I think Strodel just doesn't like humanism because it's poised to destroy the one thing Christians have claimed to have a monopoly on for so long; care towards other human beings. Christian missions have always been about charity but humanism threatens to make it not an exception for recruiting to a cause but a rule that should always be followed and it scares the shit out of him as it does all other Christians. They can't bear the thought that people can be good without god, especially with a valid reason behind it. They especially don't like that it glorifies human beings, to be expected from those who follow a religion that essentially states that humans are flawed hopelessly and are sin-sucking vile creations that must prostrate to grovel for their perceived shortcomings. All this "human life is valuable and not to be casually discarded, wasted, or harmed" stuff we humanists proclaim must sound anathema to him.

(March 13, 2013 at 12:19 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: I think Strodel just doesn't like humanism because it's poised to destroy the one thing Christians have claimed to have a monopoly on for so long; care towards other human beings.

Also, like many other fundies, he seems to want to lump everything that's not part of his religious worldview together, no matter how unrelated they may be to one another. Reading fundy propaganda, you often come across alleged alliances of groups wholly hostile or incompatible with one another (such as New Agers and atheists, or Catholics and Muslims, etc.) against their pure brand of True Christianity ™.

It works better if you think Satan is behind it all.

(March 13, 2013 at 8:02 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(March 12, 2013 at 7:50 pm)CleanShavenJesus Wrote: Why not? It's in the Bible. Or since that part doesn't make sense, you're not going to take it literally?

Question. Are there parts of your life that you consider very important which also have multiple layers of meaning to you?

Of course. But I don't pretend that those things suddenly have a different meaning because I want them to.

(March 13, 2013 at 4:00 pm)CleanShavenJesus Wrote: ...I don't pretend that those things suddenly have a different meaning because I want them to.

It sounds like you believe that symbolic analysis of a text is completely arbitrary, at least when it comes to Scripture. No doubt for some people that is the case. It takes just as much effort and skill to work the right-side of the brain as it does the left-side. Rational thinking takes diligence and a reasonable understanding of logic. The more complex ideas required even greater effort and skill. Like rationality, symbolic thinking also takes skill and effort. It takes a lot of these to work through the complex symbols and allegories of Scripture.

I know that many atheists on the forums have at one time in their lives been deeply immersed in a specific Christian tradition until some combination of legalism and the absurdity of a literal interpretations, etc. turned them off to the whole enterprise. You've been there and done that. I get it. And I do not disagree that some lampooning of very rigid and shallow approaches can be justified.

But turn-about is fair play. If the literal minded atheist demands that the bible must be taken completely at face value, then he has the same objectionable attitude as a fundamentalist Christian. Point is, it's very easy to be a fundamentalist, you don't have to think passed the surface of the text. It's also very easy to be a literal minded atheist. Neither take the time to consider anything beyond what's right in front of their faces.

I don't personally demand any such reading. I can very easily allow for a symbolic or metaphoric interpretation of the entire bit. Try this on for size. It is an in depth exploration of how power corrupts, and an example of right action by repeatedly demonstrating wrong action, symbolic of everything petty and vicious about us. This, of course, on top of the absurd literal reading. An attempt to redeem the narrative by making it "less real", more rooted in symbolism, for example, is even more harmful than a literal reading. I can root for the villain in a piece of fiction, I really can, but only to a point.

(March 13, 2013 at 9:53 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: But turn-about is fair play. If the literal minded atheist demands that the bible must be taken completely at face value, then he has the same objectionable attitude as a fundamentalist Christian. Point is, it's very easy to be a fundamentalist, you don't have to think passed the surface of the text. It's also very easy to be a literal minded atheist. Neither take the time to consider anything beyond what's right in front of their faces.

If turn-about really was fair play, then you wouldn't be insisting that you know anything at all about the bible.

The problem with accepting symbolic interpretations of the bible- especially if you're only doing so for some passages while taking literal meaning from others- is that you always run the risk of seeing something that the author never intended. By what right do you assume that your symbolic interpretation is anything other than a product of your own head?

Furthermore, it's simply staggering that you can advocate simultaneously for a position in which interpretation is allowed, yet the one you've settled on is the only possible real truth of the universe.

(March 13, 2013 at 12:19 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: I think Strodel just doesn't like humanism because it's poised to destroy the one thing Christians have claimed to have a monopoly on for so long; care towards other human beings. Christian missions have always been about charity but humanism threatens to make it not an exception for recruiting to a cause but a rule that should always be followed and it scares the shit out of him as it does all other Christians. They can't bear the thought that people can be good without god, especially with a valid reason behind it. They especially don't like that it glorifies human beings, to be expected from those who follow a religion that essentially states that humans are flawed hopelessly and are sin-sucking vile creations that must prostrate to grovel for their perceived shortcomings. All this "human life is valuable and not to be casually discarded, wasted, or harmed" stuff we humanists proclaim must sound anathema to him.

No I think it is fine to have humanist charities but they should do it with their own money just like Christians do, they can get 501C3 like Christians can (and they do). Having a charity is different from using the government to force your ideology on other people through funding certain programs and disadvantaging others.

If you can't see that state funded programs are different from private charities, you are blind.

That said, I think some government programs and subsidies are important.

---

(March 13, 2013 at 1:06 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(March 13, 2013 at 12:19 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: I think Strodel just doesn't like humanism because it's poised to destroy the one thing Christians have claimed to have a monopoly on for so long; care towards other human beings.

Also, like many other fundies, he seems to want to lump everything that's not part of his religious worldview together, no matter how unrelated they may be to one another. Reading fundy propaganda, you often come across alleged alliances of groups wholly hostile or incompatible with one another (such as New Agers and atheists, or Catholics and Muslims, etc.) against their pure brand of True Christianity ™.

It works better if you think Satan is behind it all.

You are not really arguing anything or presenting examples of this in what I have written.

I don't think it is foolish to group atheism with liberalism. The demographics bear out what I am saying, it is not controversial. Someone posted statistics on voting demographics between left and right. Atheism is a left wing movement, and has been since the French revolution (where the term comes from). I find it ironic that the worldview that has such as small claim to moral authority would be so preoccupied with statecraft depends on some sense of non-subjective ethics by which to govern.

I would not consider myself to be a fundamentalist Christian, though I know many who are and respect them.

You can see alliances between New Agers and atheists on this forum in the discussion of DMT as well as interest in Buddhism. I've known people that were new age and atheist.

Quote:
It is often assumed that someone who doesn’t believe in God doesn’t believe in anything, or that a person who has no religion must have no values. These assumptions are simply untrue. People can reject religion and still maintain strong beliefs. Being godless does not mean being without values. Numerous studies reveal that atheists and secular people most certainly maintain strong values, beliefs, and opinions. But more significantly, when we actually compare the values and beliefs of atheists and secular people to those of religious people, the former are markedly less nationalistic, less prejudiced, less anti-Semitic, less racist, less dogmatic, less ethnocentric, less close-minded, and less authoritarian (Greeley and Hout 2006; Sider 2005; Altemeyer 2003, 2009; Jackson and Hunsberger 1999; Wulff 1991; Altemeyer and Hunsberger 1992, 1997; Beit-Hallahmi 2007; Beit-Hallahmi and Argyle 1997; Batson et al. 1993; Argyle 2000).

Concerning political orientations, atheist and secular people are much more likely to be registered Independent than the general American population, and they are much less likely to be right-wing, conservative, or to support the Republican party than their religious peers (Kosmin 2008). Keysar (2007, 38) reports that 50 percent of American atheists are Independent, 26 percent are Democrat, and 10 percent are Republican and that 43 percent of American agnostics are Independent, 22 percent are Democrat, and 15 percent are Republican. Greeley and Hout (2006) report that only about 21 percent of people claiming ‘‘no religion’’ voted for Republican candidates in recent elections. In the 2008 presidential election, specifically, 76 percent of atheists and agnostics voted for Obama, and only 23 percent voted for McCain (Barna Research Group Survey 2008). Grupp and Newman (1973) and Nassi (1981) have found that irreligiosity is strongly and consistently correlated and with liberal, progressive, or left-wing political perspectives, and Gay and Ellison (1993) found that – when compared to various religious groups – nonreligious Americans are the most politically tolerant, supporting the extension of civil liberties to dissident groups.

— Zuckerman, 2009. ()

(March 13, 2013 at 11:52 pm)jstrodel Wrote: I don't think it is foolish to group atheism with liberalism. The demographics bear out what I am saying, it is not controversial. Someone posted statistics on voting demographics between left and right. Atheism is a left wing movement, and has been since the French revolution (where the term comes from). I find it ironic that the worldview that has such as small claim to moral authority would be so preoccupied with statecraft depends on some sense of non-subjective ethics by which to govern.

By this logic I could group christianity with spousal and child abuse. Studies bear this out; as religiosity increases, so do instances of both of those things. However, you no doubt have issues with this line of reasoning when it damages your own position.

As it stands, you don't see me grouping those things together, because I'm intellectually honest enough to admit that human experience is nuanced and you can't really put people into groups like that.

Also, you haven't once explained what's so wrong with being a liberal, so... whatever.

I'm not so sure Esquilax that "liberal" means the same thing to Americans as it does to Aussies