A Conversation with Ruby

[Kopji]

...the core of Christianity is service. The more one serves others, the more blessing one gets. It is a principle as true as gravity.

People who are sad, depressed struggling are mostly on the take. It's always about them, about how they need.

Well this is real news. And here I was under the mistaken impression that the core of Christianity was faith in Jesus Christ. With service at the center as an engine of increased blessings, am I to conclude that the poor receive their just lot in life? The logic seems inescapable.

The second part about sad and depressed people being on the take... is just plain offensive, I'm not even sure how to respond in a way that would not be filtered.

After all the lengthy posts about Ruby not being intellectual enough or being a hypocrite for promoting a blanket characterization of Christainity...

It's sorta like this: Leaving the grip of religion sometimes takes YEARS, not days or months. That is how much a prison it sometimes is. The "way out" has many phases and not all are intellectual. Ranting and anger are part of the journey, and maybe a very needed part.

Ruby! YOU GO GIRL!

 

[Loki]

Christian,

Rather than a point-by-point counter, let me just express my philosophy for you :

"Your prejudices and preconceptions don't help you see that the core of Humanism is service. The more one serves others, the more fulfillment one gets. It is a principle as true as gravity."

 

[scribble]

Originally posted by Christian

... the core of Christianty is service. The more one serves others, the more blessing one gets. It is a principle as true as gravity.

That's f-ing awesome. Get me a beer. You'll get blessed, I'll get blasted, we'll both be happy.

Go on, what are you waiting for? Get me a beer.

 

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
Christian,

Rather than a point-by-point counter, let me just express my philosophy for you :

"Your prejudices and preconceptions don't help you see that the core of Humanism is service. The more one serves others, the more fulfillment one gets. It is a principle as true as gravity."

Oh, no you don't. Show me. Show me the tons of humanist organizations the serve. And if humanists did serve, yes they would get blessed.

Talk is cheap, specially in this place.


scribble wrote:
That's f-ing awesome. Get me a beer. You'll get blessed, I'll get blasted, we'll both be happy.

Go on, what are you waiting for? Get me a beer.

Still thinking about it? I'm still waiting? See, you do have to and indeed obey even social rules.

 

[wollery]

Loki wrote:
I agree. Just show me some impossible things happening and I'm all yours.

Oh, God would use you in wonderful ways Loki.

That's not an answer!

I've already suggested that I think finding "suitable criteria" is difficult, perhaps impossible. Any idea what criteria we might use?

How about choices in life? What choice in life do you make that qualitatively better than a Christian's? Christians pray. Do you? Is praying better than not praying? (don't forget my last mile explanation)

Someone has a better quality of life because the get on their knees and ask a mythical sky daddy for help?
I don't pray, so I have more time to actually get on and make a difference in my life and other lives.

I understand that you need to believe this - that remains your problem, not mine.

Only if this is not true, but I will show you evidence it is.

Go on then. We're all waiting.

"Practical Christianity" differs from "Practical Humanism" exactly how? Sure the theory is different, but how so in practice?

Results, the Bible says works, deeds.

Are you saying that only christians do good deeds?

I admit that there's not much detail here, and perhasp I'm missing something important (and therefore I'm not able to pass it on to you). But she claims to "experience god" quite a lot. She claims it is the only good thing in her life. She claims it is clear and unambiguous. I can't help but see someone clinging desperately to anything she can. But its just an anecdote, so until we establish come of these 'objective criteria' you are so fond of there's probably little more we can say about her?

I don't see how she can experience God from your description. If she were to experience God, she would feel succesful and joyfull, no doubt about that. And she could point out the source of her hapiness, palpable, tangibly. Yes, there is objective criteria.

You said she felt lonely, if she feels the power of God, she could not feel this way. There is an objective formula that does not fail, that is like the laws of the physical world. This is available to anyone who uses the formula. An atheist will feel this joy and togetherness if he or she were to use it.

So you're saying that there are people who claim to be christian (like Lokis friend) who aren't really christian, because they haven't found the formula.
BTW, does this formula involve partial differentials, because I'm a bit rusty on those

Oh, I understand. You'll accept *any* positive, in any aspect of her life, in any degree, as being the "result" of her faith. You'll ignore *any* negatives in her life, as being "not what I meant". This is not a pattern I'm unfamiliar with Christian.

Here is my evidence that you are prejudice. You think that I'm talking about selective choosing. To you, I'm talking about counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

I'm not talking about that at all. I make the distinction of the inner and outer results.

What we accomplish for ourselves is, at the end, vanity, superfluos. Selfishness is a the street that leads to the darkest place.

No, let's see what she has done in her life for others. What is her contribution to other people? How does she enrich the lives of others. I see none of that in your account of her.

What has she done in her life, means what has she contributed to her fellow human? What does she do more, take or receive?

Loki, your prejudices and preconceptions don't help you see that the core of Christianty is service. The more one serves others, the more blessing one gets. It is a principle as true as gravity.

People who are sad, depressed struggleling are mostly on the take. It's always about them, about how they need.

People who live in abundance of all this world has to offer are mostly on the give. It is always about how others can benefit, how others can be helped. There is so many people waiting to bless us with their needs.

This is the core of practical Christianity.

I'm sorry, I know I'm preaching but had to.

Wow, way to contradict yourself there Christian. You start by saying that what counts are the actions and deeds, and finish by saying that depressed people are selfish and therefore (presumably by your definition) not true christians. As someone who has suffered from clinical depression I can tell you that you haven't a clue what being depressed is. The highest rates of depression in the UK are in the emergency and health services (I'll bet it's the same for the U.S.). These are people who regularly put their lives on the line for other people, and large numbers of them suffer from depression. If you want to talk about something then maybe you should know something about it first.

One final thought, if christianity is about giving to those who need, doesn't that make the needy takers. Are they condemned then to hell for not being givers?

(Apologies christian if this seems aggressive, but that last post of yours really got my hackles up)

 

[DanishDynamite]

Christian:

DanishDynamite:
Christian has asked for the specifics of the intellectual parts of Ruby's journey from blind faith to freedom. I wonder If Christian can likewise present his "intellectual" reasons for remaining a believer.

Christian:
Because the quality of my life is as good any's being a believer, and being a believer has resulting in making the quality of life of others be better as well.

As I said, are you willing to argue that the quality of your life is better because you are not a believer?

So you're intellectual reasons for remaining a believer is because it makes you feel good? Sorry, I don't see the intellectual component there. Could you elaborate?

In regard to arguing that my life is better for not being a believer, this is a probably a fool's errand as we would be arguing the meaning of "better" forever. Is a caged animal who is regularly fed and cared for better off than an animal living free?

 

[Loki]

Christian,

Oh, no you don't. Show me. Show me the tons of humanist organizations the serve.

Geez...you want to go through this again? We had this conversation 2 years ago. Remember the collection of links I posted of secular organisations from around the world that do charity work? How about we start with the various organisations that work under the United Nations banner? They are clearly secular. The World Health Organisation? UNICEF? Do they qualify?

Here's one for you, christian. A secular organisation is the single biggest organisation in Australia that provides services, support, money, etc to the poor, the aged, the disadvantaged. And it's by a huge margin. It is, of course, the government. Paid for by all of us, and staffed by - gasp - a diverse spread of believers and non-believers.

Do hospital staff count, Christian? Or do you mean "work done by people that is NOT paid for?"

And if humanists did serve, yes they would get blessed.

By 'blessed', do you mean 'rewarded in this life", or "rewarded in the next life"?

Talk is cheap, specially in this place.

You could answer a few questions, you know. I let it pass, but since you want to get picky, how about explaining this (I don;t understand your answer :

I asked you for some 'objective criteria' to measure one's "life results" by. You said you knew of such and objective standard.

I wrote : "Any idea what criteria we might use?"

You wrote : "How about choices in life? What choice in life do you make that qualitatively better than a Christian's? Christians pray. Do you? Is praying better than not praying?"

Now, when I read this it seems to me that your saying "An objective criteria for measuring life results is choices in life."
I don't understand this. If this IS what you meant, can you give me an example of 'objective standard'? If it's not what you meant, can you clarify?

 

[Christian]

Right now, I'm busy with stuff I gotta do. I WILL answer/reply on the weekend. Thanks.

 

[Christian]

Ruby,

Again, thank you for sharing part of life with me. You are talking about very personal and deep things and I appreciate that.

Now, here is my response.

Ruby wrote:
I'm not sure how to respond to the above paragraph. I'm unclear if you are saying that in general.....in my life, I hung out with people who were abusive etc., and was therefore led easily into a church org that abused me......or if you saying that once in church, I hung out with the abusive sort etc.

One possibility is that you focused (paid attention to) on this behavior. Can you buy this idea: you can be surrounded by negative abusive people that act generous and positive with you.

What I have divulged above is also "anecdotal evidence". So if I said that some men were sexually abusive, you could also make a case against me.

Can you buy the idea that some women attract the gentle, chivalrous kind men in their lives?
And this says nothing pejorative or bad about women who seem to attract predators. On the contrary, as you describe it, you attracted them because of good inherent traits.

Why is it so terrifying for you to consider that some denominations within Christinaity are legalistic and abusive?

I don’t think it is terrifying. This is my theory. All social groups contain legalistic and abusive people. Maybe, some have them in a greater percentage within that group. And they may be legalistic and abusive about some things in certain circumstances, but not others. Team work is extremely difficult. Get a bunch of people together for any period of time and bad things start to happen. This is going to be true with any people you get together with on a consistent basis.


I liked the sense of belonging that going to church gave me. I had never really experienced that before. It felt great to be a part of something. To be considered part of a family. Not only that, I was part of the only church org. that had the "truth". I was taught that I was "special" as a 1st United Pentecostal. Special because I had true savation.

I want you to forgive in advance for what I am about to say. Isn’t this the same feeling you have now? Don’t you feel a sense of belonging and that you are a part of something. Didn’t you say you love everyone here and consider them your family? And don’t you consider yourself special because now you are in the path to the truth, that a veil has been lifted?

Can you buy the idea that the problem is not the scenery, it is not the stage, not the outside environment?

Well, living by so many church rules........no make-up, no jewelry, no pants, no shorts, no TV....and so on, I was becoming very depressed. I did not feel like a woman anymore. We were taught to wear dresses with lengths below knees....most all the woman wore dresses nearly to the floor. We were also taught to wear dresses that covered our elbows. As if our elbows could incite lust!

Can you think of all the rules that you must follow now. For example, even if you think (very deep down) that a bible story can be a great lesson for children to listen to, you don’t because it is just as any other mythology. (I can’t guess about your answer, it is just an example to illustrate that humans constantly have to follow rules, we are never free from them , and the funny thing is that the more advanced the society we live in , the more regulated we are)

The type of abuse and legalism I am talking about can only be learned in a church. And in my experience, it happens constantly in the UPCI and Charismatic churches.

I’m sorry but I disagree. I will give a perfect example that abuse and legalism is everywhere you have groups.

Right here in this website, the main administrator left. If you read the posts related to him prior to his departure and after, you will see abuse and legalism all over. And you know when all that started? Right after rules of conduct where enacted. Before that time, anarchy was supreme. Once posters had to follow rules, the group dynamic changed dramatically.

Now, someone could argue that it was a small percentage of people, some could argue the other way. I would say that those who focused on it, got a very good look that the abusive and legalistic behavior.

What is a certainty is that the administrator was so fed up with it, that he decided to leave.

This is the problem. We have all these denominations running about......all interpreting the bible differently. All accusing each other of doing things that aren't biblical. The fact is, the bible can be made to say anything you want it to. It's chock full of contradictions.

I don’t think it is full of contradictions. I do believe that there are many contradictory interpretations. It is not the same thing. I definitely agree that we can create interpretations to fit our views and beliefs.


It might be easy to start a new bible based religion. Just pick and choose your verses and build your dogma around it. Then claim you've had some incredible revelation from God, himself, and there you go.

This is true, it can be done, but it won’t hold to the real litmus test.

It would not be too hard to rent a building or buy an old abandoned church. Then advertise using cleverly put together catchy phrases that sound uplifting, and give the promise of changing people's lives through Christ, and people are bound to come. There's always someone looking for answers..looking for something better and new that their current church isn't giving.

Also true.

Anyhow, I can say for a fact that a lot of UPC doctrine is based on twisted scripture, and some is scripture taken out of context, but some is scripture that has been interpreted in a different manner due to the many contradictions that exist in the bible.

Ok, we seem to agree here on most of what you say. I still disagree that the bible is full of contradictions. I will show you what I mean using the passages you cite.

Ok, so lets look at the UPC dogma that I was taught. First of all I learned that salvation only occurred through 1. Repentance; 2. Baptism in Jesus name; 3. Receiving the Holy Spirit baptism as evidenced by speaking in tongues.

They back this is up with the following passages.

Acts 2:1-16

Now, please not that the passage you cite does not explicitly say that is the way salvation occurs. It is a POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION. How do we know if it is a the right interpretation? How do we solve that?

This is a common problem is jurisprudence. Legislators make laws and when they made them they a specific intent. Many laws are straight forward to understand, many are not. So, how does a judge determine what the right interpretation is? Well, there are two mayor criteria:

1. Context/reference
2. literality.

From what you write, I’m sure I don’t have to go into #1. On #2, this is the litmus test in jurisprudence (that I referred to before). If the law is clear and precise about a specific aspect or topic (if it is literal in the law) then that takes precedence over any and every interpretation regarding the same aspect. It is only when #2 cannot be found, then we move to #1. Christians don’t have a Supreme Court that can uphold a particular interpretation, but we certainly can use the same principles, specifically literality.

This is where they believe the bible gives the one, and only, salvation message. They believe repentance is crucial...and most of their churches stress repentance as being a major event where you better cry, wail, and beg "God" to forgive you for all your sins. (They seem to miss that repentance really means to change one's mind and/or turn away from sin.) They believe that baptizing someone in total immersion of water saying "in Jesus name", is the only valid baptism. Anyone who has been baptized with "in the name of the father, son, and Holy spirit" being said over them needs to be rebaptized in Jesus name according to them. Otherwise, that mode of baptism will send them to hell. I'll explain why in a bit. Receiving the Holy Spirit baptism is vital to be saved......and according to them , unless you speak in tongues as evidence, then you did not get it. Once again, not speaking in tongues will send you to hell too.

How is the litmus test applied? It is very easy. If the passage can stand on it’s own in terms of meaning (that it does not require interpretation) and it contradicts a particular interpretation, then the INTERPRETATION is wrong. Yes, the interpretation can contradict the literal passage. The sound conclusion is not that the passages are contradicting one another, it is that the interpretation must be wrong.

Ok, what literal passage contradicts on its own this particular interpretation? Here it is (and please see that the passage does not need a single interpretation or explanation of any kind. It’s stands on its own)

1 Corinthians 12 NIV


Spiritual Gifts

1Now about spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant. 2You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. 3Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
4There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.
7Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[1] and to still another the interpretation of tongues.[2] 11All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.
12The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized by[3] one Spirit into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
14Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
21The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues[4] ? Do all interpret? 31But eagerly desire[5] the greater gifts.
And now I will show you the most excellent way.

So, I had to listen to many sermons about how if you don't give yourself fully to God (speak in tongues) then God might cause something bad to happen to someone you love to get you to do it. I am serious!!

Do you see why the interpretation is fails at the most fundamental level?

I don’t want to get into a biblical debate here. I know you don’t either but this was important for me to say about that subject.

 

[Christian]

Kopji wrote:
Well this is real news. And here I was under the mistaken impression that the core of Christianity was faith in Jesus Christ. With service at the center as an engine of increased blessings, am I to conclude that the poor receive their just lot in life?


When you say poor, what kind of scarcity are you referring to?

The second part about sad and depressed people being on the take... is just plain offensive, I'm not even sure how to respond in a way that would not be filtered.

Why is this statement not true?

By me:
Oh, God would use you in wonderful ways Loki.

Wollery wrote:
That's not an answer!

If you were expecting me to say I can move mountains by sheer will, I can’t. But I can see the miracles of God constantly. The many thing that could and should wrong that God makes right in my experience is good enough for me. I know it is not good enough for the many here. I’m not even sure if they allow themselves to be such situations to see thing going right when the odds are against it.

Someone has a better quality of life because the get on their knees and ask a mythical sky daddy for help?
I don't pray, so I have more time to actually get on and make a difference in my life and other lives.

Well, I asked the question. Is your answer that you have a better quality of life because you don’t pray, because you don’t waste that time in it? Does this mean you don’t waste any time? And if you do waste some time, is it less than the time wasted by a Christian praying? Is listening to music while driving to work less of a waste than praying while driving to work. How about other forms of multitasking? You get the picture, right.

Are you saying that only christians do good deeds?

Of course not. I’m saying that people who engage in good deeds (regardless of creed) reap the rewards of them. It is a physical principle. The law of gravity applies to all creeds and non-creeds.

So you're saying that there are people who claim to be christian (like Lokis friend) who aren't really christian, because they haven't found the formula.

You misunderstand. I don’t know and can’t say if she is a Christian or not. The formula for happiness is there for all of us. It applies to all of us regardless of creed. Christianity just happens to have that formula as the central aspect of life.

Wow, way to contradict yourself there Christian. You start by saying that what counts are the actions and deeds, and finish by saying that depressed people are selfish and therefore (presumably by your definition) not true christians.

Your misinterpretation cause the contradiction. Luckily the sourse is here to clear up the meaning. Actions and deeds of service gives us a life of joy. True Christians can be depressed and selfish. If they do not serve, that is the consequence.

As someone who has suffered from clinical depression I can tell you that you haven't a clue what being depressed is.

You are mistaken. I have a very good idea what depression is all about.

The highest rates of depression in the UK are in the emergency and health services (I'll bet it's the same for the U.S.). These are people who regularly put their lives on the line for other people, and large numbers of them suffer from depression. If you want to talk about something then maybe you should know something about it first.

These are the only people you consider have a high value of service? The way you mean it, we all serve. Is it less important when a waiter serves you your food? Is it less important that the man at the service station puts gas on the ambulance? We all serve this way, and we are all connected and need each other to function. People would starve to death if there were no one would transport the food. Those truck drives put their lives on the line for other people everyday.

No, this is not the kind of service I’m talking about. You know the one I mean. It is the one where you gain absolutely nothing from but the satisfaction of having done a good deed. Every time you come across the kid who you helped out of drugs, that feeling of accomplishment that comes with it, is indescribable. Each of his successes becomes your success and pride. It is pure joy.

One final thought, if christianity is about giving to those who need, doesn't that make the needy takers. Are they condemned then to hell for not being givers?

No. A child needs a lot. But one day, if he has learned how to have a happy life, he, in turn, will become a giver and thus a virtues cycle ensues.

(Apologies christian if this seems aggressive, but that last post of yours really got my hackles up)

No apologies needed.

By me:
Because the quality of my life is as good any's being a believer, and being a believer has resulting in making the quality of life of others be better as well.

DanishDynamite wrote:
So you're intellectual reasons for remaining a believer is because it makes you feel good? Sorry, I don't see the intellectual component there. Could you elaborate?

No, let me put it another way, I don’t see how being an atheist is better than being a believer? And if it is not better, why not be a believer? I don’t see any practical advantages to not believing.

So, instead of asking, how is the quality of an atheist’s life better? I will ask the same the question in another way. What are the practical advantages of not being a believer?

In regard to arguing that my life is better for not being a believer, this is a probably a fool's errand as we would be arguing the meaning of "better" forever. Is a caged animal who is regularly fed and cared for better off than an animal living free?

If you mean it as an analogy, it is a false one. If it is not, that depends on the size of the cage, or the number poachers on the outside.



Loki wrote:
Geez...you want to go through this again? We had this conversation 2 years ago. Remember the collection of links I posted of secular organisations from around the world that do charity work?

I’m not letting you off the hook this time.

How about we start with the various organisations that work under the United Nations banner? They are clearly secular. The World Health Organisation? UNICEF? Do they qualify?

They clearly don’t count. And you know, it is very telling that you can’t come up with organizations created by the will of citizens to do charity work that are atheist.

You know your examples of cop-outs. I know you know.

Here's one for you, christian. A secular organisation is the single biggest organisation in Australia that provides services, support, money, etc to the poor, the aged, the disadvantaged. And it's by a huge margin. It is, of course, the government. Paid for by all of us, and staffed by - gasp - a diverse spread of believers and non-believers.

So, am I to understand you consider charity work to be taxes that people are BY LAW required to give? What was that word? Geez…

Do hospital staff count, Christian? Or do you mean "work done by people that is NOT paid for?"

You got it. I know you always do.

By 'blessed', do you mean 'rewarded in this life", or "rewarded in the next life"?

Rewarded in this life.

You could answer a few questions, you know. I let it pass, but since you want to get picky, how about explaining this (I don;t understand your answer :

I asked you for some 'objective criteria' to measure one's "life results" by. You said you knew of such and objective standard.

I wrote : "Any idea what criteria we might use?"

You wrote : "How about choices in life? What choice in life do you make that qualitatively better than a Christian's? Christians pray. Do you? Is praying better than not praying?"

Now, when I read this it seems to me that your saying "An objective criteria for measuring life results is choices in life."
I don't understand this. If this IS what you meant, can you give me an example of 'objective standard'? If it's not what you meant, can you clarify?

Ok, the specific choice is measurable, that is the objective standard.

Let me explain. What is the objective criteria that says a person is a better investor than another. It is the choices the investor makes.

One chooses paper assets, the other chooses real estate. And another chooses a portfolio. You know what? The person that chooses the portfolio outperforms the others every time. (take a time of 10 to 20 years please)

 

[Loki]

Christian,

They clearly don’t count. And you know, it is very telling that you can’t come up with organizations created by the will of citizens to do charity work that are atheist.

I gave you a (quickly compiled) list of 5 or so organisations when we did this last time. Now you want to do it again. Okay, if I can find the time I'll do it - but it's not really the point. There's a logical fallacy lurking in your argument, which I hope you can see. Just ask yourself "why?" do christian organisations perform charity work. I'm interested to see how you can isolate the result (charity) from the motivation, since you are keen to establish that results only count if they are "where you gain absolutely nothing from but the satisfaction of having done a good deed". I'm sure you think this is self-evident - but I'm not prepared to conceed this. Can you prove the motivation?

You know your examples of cop-outs.

Your prejudices blind you, Christian. Think for moment ... what might a world without religion look like? How might humans organise themselves to help those who need assistance if there was no religious charity? Once you've imagined that, please explain how this "imaginary" scenario differs from the examples I've listed.

Look - it's simple, Christian. You're so used to the christian/charity/service model that you fail to understand that it is *only one possible model*. It has nothing intrinsicly better in it, and no result that cannot be achieved in other ways.

You're arguing "this is the way it is, so this is the way it must have to be". I disagree.

And if it is not better, why not be a believer?

Pascal's Wager? Would you agree then that there are no disadvatages to believing in the Norse gods? None at all? Anser truthfully - you'd rather than your daughter's grow up believing in Zeus that as atheists? You'd rahter they are Muslims than atheists? Really - is that true? Imagine that they devout followers of Olympus. This would not cause any concern for you at all?

What are the practical advantages of not being a believer?

At heart, a realisation that humanity (and it's attendant god?s) is *not* the center of the universe. You're one of 1 billion, I'm one of 6 billion. If you can't see an advantage in that perspective, then once again your field of vision is too narrow.

 

[Loki]

Christian,

I don't have time to be more complete, but here's a few items to get you going. Perhaps you can explain to me why each of these non-religous, volunteer-based or registered charities don't qualify as "service"?

State Emergency Service

The Victoria State Emergency Service (SES) is a volunteer based emergency service, servicing the State of Victoria.
The SES has a wide range of roles including planning for and responding to floods, severe storms, earthquakes, road accident rescue as well as search and rescue. The SES also provides a support role to other emergency service agencies including the Victoria Police. More than 5,500 volunteers, supported by 72 staff, provide this response across the state.

Country Fire Authority

CFA is one of the world’s largest volunteer-based emergency services. There are around 58,000 volunteer members supported by over 400 career fire fighters and officers and more than 700 career support and administrative staff.

Surf Life Saving Australia

All members that wear the red & yellow quartered cap are volunteer surf lifesavers.
...
There are over 100,000 surf lifesaving club members around Australia around 25,000 of which actively patrol our beaches.

Since you mentioned drug rehabilitation, how about...

Odyssey House

And to show that it's not just Australians helping Australians ...

The Fred Hollows Foundation

Community Aid Abroad

Today, the agency is a secular, independent, non-government, not-for-profit organisation working in over 30 countries around the world.

AustCare

Here's an idea - how about you do some reseach for yourself, and find out how the rest of the world (you know, the bit beyond your immediate involvement) works?

(And still not sure why the UN based organisations don't count...)

 

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
I gave you a (quickly compiled) list of 5 or so organisations when we did this last time. Now you want to do it again. Okay, if I can find the time I'll do it - but it's not really the point. There's a logical fallacy lurking in your argument, which I hope you can see. Just ask yourself "why?" do christian organisations perform charity work. I'm interested to see how you can isolate the result (charity) from the motivation, since you are keen to establish that results only count if they are "where you gain absolutely nothing from but the satisfaction of having done a good deed". I'm sure you think this is self-evident - but I'm not prepared to conceed this. Can you prove the motivation?

The motivation is the conviction of service. I can tell you I see this first hand constantly.

Let me give you one example:

Eagle Ranch

Your prejudices blind you, Christian. Think for moment ... what might a world without religion look like? How might humans organise themselves to help those who need assistance if there was no religious charity? Once you've imagined that, please explain how this "imaginary" scenario differs from the examples I've listed.

Your scenario es untestable. We can only speculate.

You are throwing all the skeptics tools out the window. I will get to your examples in a bit.

Look - it's simple, Christian. You're so used to the christian/charity/service model that you fail to understand that it is *only one possible model*. It has nothing intrinsicly better in it, and no result that cannot be achieved in other ways.

It is a model that I have in front of me, a real life testable phonomenon. I can't compare it to other non-existent models and conclude those are better in real life. That would be absurd.

You're arguing "this is the way it is, so this is the way it must have to be". I disagree.

I'm arguing that atheists don't seem to organized in the same way.

Pascal's Wager? Would you agree then that there are no disadvatages to believing in the Norse gods? None at all? Anser truthfully - you'd rather than your daughter's grow up believing in Zeus that as atheists? You'd rahter they are Muslims than atheists? Really - is that true? Imagine that they devout followers of Olympus. This would not cause any concern for you at all?

This logic is all wrong. I will tell you why. I believe Christianity is superior objectively to Greek mythology. Zeus has not stood the test of time. I can definitely argue that my daughter will have a qualitatively better life as a Christian than as a Muslim.

The point is that atheists come my way to tell me I'm in darkness, and they are in light. I challege that. I dispute it. So far, no one seems to why it is better to be an atheist.

In contrast I can definitely tell why it is bettet to believe in the Christian God than Zeus and Olympus.

At heart, a realisation that humanity (and it's attendant god?s) is *not* the center of the universe. You're one of 1 billion, I'm one of 6 billion. If you can't see an advantage in that perspective, then once again your field of vision is too narrow.

No so fast. What does a realization that humanty is not the center of the universe mean? I don't want to comment until you show me the significant/relevance of that statement.

I don't have time to be more complete, but here's a few items to get you going. Perhaps you can explain to me why each of these non-religous, volunteer-based or registered charities don't qualify as "service"?

They definitely qualify as service. What I could not successfully show last time was why all of your examples don't count as evidence of atheists coming together to do service work.

Now I can. You present a
Fallacy of Division

Although the organizations you cite, as a group, are secular (and note that you cite not one single professed atheist service organization), that does not mean the member are secular humanists or atheists.

I could argue that many in such organizations are Christians and they serve because of their personal convictions. We just don't the make up of the populations you present.

Here's an idea - how about you do some reseach for yourself, and find out how the rest of the world (you know, the bit beyond your immediate involvement) works?

Just an idea, how about you rebutt my statements and stop characterizing my scope of knowledge?

(And still not sure why the UN based organisations don't count...)

Maybe now you do.

Now let me give a valid example of an organization that does fit the criteria, right there in your back yard. Maybe you have heard of it?

World Vision Australia

World Vision is Australia's largest charitable group. More Australians entrust more money to World Vision than any other charity in the country. With the support of more than 350,000 Australians, World Vision helps over 10 million people every year.

We are a Christian organisation providing help on the basis of need. We do not discriminate on religious, political, social, cultural, age or gender grounds. World Vision believes in freedom, justice, peace and opportunity for everyone.

As you can see, they identify themselves as a Christian organization. The implications are evident.

Edited to add:

You told me the Australian population is mostly secular and that Christians represent a very small % of the population. If this is so, why is a Christian organization the largest of its kind there. And why is it that Australians trust it the most?

 

[Loki]

Christian,

The motivation is the conviction of service. I can tell you I see this first hand constantly.

Could the motivation *for some* be the need to "spread the lord's word"?

It is a model that I have in front of me, a real life testable phonomenon. I can't compare it to other non-existent models and conclude those are better in real life. That would be absurd./quote]
"Better the Devil you know..." Your lack of imagination is noted, although I suspect "can't" should be replaced with "won't" in the above quote.

I'm arguing that atheists don't seem to organized in the same way.

Perhaps because "atheists" don't see that one trait as being the central point of their life? So they can be humanists, conservatives, radicals, politicians, terrorists, etc. Atheists organise to solve problems, just like everybody else.

note that you cite not one single professed atheist service organization

Are you being deliberately silly, or was this a joke? You'd expect a charity or service organistion to list what they don't believe in as an attribute???

Although the organizations you cite, as a group, are secular ... that does not mean the member are secular humanists or atheists.

Correct! Applies also to Christian organisations, but we can both agree that Christian organisations are more likely to directly and indirectly discourage non-christian members? Therefore increasing their percentage member base?

You told me the Australian population is mostly secular and that Christians represent a very small % of the population. If this is so, why is a Christian organization the largest of its kind there. And why is it that Australians trust it the most?

Because it's there, and it works! Hell, I give to 3 different christian charities!! What's the problem here? Why is the largest 'foreign aid' charity in Australia a christian organisation? Probably for the same reason that the largest volunteer fire fighting organisation isn't christian - think about it!!!!

Now I can. You present a Fallacy of Division

Well, no, I did no such thing!! If I said "I can prove that all atheists will do service, because here is a secular charity" then you might have something. But that's not what we are discussing.

You said : "...very telling that you can’t come up with organizations created by the will of citizens to do charity work that are atheist."

What do you mean here? The organisation MUST identify itself as atheist? It's members must all be atheists?

Let me try to clarify.

I think you're saying :

1. Christianity says "do service".
2. Many (but not all) Christian therefore create organisations to make "doing service" easier.
3. The proof of this is the number of organisation that (a) do service and (b) identify themselves 'christian'.

Fair enough. You then presumably continue :

1. There are no organisations that (a) do service and (b) identify themselves as "atheist"
2. Therefore, atheists do not want to do service.

Is that about it?

You said "Show me the tons of humanist organizations the serve." I guess we have to decide what makes an organisation "humanist", don't we? You appear to want to run with "must (a) declare themselves to be atheist and (b) must consist of 100% (or at least an overwhelming majority) of atheists amongst the staff/volunteers". Given that definition, I'll concede the debate! I doubt I can find such an organisation!

 

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
Could the motivation *for some* be the need to "spread the lord's word"?

Christians have the motivation to spread the word, it is a mandate.
But, I assure you, the motivation to serve comes from pure conviction, from the Spirit. I see it as a common trait in Christians. I can't explain it in secular terms, when people become Christian, they have this sense of service, of contribution.

My explanation is that the Spirit gives a mission, a purpose to the individual. You are recruted and become a soldier to a specific cause.

From the site that I posted (Eagle Ranch) people have come to El Salvador. They are trying to emulate their model for children here. The benefits for the children are enormous.

Perhaps because "atheists" don't see that one trait as being the central point of their life?

Ok.

Atheists organise to solve problems, just like everybody else.

I don't see atheists organizing to solve very much. I don't see much atheist organization. And I understand there can be many explanations for this.

Are you being deliberately silly, or was this a joke? You'd expect a charity or service organistion to list what they don't believe in as an attribute???

Wait. The point I'm making is that atheist don't seem to organize to serve.

Remember, all this conversation started because I say talk was cheap.

I was showing you that a common trait in the Christian community is a life of service, and that people that serve have a happy life.

Also remember that we were talking about deeds, actions.

Correct! Applies also to Christian organisations, but we can both agree that Christian organisations are more likely to directly and indirectly discourage non-christian members? Therefore increasing their percentage member base?

It is my understanding the most Christian organizations require their members to at least profess Christianity. It is a fair assumption to think that a Christian organization consists of Christians, definitely.

Because it's there, and it works! Hell, I give to 3 different christian charities!! What's the problem here?

I'm glad to hear this. I'm glad to hear that you are not the type of atheist who claims Christianity is evil (you know the vitriolic rhetoric.)

Why is the largest 'foreign aid' charity in Australia a christian organisation? Probably for the same reason that the largest volunteer fire fighting organisation isn't christian - think about it!!!!

What if the mayority of the volunteers in that fire fighting organization are Christian? Would that make the organization Christian? Do you see the fallacy of division you are implying?

Well, no, I did no such thing!! If I said "I can prove that all atheists will do service, because here is a secular charity" then you might have something. But that's not what we are discussing.

You said : "...very telling that you can’t come up with organizations created by the will of citizens to do charity work that are atheist."

What do you mean here? The organisation MUST identify itself as atheist? It's members must all be atheists?

The organization must identify as a humanist organization.

Let me try to clarify.

I think you're saying :

1. Christianity says "do service".
2. Many (but not all) Christian therefore create organisations to make "doing service" easier.
3. The proof of this is the number of organisation that (a) do service and (b) identify themselves 'christian'.

Fair enough.

Ok.

You then presumably continue :

1. There are no organisations that (a) do service and (b) identify themselves as "atheist"
2. Therefore, atheists do not want to do service.

Is that about it?

No, like this:

1. I find no evidence of organizations that (a) do service and (b) identify themselves as "humanists"
2. Therefore, service does not seem to be a priority for humanists.

You said "Show me the tons of humanist organizations the serve." I guess we have to decide what makes an organisation "humanist", don't we?

You are right. When I say humanist, I'm referring to secular humanists. You once agreed with me you considered yourself a secular humanist.

Secular Humanism

And, you know what is ironic. The secular humanist sites I've found have as their main purpose, spreading the word

The Council for Secular Humanism is North America's leading organization for non-religious people. A not-for-profit educational association, the Council supports a wide range of activities to meet the needs of people who find meaning and value in life without looking to a god. Its activities range from magazine publishing to campaigning on ethical issues, from conferences to support networks, from educational courses to conducting secular ceremonies, from local groups to international development.

Secular humanists do organize. They just don't seem to organize for service to others. (you know what I mean.)

The James Randi Educational Foundation is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.

You appear to want to run with "must (a) declare themselves to be atheist and (b) must consist of 100% (or at least an overwhelming majority) of atheists amongst the staff/volunteers".

No, not at all. I can find secular humanists organizations. There are many. And their mission statement or purpose is clearly defined. I believe Hal is a deist and he is (was???) an important person here. Still, this particular organization is clearly a secular humanist one. As many others are.

I just don't seem to find organizations with service as a mission or purpose.

Given that definition, I'll concede the debate! I doubt I can find such an organisation!

Without that definition, you would have to concede that if there are any, they are scarce.

 

[Loki]

Christian,

After going throhg several thousand possible responses, I think I'll limit myself to just the following...

I'm glad to hear that you are not the type of atheist who claims Christianity is evil (you know the vitriolic rhetoric.)

Christianity is evil? As you're so fond of saying, it's all relative to the 'frame of reference'. Certainly I find many past and some current behaviours/beliefs of christians to be abhorrent. But realism dictates that we're all in this together, so I make day to day decisions in that light. I won't donate to fundamentalist christian organisations. I will donate to christian organisations that put the result ahead of the preaching.

I just don't seem to find [humanist] organizations with service as a mission or purpose

Two points :

1. We've discussed secular or "Non-religious" organistations, but they don't count - you only want those who specifically say "humanist" in the title or mission statement, and they must do charity work only (any other type of service doesn't count). I'd make a list that (might) fulfill this criteria, but :

2. Even if we agree on such an organisation, you've invoked the "fallacy of division" argument, which essentially says that you believe that vast majority of the members of any such organisation are christians anyway, so the organisation is a defacto christian one even if it says it's not. I can't disprove this (and you can't prove it) so lets just agree that you're correct! There, feel better? Feel like you've won?

So we agree :

Only christians do charitable work, and that if there were no christians society would evolve into a terrible class based system with a divide between the uncaring rich and the suffering poor, just like Europe in the 18th century ... oh, wait, wasn't that a christian society? Hmmm ... how could that be? The Spirit recruits soldiers for the lord's work? Where were they 200 years ago when almost 100% of the population was christian? Well, 600 years ago they were raping and murdering their way through Central America, so perhaps you are right - the Spirit tailors it's "service" (charity/murder/salvery/etc) to suit the circumstances.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Christian:

No, let me put it another way, I don’t see how being an atheist is better than being a believer? And if it is not better, why not be a believer? I don’t see any practical advantages to not believing.

If there were no practical differences between believing that Bigfoot exists and was the son of Hitler and a space alien, and not believing so, would you believe it? Why not?

So, instead of asking, how is the quality of an atheist’s life better? I will ask the same the question in another way. What are the practical advantages of not being a believer?

While I can sympathise with the view of a hard-core pragmatist, I still find your question quite dumbfounding.

How in the world can you view the world in this way? You seem to be saying that as long as any old belief you have can't be shown to have any disadvantage on your wellbeing, it is perfectly reasonable to have this belief. Aren't you at all interested in what is true and what is false? Don't you have any curiousity about the world and how it works and why it is the way it is? Don't you have a burning desire to understand the world in which you find yourself? I do.

And the fact that I want the truth about how the universe works means that it would be impossible for me to simply choose one of the many religious viewpoints which in their own way boil down to "God did it", and then just stop my investigation and be content with whatever this view was. In this sense, not only is my life better for not wearing such a straightjacket, but I couldn't become a believer even if I tried.

If you mean it as an analogy, it is a false one. If it is not, that depends on the size of the cage, or the number poachers on the outside.

I meant it as an example of how the meaning of "better off" is quite subjective.

 

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
Christianity is evil? As you're so fond of saying, it's all relative to the 'frame of reference'. Certainly I find many past and some current behaviours/beliefs of christians to be abhorrent.

Yes, humans, whether christians, muslim, atheists or other, have many past and some current behaviours/beliefs that are abhorrent.

But realism dictates that we're all in this together, so I make day to day decisions in that light. I won't donate to fundamentalist christian organisations. I will donate to christian organisations that put the result ahead of the preaching.

So they are mutually exclusive? I don't think so.

Only christians do charitable work, and that if there were no christians society would evolve into a terrible class based system with a divide between the uncaring rich and the suffering poor

Actually, that is pretty much way it is in the non-christian world.

just like Europe in the 18th century ... oh, wait, wasn't that a christian society? Hmmm ... how could that be? The Spirit recruits soldiers for the lord's work? Where were they 200 years ago when almost 100% of the population was christian? Well, 600 years ago they were raping and murdering their way through Central America, so perhaps you are right - the Spirit tailors it's "service" (charity/murder/salvery/etc) to suit the circumstances.

This is the subject of another thread. But I will tell you that you are presenting fallacies/lies/misconceptions. You would also lose that debate.


DanishDynamite wrote:
If there were no practical differences between believing that Bigfoot exists and was the son of Hitler and a space alien, and not believing so, would you believe it? Why not?

If you can show me the comparable relevance in believing in Bigfoot+characteristics to believing in Christianity, then I can answer your question.

How in the world can you view the world in this way? You seem to be saying that as long as any old belief you have can't be shown to have any disadvantage on your wellbeing, it is perfectly reasonable to have this belief.

I'm not saying this. It would be ridiculous for me to say this. I'm not saying any old belief (that is a strawman).

I'm saying Christianity.

Aren't you at all interested in what is true and what is false? Don't you have any curiousity about the world and how it works and why it is the way it is? Don't you have a burning desire to understand the world in which you find yourself? I do.

And this is another strawman. I'm interested in the truth just as you are. What truths do you speak about that I don't know. Again, what advantages are there? What is it that you know that I don't that makes your model better?

By the way, materialist-atheists do not believe they can know the truth. They believe they can only have a degree of confidence based on the evidence thus far. In the MA view, everything must be falsifiable. These rules bind them.

So, what can you know that makes you better than I?

And the fact that I want the truth about how the universe works means that it would be impossible for me to simply choose one of the many religious viewpoints which in their own way boil down to "God did it", and then just stop my investigation and be content with whatever this view was.

Another strawman. I want ot know how the universe works just as you do. Christianity does not impede this.

In this sense, not only is my life better for not wearing such a straightjacket, but I couldn't become a believer even if I tried.

Show me that your life is better. Saying so, does not make it so. Show me your actions, your choices. How and why are they better than mine?

And you are a believer. You wear the straghtjacket of your beliefs. (as you say) as I mine.

 

[DanishDynamite]

DanishDynamite:
If there were no practical differences between believing that Bigfoot exists and was the son of Hitler and a space alien, and not believing so, would you believe it? Why not?

Christian:
If you can show me the comparable relevance in believing in Bigfoot+characteristics to believing in Christianity, then I can answer your question.

They are both beliefs in something for which there is no evidence and no reason to even suspect it might be true.

DanishDynamite:
How in the world can you view the world in this way? You seem to be saying that as long as any old belief you have can't be shown to have any disadvantage on your wellbeing, it is perfectly reasonable to have this belief.

Christian:
I'm not saying this. It would be ridiculous for me to say this. I'm not saying any old belief (that is a strawman).

I'm saying Christianity.

You are saying Christianity now, but what you actually said before and what I was responding to was the following:

"So, instead of asking, how is the quality of an atheist’s life better? I will ask the same the question in another way. What are the practical advantages of not being a believer?"

This has no mention of Christianity. And remember that an athiest not only doesn't believe in any of the versions of god which various Christian cults use, but doesn't believe in any type of god whatsoever.

DanishDynamite:
Aren't you at all interested in what is true and what is false? Don't you have any curiousity about the world and how it works and why it is the way it is? Don't you have a burning desire to understand the world in which you find yourself? I do.

Christian:
And this is another strawman. I'm interested in the truth just as you are. What truths do you speak about that I don't know. Again, what advantages are there? What is it that you know that I don't that makes your model better?

By the way, materialist-atheists do not believe they can know the truth. They believe they can only have a degree of confidence based on the evidence thus far. In the MA view, everything must be falsifiable. These rules bind them.

So, what can you know that makes you better than I?

The truth I'm talking about is the truth of the workings of the Universe. How did it start? How did it develop? It is my understanding that the holy book of Christianity says their god made it in a week about 5,000 - 10,000 years ago, and that is more or less the end of that.

You say you are interested in the truth. Does that mean you don't agree with the above description of how the world came into being? Afterall, it is in complete contradiction of everything we have learned about the world.

BTW, will you now address my question regarding your hard-core pragmatical view?

[b9DanishDynamite:
And the fact that I want the truth about how the universe works means that it would be impossible for me to simply choose one of the many religious viewpoints which in their own way boil down to "God did it", and then just stop my investigation and be content with whatever this view was.[/b]

Christian:
Another strawman. I want ot know how the universe works just as you do. Christianity does not impede this.

Then please tell me which parts of the Bible don't apply. And please tell me how someone interested in learning the truth can have the a priori belief that an invisible being who is outside time and space and who is all-knowing and who can decide the fate of other invisible parts of humans (souls) and who etc, etc, etc, exists.

DanishDynamite:
In this sense, not only is my life better for not wearing such a straightjacket, but I couldn't become a believer even if I tried.

Christian:
Show me that your life is better. Saying so, does not make it so. Show me your actions, your choices. How and why are they better than mine?

And you are a believer. You wear the straghtjacket of your beliefs. (as you say) as I mine.

My life is better because I'm free to explore the world without some encumbering belief in how the world must be, derived from some old book.

And please tell me what straightjacket I'm wearing.

 

[Loki]

Christian,

This is the subject of another thread. But I will tell you that you are presenting fallacies/lies/misconceptions. You would also lose that debate.

I'm fairly sure I would lose, given the ground rules you work from. But it may be interesting to see you work through christian history, so by all means lead on. I suspect I know which pitch your going to run with, but perhaps you'll surprise. What would you like to tackle first? The role of christian citizens in public welfare during 18th century Europe? The Spirit inspired service of slave owners in 19th century America? The service provided by inquisitors in ridding Europe of witches during the Middle Ages?