From: mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:41:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.185156.18883@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.175614.28280@Csli.Stanford.EDU>, mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx) writes:
>>
>>Whoooooooa, horsie! To speak of "Christianity" as one entity is
>>problematic, there being several thousand different Christian
>>denominations in the United States alone.
>
>Fine.  But the traits I'm refering to are, as far as I know, caused by
>beliefs shared by all of them.  Or are their Christian sects that *don't*
>believe that the bible is the word of God, that Jesus died for your sins,
>that there's an afterlife, etc.?
It sounds to me like the traits you are referring to are those of
savagery, hatred, warmongering and the like -- which, if you check
the New Testament, have no place in Christian beliefs. Now, if some
people *exhibit* the above traits, it is nothing taught by Christ.

>
>>To attribute to every one of them by attributing to Christians *in general*
>>(as you have done) guilt for the deeds of a small minority of those who stand
>>under the Christian umbrella breeds not only ignorance, but the intolerance
>>you so self-righteously denounce.
>
>I haven't attributed the guilt to *Christians*, I've attributed it to
>*Christianity*.  I feel pity for those sucked into religious dogma, but I don't
>blame them for it.
If you claim to indict Christianity (a core of belief)  rather than
Christians themselves, then you must remove from your discussion talk
of individuals' actions. Perhaps you would reassert your point. 
>
>>>Deny it all you want, but that won't stop the next holy war from happening.
>>
>>If it does, hopefully you'll take the time to look at who exactly is
>>responsible and recognize that they themselves are *not* doing what
>>they have committed to, rather than throwing all Christians into a
>>black kettle and turning up the heat.
>
>What are you saying?  That the Christian soldiers aren't to blame?  Or that
>they really aren't Christians?  Or what?
Could you be more specific? To which "Christian soldiers" do you
refer? Discussing generalities inevitably leads to
overgeneralizations.

>
>>... You once again generalize to *all* of Christianity, failing to
>>recognize differences not only in what is taught by individual
>>Christian churches, but in the way the different members react to
>>that.
>
>I did not.  I never said *all* Christians exhibit those traits, just that a
>significant number *do*, and I don't see much effort on the part of Christian
>religions to correct such blatant non-Christian behavior.
Let me rephrase that. When you speak of "Christian religions", you
fail to recognize differences between the thousands of Christian
churches. Indeed, there are Christian churches who tolerate more than
they should -- perhaps some who tolerate less than they should. 
>
>>>Huh?  What's that got to do with the leap of faith, suspension of disbelief,
>>>and subjugation of will required to be a Christian?
>>
>>Once again, you reveal your ignorance. Spend a decent amount of time
>>learning Christ's teachings and you'll get a clue. 
>
>Well, I was raised Methodist, and have been exposed to Christianity all my
>life.  If I'm lacking a clue, why don't you just give it to me?  I'm not going
>to run out and buy/study a bible just to satisfy you.
The sad thing is that many people who grow up seeing bad examples of
religion -- be it corrupt priests, parents or whatever -- dismiss the
belief because of the actions of some individuals. For those that
error, there are many -- many more, I would venture -- who do adhere
to what they claim to believe in. Yet the actions or words of others
are not a sure foundation for personal belief. I'm sure that's why
many reject religion -- because they feel preached to. Still, it's one
thing to just reject such teachings and another to fully study them
out and find out whether they are true or not. That's one exercise
that many people disillusioned with religion never complete. 
>
>>Many churches (including mine) do excommunicate many of those "bad
>>apples" -- if they're not willing to change their ways and try to be
>>better.
>
>Sure, the really flagrant cases, I suppose.  But you miss the point: many
>people claim to be Christian, go to church regularly, etc., but constantly say
>and do things in their daily lives that reflect either a total lack of
>understanding of Christ's teachings or a total lack of committment to living
>their lives consistently with them.  I suppose they're just poor sinners not
>responsible for their actions...
I wouldn't deny for a minute that hypocrites about. Following media
stories on the abuse of some ministries over the last few years should
provide ample evidence for that. As I hinted at before, there is a
huge difference between listening to the words of others (includes
going to church) and finding out for one's self. Many lack the latter.

>
>>>It follows, then, that atheists are not accountable as a group since they
>>>don't act as a group--they're merely a set of individuals with a common trait.
>>>You can't blame them for the ills of any particular atheist any more than you
>>>can blame redheads for any deed performed by a redhead.
>>
>>But your previous paragraph about beliefs playing a large role in
>>determining behavior is a shoe atheists can wear, as well.
>
>Wrong.  Atheists don't share a particular belief, they share a nonbelief.  This
>is a current thread in alt.atheism.  Believing that God doesn't exist and not
>believing that God exists are two different things.  E.g., to steal an example
>from that thread:
The first is "hard" atheism, the second is "hard" agnosticism. There
are very few "hard" atheists, I would wager -- that is, the type that
believe that God does not exist -- for disproving God exists is no
more logically feasible than providing the contrary. The "not
believing God exists" is actually "hard" agnosticism -- though many
which hold this belief call themselves atheists. This is opposed to
"soft" agnosticism, which is basically indecision.

>
>bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart) writes:
>>If I claim to have Elvis in my spare bedroom, would you consider
>>yourself a "nonbeliever" or a "disbeliever?"  Or would you, in fact, be
>>so gullible as to believe it on just my say-so?  Would you consider
>>outright disbelief of such a fantastic claim to be "dogmatic" or
>>"religious," or would it merely be sensible considering the facts and
>>circumstances?
>
The only tenable position to take is that of the "hard" agnostic.

I can hear the responses already...
-- 
Matt Marx     mmarx@csli.stanford.edu           
So many newsgroups, so little time...

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections