Ep. 83: Questions for the atheist

[AA/PK]

Pseudonym,

Dear short-term memory. You called yourself over-dramatic, I said it as a joke.

That's because in the humanities there generally isn't a lot of arguing (at least not meaningful arguing) over whether art is right or wrong, or a political theory that is constant, or a philosophical musing that isn't speculative (after all, all we do here on this forum is compare and contrast [however friendly or not] our own personal philosophical speculations). However, I think it is the nature of religion in generally (I'm sure you'll have fun with that) to assert its "rightness." Unless you intend to imply that there is no right, therefore making any claim to "rightness" moot because anything and everything is or can be "right." Judging from the last line of your comment I suspect that may be true. I just came to the conclusion that trying to define an unknowable god was impossible, you one upped me and went straight to nothing is. I apologize if I am reading too much into your statement, and if I am please elaborate, but I think it may look something like Dr. Turek's theory of objective reality in that it lies only in the unknowable object god.

[Pseudonym]

Dear short-term memory. You called yourself over-dramatic, I said it as a joke.

Ah! Well done. Sorry, I'm normally quicker on the uptake than this.

(In my defence, I have a miserable cold and am in the middle of paper-writing hell trying to meet a journal deadline. I'm in the fortunate position that my career doesn't depend on publication, which is unusual for a scientist, but my colleague and I are the only people who can write this one up. Not a happy person at the moment. I'll try very hard not to get too snarky.)

That's because in the humanities there generally isn't a lot of arguing (at least not meaningful arguing) over whether art is right or wrong, or a political theory that is constant, or a philosophical musing that isn't speculative (after all, all we do here on this forum is compare and contrast [however friendly or not] our own personal philosophical speculations).

However, I think it is the nature of religion in generally (I'm sure you'll have fun with that) to assert its "rightness."

I think that's generally true for the correct definition of "rightness", namely one that isn't exclusive. Throughout history, most religions evolved to serve a specific people and a specific culture at a specific time in history. The idea of exclusivity is actually quite unusual; it's not so long ago in history when the majority of religious people talked about "our gods" and "their gods". This isn't pluralism; far from it, in fact. But it's not quite exclusivity either.

Unless you intend to imply that there is no right, therefore making any claim to "rightness" moot because anything and everything is or can be "right."

This conversation is rapidly devolving into a bunch of unnecessary dichotomies. Even you would agree, I suspect, that there are varying degrees of "right" and "wrong". A choice over what is the most appropriate public policy response is a different kind of "wrong" than a poor-taste fashion choice, which is in turn a different kind of "wrong" than committing armed robbery.

I apologize if I am reading too much into your statement, and if I am please elaborate, but I think it may look something like Dr. Turek's theory of objective reality in that it lies only in the unknowable object god.

Frank Turek was on the show a while back, after some discussion of a book he co-wrote. I'd never heard of him before that discussion, and I have to say I wasn't especially impressed. But according to his web site, which I did check out afterwards, liberal Christians like myself constitute one of the groups he's trying to save people from, so perhaps that's no surprise.

[mitchellmckain]

But the difference is that none of these in our current culture are being shoved up our noses. We can go days, weeks, years, or sometimes a lifetime without dealing with anyone who wants to sell us the bill-of-goods associated with these belief systems.

I would love it if could similarly ignore Christianity. In this culture, however, none of us are afforded that opportunity.

As for Christianity I quite admit that I never had your experiences of having it shoved up my nose and if that had been the case I admit that I may very well have had the same reaction -- this is why I have repeatedly expressed a great deal of sympathy for the sentiments, rationality and moral indignation of the atheists on this forum. But that should show you that we can go beyond the limitations of our experiences to understand the thoughts and sentiments of those who have had different experiences. If I can do it -- can't you?

I am repeatedly struck that you and I are engaging in quite different conversations. At least your responses to me seem to reflect little on what I have said.

I have no doubt about it. We insist on paying attention to the things that we find of significance and refuse to let the other person change our mind about that. This is at the very root of the differences between us and so this should not be surprising.

If I am reading your response correctly, you appear to seek the right to be a Christian, and somehow seek that I confer that right.

I cannot imagine how you would come up with such a truly bizarre and absurd conclusion.

Even if we didn't live in a free society, your permission would still irrelevant to me. I hold intellectual cowardice in the highest contempt.

However, even with that said, neither you nor anyone else has the right to expect that I simultaneously cease believing that you have, on this matter, become a raving lunatic with judgment akin to a follower of Jim Jones. The mythologies of Jerusalem and Jonestown have equal claim on the description of reality, and equally violate rational thought.

And consequently neither you nor anyone else has the right to expect that I cease believing that you are a bigot with all the incredible irrationality of those who constantly manufacture the most aburd excuses to maintain and justify their hatred of others. The absurd "mythologies" or delusions of Marx, Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot and NHB have equal claim on the description of reality and equally violate rational thought.

[Exrev]

All the churches that I've belonged to (since becoming an adult) have had totally open books - including the pastor's salary. And these pastors have lived in modest, middle-class homes.

Bummer that they aren't the ones in the news.

My parents church doesn't disclosed the pastors salary (which angers my father greatly). However, I think the avg salary is pushing 70k for a sr. pastor... plus they get some tax breaks and housing perks. I have seen some very dishonest things in some of the churches i've attended. My parents for instances their church has a 8 full time pastors... and attendance has fall to about 420-480 so for every 52 people have to support 1 full time salary!!! And of course the pastor has his wife on staff who makes about 40k a year just to do a womans bible study every 2 weeks and just shows videos... hmm. We honestly can't figure out what she does, she used to run the childrens minstiry but they hired guy to take over that, she went to part-time for a year, but then the next year they put her back at full time but no increase in duties. Not saying that Christians are any more courpt than the rest of us... just as corupt

[mitchellmckain]

All the churches that I've belonged to (since becoming an adult) have had totally open books - including the pastor's salary. And these pastors have lived in modest, middle-class homes.

Bummer that they aren't the ones in the news.

My parents church doesn't disclosed the pastors salary (which angers my father greatly). However, I think the avg salary is pushing 70k for a sr. pastor... plus they get some tax breaks and housing perks. I have seen some very dishonest things in some of the churches i've attended. My parents for instances their church has a 8 full time pastors... and attendance has fall to about 420-480 so for every 52 people have to support 1 full time salary!!! And of course the pastor has his wife on staff who makes about 40k a year just to do a womans bible study every 2 weeks and just shows videos... hmm. We honestly can't figure out what she does, she used to run the childrens minstiry but they hired guy to take over that, she went to part-time for a year, but then the next year they put her back at full time but no increase in duties. Not saying that Christians are any more courpt than the rest of us... just as corupt

And in my church, both the pastor and his wife have full time jobs and they give more of their income to the church than anyone else.

People make their own choices and that is all there is to it.

corrupt???

The word isn't applicable.

People can go to whatever church they choose and they can give whatever choose.

[NH Baritone]

All the churches that I've belonged to (since becoming an adult) have had totally open books - including the pastor's salary. And these pastors have lived in modest, middle-class homes.

Bummer that they aren't the ones in the news.

My parents church doesn't disclosed the pastors salary (which angers my father greatly). However, I think the avg salary is pushing 70k for a sr. pastor... plus they get some tax breaks and housing perks. I have seen some very dishonest things in some of the churches i've attended. My parents for instances their church has a 8 full time pastors... and attendance has fall to about 420-480 so for every 52 people have to support 1 full time salary!!! And of course the pastor has his wife on staff who makes about 40k a year just to do a womans bible study every 2 weeks and just shows videos... hmm. We honestly can't figure out what she does, she used to run the childrens minstiry but they hired guy to take over that, she went to part-time for a year, but then the next year they put her back at full time but no increase in duties. Not saying that Christians are any more courpt than the rest of us... just as corupt

But given the willingness of many congregations to accept non-disclosure of their church's budgets, perhaps more gullible. When someone is hiding something, perhaps its because they have something to hide.

[humanguy]

Okay, I'll try this again.

"4) What would happen if you approached Christianity looking for something of value in it rather than looking for excuses to condemn it? "

This is a question for an atheist, correct? Okay. Why would an atheist approach Christianity looking for something of value? The majority of atheists have already approached Christianity looking for something of value and either, as you did with Communism, found only enormous reasons to be contemptable of it or found it to be lacking any value whatsoever, particularly when they researched furthur into the history of that religion. (More atheists know more about the history of Christianity than a great many Christians do.)

So I still don't see how this is really a worthwhile question to ask an atheist.

[Exrev]

All the churches that I've belonged to (since becoming an adult) have had totally open books - including the pastor's salary. And these pastors have lived in modest, middle-class homes.

Bummer that they aren't the ones in the news.

My parents church doesn't disclosed the pastors salary (which angers my father greatly). However, I think the avg salary is pushing 70k for a sr. pastor... plus they get some tax breaks and housing perks. I have seen some very dishonest things in some of the churches i've attended. My parents for instances their church has a 8 full time pastors... and attendance has fall to about 420-480 so for every 52 people have to support 1 full time salary!!! And of course the pastor has his wife on staff who makes about 40k a year just to do a womans bible study every 2 weeks and just shows videos... hmm. We honestly can't figure out what she does, she used to run the childrens minstiry but they hired guy to take over that, she went to part-time for a year, but then the next year they put her back at full time but no increase in duties. Not saying that Christians are any more courpt than the rest of us... just as corupt

And in my church, both the pastor and his wife have full time jobs and they give more of their income to the church than anyone else.

People make their own choices and that is all there is to it.

corrupt???

The word isn't applicable.

People can go to whatever church they choose and they can give whatever choose.

No that is not all there is to it. People can also, be tricked manipulated and controlled.
There is something called good faith under the law. Board memebers and pastors have not only an ethical obligation, but also a legal obligation not to personally profit or gain from the operation of a non-profit church. Sorry, by placing your wife on pay roll and essentially giving your wife no job duties is an abuse of power and thus corupt.

[mitchellmckain]

No that is not all there is to it. People can also, be tricked manipulated and controlled.
There is something called good faith under the law. Board memebers and pastors have not only an ethical obligation, but also a legal obligation not to personally profit or gain from the operation of a non-profit church. Sorry, by placing your wife on pay roll and essentially giving your wife no job duties is an abuse of power and thus corupt.

No what you are talking about is called fraud not corruption, because what I have heard described here has nothing to do with power and government. But even in that case, you need to make a case for fraud in a court of law. But be careful that you have evidence to back up your case or you might find it is you who get taken to court for libel. I certainly have no difficulty in believing that Christian pastors are guilty of fraud, or turning their church into a tool of power and monetary gain. I just have this general policy that for the most part (provided they remain within the law), what other people do with their money or how they run their religious organization is none of my freakin business.

[NH Baritone]

No that is not all there is to it. People can also, be tricked manipulated and controlled.
There is something called good faith under the law. Board memebers and pastors have not only an ethical obligation, but also a legal obligation not to personally profit or gain from the operation of a non-profit church. Sorry, by placing your wife on pay roll and essentially giving your wife no job duties is an abuse of power and thus corupt.

No what you are talking about is called fraud not corruption, because what I have heard described here has nothing to do with power and government. But even in that case, you need to make a case for fraud in a court of law. But be careful that you have evidence to back up your case or you might find it is you who get taken to court for libel. I certainly have no difficulty in believing that Christian pastors are guilty of fraud, or turning their church into a tool of power and monetary gain. I just have this general policy that for the most part (provided they remain within the law), what other people do with their money or how they run their religious organization is none of my freakin business.

cor·rupt* (kuh-ruhpt)
–adjective
1. guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: a corrupt judge.
2. debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: a corrupt society.
3. made inferior by errors or alterations, as a text.
4. infected; tainted.
5. decayed; putrid.

Dictionaries typically reflect how words are commonly used, in order to help us understand one another. With that in mind, I note no exclusionary reference to government in the definition of corrupt, either at Dictionary.com (above) or at Merriam-Webster.

Once more, Mitch, you are requiring everyone else to accept your atypical definitions of words. Do you really believe your rigid rules apply when dealing with something as amorphous as language? Are you imposing what you think the word "should" mean rather than paying attention to how the word "is" used in the common parlance?

And is this really worth taking Ex-Rev to task over? And will you show a modicum of integrity and admit your error? Even apologize?

_________
* corrupt. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved August 01, 2010, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corrupt

[mitchellmckain]

cor·rupt* (kuh-ruhpt)
–adjective
1. guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: a corrupt judge.
2. debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: a corrupt society.
3. made inferior by errors or alterations, as a text.
4. infected; tainted.
5. decayed; putrid.

Dictionaries typically reflect how words are commonly used, in order to help us understand one another. With that in mind, I note no exclusionary reference to government in the definition of corrupt, either at Dictionary.com (above) or at Merriam-Webster.

Once more, Mitch, you are requiring everyone else to accept your atypical definitions of words. Do you really believe your rigid rules apply when dealing with something as amorphous as language? Are you imposing what you think the word "should" mean rather than paying attention to how the word "is" used in the common parlance?

And is this really worth taking Ex-Rev to task over? And will you show a modicum of integrity and admit your error? Even apologize?

Once more NHB you are fabricating an argument from non-existent evidence.

And you consider that dictionary definition to be the basis for taking me to task over this? Will you show a modicum of integrity and admit your error? Even apologize?

Oh I see... you are trying to tell me that that he was describing an example of spoiled meat... no no no.... you meant that it was about an infection they had... right... no? Ah they are inferior because they have been altered by aliens? nah that isn't it... You mean that they are debased in character because they are getting paid for something you don't think has any value? Well we already know about this bigotry of yours... OHHHH.... you mean that it is you who is corrupt -- debased and perverted by this bigotry that you have... OK.

[Lawrence]

Really? Is this an important argument? Whether some pastor's are "corrupt" or fraudulent is beside this point isn't it. I don't think anyone is arguing that power is not abused even by ordained Christians. Obviously a clergyman is no less human than anyone else. The requirements for ordination are not exhaustive after all, not even close.

Maybe before jumping down each other's throats you should find if there actually is something to argue about. And maybe if you don't have something nice to post don't post at all? What is the point of wasting 5 minutes to piss someone you will never meet off?

[OzAnt]

We honestly can't figure out what she does, she used to run the childrens minstiry but they hired guy to take over that, she went to part-time for a year, but then the next year they put her back at full time but no increase in duties. Not saying that Christians are any more courpt than the rest of us... just as corupt

corrupt???

The word isn't applicable.

Sorry, by placing your wife on pay roll and essentially giving your wife no job duties is an abuse of power and thus corupt.

No what you are talking about is called fraud not corruption, because what I have heard described here has nothing to do with power and government.

Priceless. I hope Mitch doesn't go away any time soon.


Ant

[Pseudonym]

The majority of atheists have already approached Christianity looking for something of value and either, as you did with Communism, found only enormous reasons to be contemptable of it or found it to be lacking any value whatsoever, particularly when they researched furthur into the history of that religion.

I'm not so sure about that. Worldwide, the majority of atheists have probably never considered Christianity for them personally because it's never come up, or there's never been a reason to.

That's not to say that they would find it valuable (as anything other than a cultural or historical artefact, perhaps) had they considered it. Most likely not, in fact.

(More atheists know more about the history of Christianity than a great many Christians do.)

I really doubt that this is even close to true. If you take the set of people who have a knowledge of the history of Christianity at the "lay expert" level or higher, I'd wager that the proportion of those who self-identify as "Christian" is much higher.

I think it's probably true that the proportion of atheist converts who know a fair amount about the history of Christianity is probably higher than the proportion of lifetime Christians who do. But on the other hand, there are also a lot of atheist converts who believe a lot of misinformation about the history of Christianity. For example, I've seen a great many "recent convert" atheists (because we all know that the worst zealots are recent converts) espouse fringe stuff like the Christ myth theory.

But I guess this is largely a definitional question.

Knowing more facts about history doesn't automatically give you a better knowledge of history. What separates the true experts from the wannabes is broad knowledge over a large surface area, not deep knowledge of a small area. But maybe that's just me.

[mitchellmckain]

Really? Is this an important argument? Whether some pastor's are "corrupt" or fraudulent is beside this point isn't it. I don't think anyone is arguing that power is not abused even by ordained Christians. Obviously a clergyman is no less human than anyone else. The requirements for ordination are not exhaustive after all, not even close.

Maybe before jumping down each other's throats you should find if there actually is something to argue about. And maybe if you don't have something nice to post don't post at all? What is the point of wasting 5 minutes to piss someone you will never meet off?

I quite agree. I don't know the situation with these guys. This pastor and his wife may indeed be corrupt, but I haven't yet heard any good reasons for this judgement other than how someone else thinks they should be managing their church and their money. And that gets my back up just like EVERY other time that I see people trying to impose their own personal moral comittments on other people.

For example, here is a situation in which I think the word corrupt may apply. If the church has established internal rules and regulations regarding the use of church funds and the the pastor is abusing his position to break those rules then yes I think the word corrupt would apply.

What I will admit here is that I am far more used to religious bodies that are small and personal rather than really big organizations and perhaps that tends to make it more difficult for me to see the applicability. And maybe that is also why it seems to me that in general the word is more applicable to truly public functions with connections to the government and thus with real power, than to the management of a religious body. But when I think outside my experience to really large organizations like the Catholic church then I can indeed see how the word corrupt can be applicable.