(September 5, 2012 at 1:22 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(September 4, 2012 at 7:05 pm)greneknight Wrote: Simple. Just show me a SINGLE belief of mine that is silly. I am a Christian but I haven't got a single silly belief that's comparable to a belief in fairies, elves and pixies.

Didn't you say in another thread that...

Quote:I don't believe in a personal God and my idea of a God is that he's a mere metaphor for goodness

I'm not sure that the above wasn't just rhetoric, please forgive me if my assumption that it's not is incorrect. Meanwhile, I'm going to run with it.

Now, I'm the kind of person that prefers to take someone at his word, and you say you're a Christian, and I'm cool with that. However, the above quote doesn't sound like any kind of Christian doctrine I've ever heard (I'm trying really, really hard to NOT invoke a "No True Scotsman" here, really).

Frankly, I'm not sure what I would call it. Perhaps some form of deism? I don't know.

So I guess, given the above statement, I'd say the silliest thing you've said is that you're a Christian.

I jest. You actually seem closer to an agnostic atheist than some self-described atheists I've run across. Either way, regardless of what you believe or self-describe as, you seem all right to me. We get a lot of "personal interpretations" of Christianity around here, and yours is one I can identify with. ...even if I don't understand it.

Kudos to you, sir - here, have a rep point, on me.

Thanks. I call myself a Christian because I'm an altar boy and have been one since I was 5. I sing Evensong in the choir EVERYDAY until last Easter when I was pulled out with other boys my age - something about choir rules and the fear that my voice might break. My vicar and bishop are of the view that I'm a fine Christian and a faithful child of Holy Church. I will be confirmed towards the end of this year when I'm back in England.

The above settles my standing as a Christian within the Established Church of my country.

Now, for what's in my head. For me God is NOT a being. He's not even stronger than newborn baby because at least a newborn baby exists. God is really a metaphor for goodness and truth. A metaphor doesn't exist as a being so it can't be stronger than a newborn baby. I hope it's clear.

Miracles are what illiterate peasants believe in. I don't.

Satan is a metaphor. There's no such thing as a satanic being. The same with demons. Heaven and hell are bunkum. They don't exist except, again, as metaphors. I'd like heaven to exist but it's like Narnia. I'd like for Narnia to exist too but so what?

The above sums up what I think in my head. Of course it's not carved in rock and I've only formulated my thoughts not long ago and I might change with fresh evidence coming my way but for the moment, this is my position.

Here I stand, I cannot recant.

(September 5, 2012 at 2:14 am)greneknight Wrote: Thanks. I call myself a Christian because I'm an altar boy and have been one since I was 5. I sing Evensong in the choir EVERYDAY until last Easter when I was pulled out with other boys my age - something about choir rules and the fear that my voice might break. My vicar and bishop are of the view that I'm a fine Christian and a faithful child of Holy Church. I will be confirmed towards the end of this year when I'm back in England.

The above settles my standing as a Christian within the Established Church of my country.

Now, for what's in my head. For me God is NOT a being. He's not even stronger than newborn baby because at least a newborn baby exists. God is really a metaphor for goodness and truth. A metaphor doesn't exist as a being so it can't be stronger than a newborn baby. I hope it's clear.

Miracles are what illiterate peasants believe in. I don't.

Satan is a metaphor. There's no such thing as a satanic being. The same with demons. Heaven and hell are bunkum. They don't exist except, again, as metaphors. I'd like heaven to exist but it's like Narnia. I'd like for Narnia to exist too but so what?

The above sums up what I think in my head. Of course it's not carved in rock and I've only formulated my thoughts not long ago and I might change with fresh evidence coming my way but for the moment, this is my position.

Here I stand, I cannot recant.

I have something substantive to add to the current coversation, but I'm being cock-blocked...

Greneknight, I was hoping beyond hope, yet you let me down. You usually open up with the shit, but it took you until page three in this thread, which gave me false hope until I was aquainted with your usual betrayal. Do you know what I'm referring to?

Fucking stop the 'I've been an alter boy' bullshit. I'm not impressed. I was an alter boy...big fucking deal. So far, I love your contribution...just stop the alter boy 'I'm a better christian' than you ruse. If you think my slight condemnation is misplaced, then I challenge you to share with the rest of the forum the topics of conversation before and after mass with your fellow 'alter boys'. I can guarantee that it isn't about how bad ass you're going to be carrying grape juice and crackers.

(September 5, 2012 at 2:46 am)cato123 Wrote:

(September 5, 2012 at 2:14 am)greneknight Wrote: Thanks. I call myself a Christian because I'm an altar boy and have been one since I was 5. I sing Evensong in the choir EVERYDAY until last Easter when I was pulled out with other boys my age - something about choir rules and the fear that my voice might break. My vicar and bishop are of the view that I'm a fine Christian and a faithful child of Holy Church. I will be confirmed towards the end of this year when I'm back in England.

The above settles my standing as a Christian within the Established Church of my country.

Now, for what's in my head. For me God is NOT a being. He's not even stronger than newborn baby because at least a newborn baby exists. God is really a metaphor for goodness and truth. A metaphor doesn't exist as a being so it can't be stronger than a newborn baby. I hope it's clear.

Miracles are what illiterate peasants believe in. I don't.

Satan is a metaphor. There's no such thing as a satanic being. The same with demons. Heaven and hell are bunkum. They don't exist except, again, as metaphors. I'd like heaven to exist but it's like Narnia. I'd like for Narnia to exist too but so what?

The above sums up what I think in my head. Of course it's not carved in rock and I've only formulated my thoughts not long ago and I might change with fresh evidence coming my way but for the moment, this is my position.

Here I stand, I cannot recant.

I have something substantive to add to the current coversation, but I'm being cock-blocked...

Greneknight, I was hoping beyond hope, yet you let me down. You usually open up with the shit, but it took you until page three in this thread, which gave me false hope until I was aquainted with your usual betrayal. Do you know what I'm referring to?

Fucking stop the 'I've been an alter boy' bullshit. I'm not impressed. I was an alter boy...big fucking deal. So far, I love your contribution...just stop the alter boy 'I'm a better christian' than you ruse. If you think my slight condemnation is misplaced, then I challenge you to share with the rest of the forum the topics of conversation before and after mass with your fellow 'alter boys'. I can guarantee that it isn't about how bad ass you're going to be carrying grape juice and crackers.

I don't understand your complaint. I bring up my altarboy status as my CREDENTIAL as a Christian. People in forums usually think I'm an atheist because they're usually American and they only understand the fundy version of religion. So it's important I establish that I'm a Christian before I proceed to explain my thoughts.

They tried to get me blacklisted as an atheist in Christian Forums because in CF, if you're not a Christian, you can't post in many sections including the debate section. Hence, the importance of my credentials. Nobody says you've got to believe in rubbish in order to be a Christian. At least my church doesn't. We used to have a very important prelate who was Archbishop of York who denied that Jesus ever existed and nobody said he wasn't a Christian. At least I believe Jesus was an apocalyptic zealot, a real flesh-and-blood human although I don't accept him to be some bogeyman with magic.

So please understand whenever I talk about my position as an altar boy - I'm bringing up my credentials as a Christian.

Being an altar boy, to me, doesn't make you a Christian any more than wearing a KKK outfit makes you a white supremacist or saying "I love you" means you really do. I think intentions and beliefs matter much more than pretension and habits. If you don't actually believe any of it I'd hardly call you a Christian, but it's your choice.

(September 5, 2012 at 4:23 am)Tempus Wrote: Being an altar boy, to me, doesn't make you a Christian any more than wearing a KKK outfit makes you a white supremacist or saying "I love you" means you really do. I think intentions and beliefs matter much more than pretension and habits. If you don't actually believe any of it I'd hardly call you a Christian, but it's your choice.

It's not really my choice. It's what the church decides. Let's say we are in a court of law and the question arises as to whether I'm a Christian. Surely, the court will take notice of what my vicar and bishop say more than what atheists say or even what I myself might say. The church which performs confirmation of parishioners must be the best party to decide who a Christian is.

You should start selling yourself as the world's first atheist Christian. Atheist means lack of belief in god, and clearly your church thinks you're a Christian. Viola, atheist Christian.

(September 5, 2012 at 8:33 am)Faith No More Wrote: You should start selling yourself as the world's first atheist Christian. Atheist means lack of belief in god, and clearly your church thinks you're a Christian. Viola, atheist Christian.

Like I've said, the prelates of my church are no different from me. The Archbishop of York's post is the second highest in the Church of England. The previous Archbishop of York once said that Jesus was not born of the virgin birth. Soon after, lightning struck the York Minster but we aren't superstitious people and so we laughed over it. If you have been to the York Minster, you can see the burnt parts of the church. Later, he declared that Jesus never existed. Now, at least I'm better. I say Jesus existed but he was an apocalyptic zealot who wanted to overthrow the Roman rulers.

So, no, I wouldn't be the first. Greater people of the church say worse things than I.

(September 5, 2012 at 8:45 am)greneknight Wrote:

(September 5, 2012 at 8:33 am)Faith No More Wrote: You should start selling yourself as the world's first atheist Christian. Atheist means lack of belief in god, and clearly your church thinks you're a Christian. Viola, atheist Christian.

Like I've said, the prelates of my church are no different from me. The Archbishop of York's post is the second highest in the Church of England. The previous Archbishop of York once said that Jesus was not born of the virgin birth. Soon after, lightning struck the York Minster but we aren't superstitious people and so we laughed over it. If you have been to the York Minster, you can see the burnt parts of the church. Later, he declared that Jesus never existed. Now, at least I'm better. I say Jesus existed but he was an apocalyptic zealot who wanted to overthrow the Roman rulers.

So, no, I wouldn't be the first. Greater people of the church say worse things than I.

I don't know why people find this stuff so confusing. You practically sound like a fundie compared to someone like John Shelby Spong. Ok, that's hyperbole, but you know what I mean.

(September 4, 2012 at 5:23 pm)jacklegger Wrote: Hello fellow thinkers,

I'm new; I posted an intro in that section, read that if you want to know my deal. Hi and thanks again for the welcome messages.

To which I add my welcome.

(September 4, 2012 at 5:23 pm)jacklegger Wrote: So, I'm a Christian reading The God Delusion with an open mind and considering the rational merit of atheism. My experience with "out" atheists is limited, and Dawkins is a refreshing surprise. I'm sure there are more like him out there, I just haven't met you yet. (I hope to).

Sorry to hear it.

(September 4, 2012 at 5:23 pm)jacklegger Wrote: Most atheists I've met are either over-compensating intellectuals with attitudes like, "I'm smarter than you, just look at my dynamic vocabulary. Look at it!"; or sci-fi/fantasy fans who actually believe in elves (or klingons or whatever).

Goes to show what different circles people can run in. I had not ever previously heard of an atheist who actually believes in elves (or Klingons or whatever). Fair cop on the over-compensating intellectuals though, I guess they're (we're?) ubiquitous.

(September 4, 2012 at 5:23 pm)jacklegger Wrote: Not that this is a bad thing necessarily; to each his own has been my approach. And of course my sample is very small; as a Christian most of my friends and family are either theists or agnostics.

Understandable. Although you might be surprised at some of them being atheist without advertising it. I've been.

(September 4, 2012 at 5:23 pm)jacklegger Wrote: And I know that some would say that believing in elves is much more sane than believing in Yahweh or Jesus Christ, and frankly I wouldn't argue that point.

I can't really argue it either.

(September 4, 2012 at 5:23 pm)jacklegger Wrote: I would ask though, what experience one has had with elves, not as a way to prove or disprove anything, but to understand the basis for such a belief.

I suspect you've come to the wrong place for inside information on this phenomenon.

(September 4, 2012 at 5:23 pm)jacklegger Wrote: And as such I don't think that all beliefs are equally reasonable to hold. For example, if one's experience of elves is limited to reading Tolkien and imagining them - which I love to do - I would posit that this is a less reasonable basis for believing they exist in our universe than say, praying to God for healing from uterine cancer and having an apple-sized tumor "spontaneously disappear" overnight, confirmed by medical imaging by a non-religious physician (which happened to my mother, FWIW) is a basis for believing in God.

Surprising that didn't make the medical literature. Without that, it's just a cool story, bro.

(September 4, 2012 at 5:23 pm)jacklegger Wrote: Of course this is all subjective and will not necessarily convince anyone, but that's my point. In the end we all have to decide this question for ourselves, no?

Yep.

(September 4, 2012 at 5:23 pm)jacklegger Wrote: So here's something from Dawkins: He says raising children in a religion is tantamount to child abuse and possibly worse than sexual abuse. This is shocking to fathom, but he is also surprisingly civil and even charitable, which effectively diffuses the affective sparks that would otherwise fly at such extreme statements. Furthermore, I understand his passion, and if he is right that there is no God, then indeed religious parents like myself are arguably evil - at the very least we are really dissing our kids!

Although Dawkins may have a point, and there are some who would agree with his assessment, I think most of us would say he goes a little too far in this particular instance. Parents are only able to raise their children the best they know how, and there isn't an palatable alternative to that, which is why government only intervenes in cases where the child's health is at risk. If it were up to me, parents wouldn't be allowed to tell children they're stupid, but what are you going to do?

(September 4, 2012 at 5:23 pm)jacklegger Wrote: But of course that is the question in the first place (does God exist), and without settling it with certainty (not just some vague probability - how is the probability of God's existence calculated, exactly?), forcing children to be raised by an atheist state is no different than the (apparently powerful and poised to take over the country) American Christian fundamentalists forcing their religion on the kids of atheist parents.

Forcing children in general to be raised by any state is not desireable.

(September 4, 2012 at 5:23 pm)jacklegger Wrote: And though this is really a side issue, it elicits the further question of who is going to decide what is best for children, if not their parents? A government panel of expert scientists and psychologists? How will these people be chosen, and by whom? And how will these thought-police enforce their edicts? How will they keep Catholic parents from saying anything at all to their kids that could be construed as religious indoctrination? Must the parents go to mass in secret and tell their kids they're going to a weekly science club instead? In practice wouldn't it really be necessary to take the kids away from the parents completely, and raise them in properly atheistic institutions (or foster homes with atheist parents)?

Excellent job of summarizing why the idea should never be put into practice.

(September 4, 2012 at 5:23 pm)jacklegger Wrote: And if so, how is this different from Dawkins' story of the Jewish boy who was taken from his parents because he was baptized by a Catholic nurse, and raised (by people other than his parents) as a Catholic?

In Dawkins' scenario (IIRC, it's been several years since I read the book), the child would not be indoctrinated into atheism, rather wouldn't be pressured to make any profession until an adult.

(September 4, 2012 at 5:23 pm)jacklegger Wrote: Dawkins' greatest and most passionate objection to this (rightly so, IMO) was that the boy was taken from his parents, which was a cause of great trauma and suffering to them all. (He of course had no sympathy for the religious freedom of the Jewish parents, who were just as stupid and superstitious as their Catholic counterparts). And, finally, if (a utopian, atheistic) society is not willing to "kidnap" (as Dawkins put it of the Jewish boy) the children of theists of all stripes in order to spare them the abuse of being raised in religious families, why even raise the point that it is an injustice in the first place?

Venting, I suppose.

(September 4, 2012 at 5:23 pm)jacklegger Wrote: My guess is that it is a rhetorical device, and not a serious proposition. As such it may have some shock value; it may cause some to think more about the nature of religion and the importance of the question of the existence of god(s). This would be good inasmuch as this is a "big question" that fundamentally shapes a society, but that many people are probably content not to consider. Not that they don't have an opinion, it's just unexamined. OTOH, it can be very bad inasmuch as people who aren't too bright start to parrot Dawkins (probably misunderstanding him) and campaign for Social Services to prosecute religious parents for child abuse and take children out of such homes. (Not the least of the issues is where to put them, who would raise them, and who would pay for raising them; and this is before we even get into the severe cruelty of such a thing, especially in the eyes of a young child who knows nothing of philosophy or theology and just wants his or her mommy and daddy.)

If I run into any such, I'll be sure to set them straight.

(September 4, 2012 at 5:23 pm)jacklegger Wrote: I realize that is rambly. I teach for a living; I basically get paid to ramble. Thanks for your patience. For now, I shall relent!

We've seen much worse, and in comparison you are a ray of clarity and sunshine. Welcome again.

(September 5, 2012 at 12:58 am)greneknight Wrote:

(September 4, 2012 at 11:05 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Nope - that's a Stimbo original, though I did steal heavily from Don Quixote. Glad you like it.

Nonsense, Stimbo old chap, Cervantes didn't write that. He wrote this (since you like to be pedantic): "Vamos a luchar con todo tipo de hombres, incluyendo las hechas de paja".

Hence my laying claim to the phrase, in contrast to the original Welsh.

(September 5, 2012 at 12:58 am)greneknight Wrote: Pocaracas is Portuguese so he didn't know what "cheers" meant in England. But "cheerio" is an old-fashioned way of saying goodbye. We still use it but most people say "cheers" for "bye" in England now. I have a theory we are desperately looking for the European "Ciao" and "Cheers" might just fit the bill. Everyone in Europe says "Ciao" and it's used not just as "goodbye" but also as "Hi". Sorry, by "everyone" I mean the non-Germanic people. I was in the Czech Republic and everyone used "Ciao" too as both a greeting and goodbye. I mean Czech is so different from Italian but it's widely used all over the Czech Republic. The time will come when we in England will use "cheers" for that same function. See if I'm right.

Hmm, interesting notion regarding cheers and ciao; may even prove to be correct. It's true that cheerio is a bit Mary Poppins, as you say still in use but rather old hat. That said, I've not come across the use of the word "cheers" in place of "bye" myself.

In any case there's only room for one resident prophet and the vacancy is already filled.