone who showed "western influence." Nasty, ignorant little yahoos.

Etc.

Have some actual history with that popcorn.

[cleanhippie]

152. A lack of belief was the motivating factor?

Was it? Really?



Or was there another ideology at work there?


Want some of my popcorn?

[kwassa]

155. Is atheism only lack of belief? Um, no.

Do those atheists who claim lack of belief act like they have no belief?

Many times, no. Some claim lack of belief, but act like they have the very strongest belief that there is no God. They use the claim of lack of belief to excuse their actions, but this is a transparent defense.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, it is a duck, no matter how hard it claims to be a cow.

[okasha]

158. It was certainly a motivating factor.

Not necessarily absent others, but unquestionably present. One of those other motivating factors was an attempt to enforce "lack of belief" by others--come into compliance or have your hands broken, your house burned, your head lopped off.

No, I'll pass on the popcorn. Suggest you ditch the empty calories and read some history.

[cleanhippie]

161. You have not shown how a lack of belief was a motivating factor at all.

Unless your proclamation of "yes, it was" is all thats needed.


Please, just how does a lack of belief in ANYTHING become a motivating factor for any deed?

[kwassa]

166. Every hard atheist lacks a belief in God.

This allows them to eradicate anyone in their way who does believe in God

This is necessary prerequisite to also actively disbelieving that God exists.

Even a lack of belief in God, and a belief in some other ideology, requires the lack of belief in God to persecute religious figures and institutions, simply for being religious.

[darkstar3]

168. That's an incredible leap that you cannot possibly support.

[kwassa]

172. Where is the leap?

One can't become an active disbeliever without having a lack of belief first.

[darkstar3]

178. "This allows them to eradicate anyone in their way who does believe in God"

How you get THERE from "lack of belief" is a leap that could put you in the record books.

[kwassa]

198. Not at all. It is, as I said, impossible to be a hard atheist without lack of belief.

Many who have a lack of belief don't go on to be hard atheists, either.

[darkstar3]

201. Not an answer. You haven't shown how you get from lack of belief to murder, which you implied in 166

[okasha]

171. I prefer to deal with historical facts.

Does it possibly occur to you that neither Mao nor the Jacobins nor Stalin shared your definition of "atheism?" And were about something a good deal more serious than a discussion on a message board?

I'll say it again: read history.

[cleanhippie]

184. I'll say it again: READ WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID.

When you do that, and then want to discuss what I actually said, get back to me.

[kwassa]

142. What utter bullshit.

When people behave like the most dogmatic believers possible, and then claim lack of belief ...

I call bullshit, like any reasonable person would. If it walks like a duck ....

I think the old definition of atheist applies. The convenient new one offers a dodge anyone can hide behind in their anti-theist belief, and they often do.

[cleanhippie]

144. .

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:





Yeah, ok. Whatever you say.



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[kwassa]

145. Write when you have a response with real content.

[cleanhippie]

151. .

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:





Yeah, ok. Whatever you say.



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[kwassa]

156. I say that I have clearly defeated you in this argument, when you resort to empty emoticons.

[cleanhippie]

162. .

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:





Yeah, ok. Whatever you say.



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[kwassa]

165. I'm glad you agree that I've defeated you in this argument.

[cleanhippie]

185. .

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:





Yeah, ok. Whatever you say.



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[darkstar3]

167. Supposition.

Faith, especially as practiced here in the USA, is an ever-changing thing that is used most often as rationalization and reinforcement for one's own ethical standards, and ethics have already been shown by many writers and thinkers to arise separate from religion.

My point? You cannot possibly know that "It is what her Christian commitment led her to do." In fact, it is far more likely, given what we know about ethics, that her particular flavor of christianity has featured in her life simply because her ethics led her to those beliefs.

[kwassa]

174. It is your opinion that faith is used as rationlization and reinforcement

This is a chicken-and-egg argument. Many religious people believe their ethics derive from their religious understanding, and if they believe it, who are you to say that it is wrong?

You weren't there when they made those ethical decisions.

[okasha]

182. If you had paid attention

you would know that the OP knows Nancy personally. If you had followed up to the website, you would have seen that he sits on the board of the organization in question.

You, on the other hand, have no personal knowledge on the basis of which to declare what is or is not "far more likely" to motivate her, and no apparent interest in actual facts.

[Thats my opinion]

187. I am totally amazed

That the noble story of a devout woman has generated the sort of defensive outpouring this post has gotten. And who are you to second guess what someone else says is her motivation? Why should you even need to question it? Why not just celebrate someone who does that much good?

[trotsky]

189. Because YOU'RE the one who claimed to KNOW it came from religion.

And you made sure to point that out and praise it for just that reason.

You're also the one who said that none of us would want to live in a society that didn't have a RELIGIOUS basis for ethics.

You've done nothing but put non-believers down, and their objection to being treated like second-class citizens, in your mind, means they are "defensive" and "hostile."

Yeah, I have no idea why you don't get a warm fuzzy reception every time you appear. :eyes:

[rrneck]

197. Because

you seem more interested in celebrating her motivation than her good works.

Here's a tip: Marketing spin won't inspire anybody. It usually just pisses them off. You will discover that others here are just as smart or smarter than you. And they don't feel the need to post their resume to make a point.

[darkstar3]

191. Hmm, I guess I struck a nerve. To the three of you:

Your blustering and offense hasn't done one thing to answer my point: You cannot possibly know that "It is what her Christian commitment led her to do." This OP is supposition, and psychology tells us far more about a person's adoption of ethics than supposition ever will.

[kwassa]

200. no, not really.

If she says it is her Christian commitment that led her do good acts, then I believe her. I have no reason to disbelieve her; who should know her own motivation better than Nancy herself?

[darkstar3]

202. So now "Nancy" and TMO are the same person?

And what makes you think you should take what everyone says at face value?

[Name removed]

203. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kwassa]

206. I don't think that you know better than Nancy what her motivation is.

Not for one single second.

[dmallind]

214. But apparently you know better than Marie Moore and Ivan Henk what theirs was. nt

[okasha]

210. Your need to cling to denial

in the face of the woman's own words as reported by someone who knows her personally is irrational.

I'd say a nerve certainly has been struck.

[Silent3]

221. People aren't necessarily the best analysts of their own motivations

Given the nature of human psychology, certainly the opposite position, automatic acceptance of a person's testimony about their own personal motivations, is what would be most irrational.

In between those polar opposites -- automatic acceptance and automatic denial -- many factors have to be considered.

Certainly there's little reason to suspect that this "Nancy" would be consciously lying about what she thinks her motivations are. She very likely believes what has been said here and has no motive to deceive.

The significance of her faith and the relationship of her faith to her actions requires, however, a difficult analysis: trying to imagine the hypothetical situation of not having Christian faith, then projecting what the hypothetical Nancy-without-Christian-faith would do with her life. There is no particularly good reason to give Nancy credit for being especially skilled at answering a hypothetical question which very few people, if any, would be very good at answering.

Such questions, in fact, probably aren't even very meaningful on an individual level. You can't imagine a change like that without imagining either a different personality or a different life history, the end result of which is essentially imagining a different person.

A societal perspective is much informative then, and that perspective certainly doesn't single out Christianity as necessary, or even clearly especially conducive when compared to other faiths or a lack of faith, to producing generous and compassionate behavior.

[okasha]

222. All true, but it's really very simple.

Nancy is far more likely to know what motivates her than someone who's never met her, someone whose only, very tenuous, contact with her is third hand through a narrative on a message board.

Someone who knows Nancy personally is far more likely to know what motivates her than someone who's never met her, someone whose only, very tenuous, contact with her is third hand through a narrative on a message board.

"The significance of her faith and the relationship of her faith to her actions requires, however, a difficult analysis: trying to imagine the hypothetical situation of not having Christian faith, then projecting what the hypothetical Nancy-without-Christian-faith would do with her life. There is no particularly good reason to give Nancy credit for being especially skilled at answering a hypothetical question which very few people, if any, would be very good at answering."

Agan, true. But there's no particularly good reason to ask this hypothetical question in the first place unless one is Nancy, and even less to assume that one has the answer. Unless, of course, one is Nancy.

[Silent3]

223. That question is important to the significance of the OP

If Nancy's Christian motivation is, as I believe, quite interchangeable with other sources of motivation, and if her response to that type of motivation is more a matter of basic character than any particular religion or lack thereof, then her reporting of her source of motivation, even if taken as fact, is a rather bland fact, comparable to me telling you what make of car I drive to work when your chief interest is decreasing unemployment. The key to more people having jobs wouldn't have a thing to do with using the same kind of I car I drive to get to work.

[okasha]

225. So what do you mean by "basic character?"

Is it something genetic that is unaffected or only slightly affected by one's intellectual and emotional environment? Is someone basically "good" or "evil" apart from upbringing, education, etc.?

[Silent3]

240. Now that is a can of worms

Sort of like "free will", the more you look into the idea, the more the idea seems to fall apart. I have to admit I'd have a tough time clearly defining it, roughly some combination of genetics and early development perhaps. At any rate, that fuzzy concept isn't important to the idea that the same moral principles can and do arise apart from the specifics of any particular religious dogma, and free from religious dogma at all.

[okasha]

241. True enough that moral principles can arise in any of several ways.

But there's a step you seem to be skipping over, here, which is how a given set of moral principles is acquired by a given individual. In Nancy's case, it seems that she and those principles are brought together through her religion. Other people may make the connection in other ways. It does not follow, however, that the possibility of a different path to those principles invalidates or diminishes the connection between Nancy's religion and her ethics. (Nor does her experience invalidate or diminish anyone else's.)

[Silent3]

242. To me that "connection", however, doesn't appear to be much stronger...

...than the connection example I used before, between the fact that I (luckily, in this lousy economy) have a job, and the kind of car I drive to get to that job.

The world is full of connections and associations of all sorts. They vary greatly in importance and significance. When those connection are associated with the personal details of one person's life, there can be some special expertise that the individual brings to evaluating the significance of those connections. There is also, however, quite often strong unconscious biases on the part of the individual, making the individual one of the worst possible judges in some subject matter pertaining to the individual self, not the best.

[trotsky]

224. Were Nancy's own words posted somewhere on this thread?

Sorry if I missed them. All I read in the OP was TMO's personal view of what he believed Nancy's motivations to be.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

229. The answer is a big NO. And -- wait for this -- the charity's website hasn't anything either!

I say "extracted from inside lower intestinal tract."

[trotsky]

230. I am shocked - SHOCKED, I tell you.

The OP makes up a motivation, and when mean nasty uppity atheists ask how he knows this, they get attacked for being mean nasty uppity atheists.

Feelin' the love.

[laconicsax]

231. WHY NOT THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION?

:rofl:

[trotsky]

232. ...

:rofl: indeed!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

233. Ahem.

http://imgur.com/a/JPydA

[trotsky]

237. Perfectly captured in memes.

:rofl:

[Thats my opinion]

234. Nancy's words?

Come on people. We all know that the problem is not that you don't have any words from Nancy. If we could produce a 500 page dissertation about her religious faith you would not feel any kinder toward the basic proposition: namely that she does what she does out of a Christian imperative. What you can't get your minds around is that anybody can act out of their faith in noble, compassionate ways. Post after post, response after response is clear that the only people who act out of faith are destructive, anti-human fundamentalists. For you to accept that maybe there are those--and I call to witness millions of them--who throughout the centuries and now--live lives of compassion deriving their compulsion from their faith freaks you out because you hold as an unbroken creed, that religion only produces evil and if anyone produces good it cannot be because of their religion. As with many others, her faith led to her devotion to humanism. In fact, one cannot be a dedicated Christian unless that faith leads to a commitment to humanism.

I continue to affirm that those of no-faith also do marvelous things from a variety of commitments, or lack of them.
Among them: Protageras, Behn, Diterot ,Hume, Paine,Darwin, Hardy, Huxley, Ingersol, Mill, Forster,
freud, Moore, on and on and on. I don't know their motivations. But I celebrate what they have done.

I filed the story of a simple pious woman whose whole life biography is identified with her Christian commitment, and now there are over 2,500 hits on the story and 250 written responses. And many of you just can't seem to stomach the idea that someone can do marvelous things because they are Christian--or any other religious commitment for that matter. You don't want proof, for no manner of evidence or "quotes" would soften your denial that religion cannot be the motivation for compassion.

[trotsky]

236. Yes, her own words. Not what you've decided she believes.

I fully understand that you believe the best values, the best behavior, the best people come from religious beliefs. You've made that perfectly clear. THAT is why you have gotten the reception you have. Instead of acknowledging that, and admitting you have said things that were insulting and degrading to non-believers, you dig in your heels and say the problem is OURS, that we simply cannot accept that sometimes faith can inspire good deeds.

The big problem with that, of course, is that NO ONE HAS SAID THAT. You are arguing with a straw man. Good luck.

[laconicsax]

238. No, that's exactly the problem.

You've attributed motivation to someone without citing their actual words or even considering them. All we have is your opinion of what motivates Nancy, who doesn't say so on her own website. If you want us to take seriously your position, you have to at least make an effort to present it in an honest manner.

[rrneck]

239. I'm sure Nancy is a lovely person

and is doing wonderful work. But she isn't posting here, you are. And you are using her faith and good works to try to score rhetorical points against people for whom you have little respect. No amount of sophistry can hide that and it becomes more apparent as time goes on.

Using her to deflect criticism from yourself is pretty scuzzy behaivor. All you have presented so far is a fairly erudite version of the one true Scotsman fallacy. You certainly have not inspired anyone to share your faith or reconsider their own. If and when you start to deal straight with people you may have more luck but cleverness will only inspire suspicion.