Ten signs someone is a fundamentalist christian

Zombrex

Fallen Seraph wrote:

The only difference between a Muslim and an Atheist is what they believe.

Well, without falling into the problem of defining an atheists as a belief system, I would disagree with that.

As an atheists I cannot think of any person, group or ideology that I would follow based on faith or reward. If I don't agree with what is being said or asked I will say so. I don't accept the infallibility of any person or ideology as a default.

Of course that doesn't mean that all atheists are immune. I certainly don't wish to imply that. For example a lot of otherwise good men have done terrible things in the name of ideologies such as communism or nationalism

One must be able to stop and challenge the pretense on which they are being asked to do something. Unfortunately that is very difficult in a religious context. The default position that a certain ideology or teaching is totally infallible is very dangerous.

As I often ask -

How does someone argue that God is actually wrong

The very fact that the religion is set up so you can't is the problem.

Fallen Seraph wrote:

If anyone is put in the position where throwing acid in the face of a child appears to them to be the only moral action that can be taken, they must then either do so or do something morally wrong by their own standards.

One must be able to ask "Why must I throw acid in the face of this child?"

If the response is "Because God/Mohammad/Lenin says so" would you say "Well wait, I disagree." or would you say "Oh ok, if God/Mohammad/Lenin say so.."

Fallen Seraph

Wicknight wrote:

Well, without falling into the problem of defining an atheists as a belief system, I would disagree with that.

As an atheists I cannot think of any person, group or ideology that I would follow based on faith or reward. If I don't agree with what is being said or asked I will say so. I don't accept the infallibility of any person or ideology as a default.

Of course that doesn't mean that all atheists are immune. I certainly don't
wish to imply that. For example a lot of otherwise good men have done terrible things in the name of ideologies such as communism or nationalism

Oh indeed, I phrased that rather badly; I don't think that atheism is a belief system either; I'm just trying to point out that such a hypothetical predicament is something that anyone who holds an ideology (I think your word is much better here) is susceptible to. It's not something unique to religion.

Wicknight wrote:

One must be able to stop and challenge the pretense on which they are being asked to do something. Unfortunately that is very difficult in a religious context. The default position that a certain ideology or teaching is totally infallible is very dangerous.



How does someone argue that God is actually wrong

The very fact that the religion is set up so you can't is the problem.


One must be able to ask "Why must I throw acid in the face of this child?"

If the response is "Because God/Mohammad/Lenin says so" would you say "Well wait, I disagree." or would you say "Oh ok, if God/Mohammad/Lenin say so.."

Well not exactly. One does argue that god is actually wrong. In fact, we both do it quite often. If you do argue that god is wrong, then you can never be put in such a situation because you're not a christian*. If you are put in such a situation and think that god is wrong then I'd argue that you're not a proper christian, because you haven't really thought your position through.


I should, however, add the caveat that I'm dealing with an idealised situation where the person has thought everything through. Where they have challenged the pretense and have come to the conclusion that they have faith in what they are doing. I won't deny for a second that there exists "blind" blind faith, for want of a better phrase, where people just act without questioning. I know this seems like a bit of a cop out; but I'm not trying to justify the behaviour of religions, just that in this case it's something that affects everyone.







As an illustrative example of this happening to a non-religious person consider the non-religious philosophy of utilitarianism which says that a moral action is one which results in the greatest net amount of happiness occuring in the world. Let our analogous situation to god telling a christian to kill be this:

In an inexplicable planning decision an unsafe acid factory has been built beside a kindergarten. The factory explodes during play-time and fifty or so kids become horrifically injured from having acid thrown on them. For some inexplicable reason, probably something to do with quantum mechanics, it turns out that throwing acid into the face of an uninjured child will completely fix the other fifty. The utilitarian is therefore left in the unenviable position of having to either throw acid in the face of a small child or to change his belief system which he was previously entirely sure of.


*christian is less cumbersome than "adherent to that particular idealogy", which is of course what I actually mean.

Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph wrote:

In an inexplicable planning decision an unsafe acid factory has been built beside a kindergarten. The factory explodes during play-time and fifty or so kids become horrifically injured from having acid thrown on them. For some inexplicable reason, probably something to do with quantum mechanics, it turns out that throwing acid into the face of an uninjured child will completely fix the other fifty. The utilitarian is therefore left in the unenviable position of having to either throw acid in the face of a small child or to change his belief system which he was previously entirely sure of.

Somewhere online there's a series of such tests. Usually they go along the lines of "would you kill one person to save 10, or 20?".

To some extent, though, that we won't generally kill one person to save several others is not a failure of utilitarianism, but a result of empathy and failure of the will. Even were I to be put in such a position, and fail to carry out the necessary utilitarian act, I would still regard myself as a utilitarian, and utilitarianism as the best philosophy - I would simply add the fact that I am not always capable of being a good utilitarian.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Scofflaw wrote:

Somewhere online there's a series of such tests.

There have been plenty of tests done to find out what people think they would do in such situations: the conclusion so far is that people are reluctant to do some action that directly results in the injury to somebody to save similar injuries to other people, but will be able to do the opposite -- fail to carry out an action, if failing to carry it out saves a greater amount of injury.

The usual example is would you choose or not to switch the points just in front of an oncoming train away from a damaged line that would cause the train to crash and many people to die, or to a siding which has somebody strapped to the line. People tend not to switch the points if the train is going to run over the guy (saving more lives on the train), and also tend not to switch the points if the train is pointing down the dangerous line (since their action would directly cause the death of somebody).

The results are pretty consistent.

Zombrex

Fallen Seraph wrote:

It's not something unique to religion.

True, but it is something that is particularly powerful (and harmful) when put in a religious context, because religions tend to offer things that people consider very important to them, such as promise of life after death and unconditional love.

Rejecting those, saying "I'm not prepared to blow up that bus even if it is Gods will and I will spend forever in hell for not doing so" is not a simple as saying "Well I used to support the Republican movement but I think they went too far and now I don't"

The consequences for the latter are insignificant compared to the consequences of the former.

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Well not exactly. One does argue that god is actually wrong. In fact, we both do it quite often. If you do argue that god is wrong, then you can never be put in such a situation because you're not a christian*.

Well that is kinda the point. To argue that God is wrong you have to reject the idea of God in the first place, which means rejecting your religion. As I said that is a lot harder in reality, given what religion provides people. People will naturally decide not to reject their religion, to suppress the little voice in their head that says "This is wrong", convince themselves that it is right and continue on.

Using a less extreme example, often a religious person will view something as morally wrong because of a religious teaching even if they themselves don't think it is wrong or cannot example why it is wrong beyond "My religion says so". Homosexuality is the classic example. I doubt anyone on the Christian forum actually has a problem with homosexuality except that it is considered a sin by their religion.

You cannot argue against that, because to them the idea that the religion is infallible is far greater than their internal moral compass telling them that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. For them to come out and say that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality they would have to reject their religious teaching or at least the infallibility of the religious teaching. They aren't prepared to do that, because belief in the religion is too important, it offers them far too much to give up.

Of course I'm not implying that this is how they would actually say it if they thought about it. All of this would be subconscious. Consciously they have convinced themselves that God exist, God is perfect, God is morality, the Bible is God's word, homosexuality is wrong not matter what. To them all this is rational. And no matter what I, or anyone else says, I can not argue otherwise, because they are not willing or prepared to accept that either a) God is wrong b) God doesn't exist.

The point is that this is exactly the same logic one could find themselves coming up against when talking to a suicide bomber before he heads out to blow up an army base.

Fallen Seraph wrote:

If you are put in such a situation and think that god is wrong then I'd argue that you're not a proper christian

It is that kind of thinking that makes people follow what their religion tells them, even if they feel it might be wrong, even if their internal morality disagrees with it. Because who of the devout wants to be "not a proper Christian"?

As I said originally, the point is that for good people to do bad things it takes a religion.

Fallen Seraph wrote:

The utilitarian is therefore left in the unenviable position of having to either throw acid in the face of a small child or to change his belief system which he was previously entirely sure of.

They are of course, but the point is that what ever decision they make will be their own.

In that split second the person could decide "F**k utilitarianism, I'm not throwing acid in the face of that girl" and that would be their moral decision, based on their internal moral compass. Nothing happens to them for doing that.

On the other hand it is much harder for a Christian to say "F**k God, f**k the Bible, screw eternal happiness in heaven with my loved ones, rats to the feeling of contentment and love I get from God and the Christian community, I'm not throwing acid in that girls face even if God himself is telling me too"

They are much likely to say to themselves "I'm not sure about this, but I have faith in my loving God and faith that what he says is correct, even if I have my doubts"

That kind of thinking leaves them wide open to manipulation to do bad things by the religion. Good men doing bad things needs religion.

In fact questioning and doubt are considered bad things in most religion, a sign of weakness of faith. Debate and criticism are considered bad things in most religions. As I said how does one argue to a Christian that God is wrong? They are not prepared to accept that as a possibility. How does one argue to a suicide bomber that God is wrong, that what he is doing is wrong. Even if their is the possibility that he might agree with you he most likely isn't going to.

PDN

Blackhorse Slim wrote:

So this isn't the same god who tested Abraham?

If God had previously ordered Abraham not to kill anyone then that would be a good point. God would then be contradicting Himself, which would make his instructions suspect.

Christians believe that God has progressively revealed more and more instruction to mankind from Genesis to Revelation. I stand much further along that line than Abraham did, therefore a similar order to that which Abraham received would contradict previous instructions.

Blackhorse Slim

So you believe that murder was morally acceptable until god 'revealed' that it wasn't?

PDN

Blackhorse Slim wrote:

So you believe that murder was morally acceptable until god 'revealed' that it wasn't?

No, and I didn't say that. I am saying that people would be more likely to believe God was telling them to murder someone before, rather than after, such a revelation.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

If God had previously ordered Abraham not to kill anyone then that would be a good point. God would then be contradicting Himself, which would make his instructions suspect.

God ordered the Hebrews, through Moses, not to murder anyone and treat all foreigners with respect and then send his tribes out to genocide most of the Middle East. The justification given for this apparent contradiction is that if God tells you to kill someone it cannot be murder (ie unlawful), and you should do it.

PDN wrote:

No, and I didn't say that. I am saying that people would be more likely to believe God was telling them to murder someone before, rather than after, such a revelation.

You are actually still avoiding to answer the question

I asked that if you believed God was asking you to kill someone, would you do it or would you refuse to carry out God's order?

You have only responded by saying that God wouldn't ask you to do that. Which is simply avoiding the question.

Blackhorse Slim

PDN wrote:

If God had previously ordered Abraham not to kill anyone then that would be a good point. God would then be contradicting Himself, which would make his instructions suspect.

Christians believe that God has progressively revealed more and more instruction to mankind from Genesis to Revelation. I stand much further along that line than Abraham did, therefore a similar order to that which Abraham received would contradict previous instructions.

Did god not say to Noah "whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man" (Gen. 9:6)?

I like the idea that you think god's instructions are suspect if he contradicts himself.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

You are actually still avoiding to answer the question

I asked that if you believed God was asking you to kill someone, would you do it or would you refuse to carry out God's order?

You have only responded by saying that God wouldn't ask you to do that. Which is simply avoiding the question.

How can I answer a hypothetical question which makes no sense to me?

PDN

Blackhorse Slim wrote:

Did god not say to Noah "whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man" (Gen. 9:6)?

I like the idea that you think god's instructions are suspect if he contradicts himself.

Yes, God did say that to Noah. It may well be that Abraham was prepared for his own blood to be shed by man. Of course, the fact that Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac in the belief that God would raise his son from the dead again probably influenced his reasoning.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

How can I answer a hypothetical question which makes no sense to me?

What part doesn't make sense?

If God told you to kill someone, say me for example, would you do it?

Blackhorse Slim

So you don't consider "whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man" (Gen. 9:6) to be an instruction not to spill man's blood? Do you interpret it as some kind of prediction? Without the second part you may be justified, but "in the image of God He made man" is a justification of the commandment not to kill in an earlier form.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

What part doesn't make sense?

If God told you to kill someone, say me for example, would you do it?

It wouldn't make sense because, in order to believe that God was ordering me to kill you then I would have to jettison everything else I believe God has revealed to me over the last 26 years. If I jettisoned that, then I would no longer have any basis for believing in God anyway. In that case I wouldn't believe that God was speaking to me at all. Therefore the question makes no sense to me.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

It wouldn't make sense because, in order to believe that God was ordering me to kill you then I would have to jettison everything else I believe God has revealed to me over the last 26 years. If I jettisoned that, then I would no longer have any basis for believing in God anyway. In that case I wouldn't believe that God was speaking to me at all. Therefore the question makes no sense to me.

Ok ...

You get hit by a bus, you die, you go to heaven, you meet God, he shows you around heaven and introduces you to all the angels, you see all your relatives, you have a big party. He then says "Son I'm sending you back to Earth for a special mission. I cannot tell you why, but I need to you shoot Wicknight. This may seem bad to you, but I assure you that it is of utmost importance that Wicknight is killed" You then appear beside me holding a gun.

Do you shoot me?

PDN

Blackhorse Slim wrote:

So you don't consider "whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man" (Gen. 9:6) to be an instruction not to spill man's blood? Do you interpret it as some kind of prediction? Without the second part you may be justified, but "in the image of God He made man" is a justification of the commandment not to kill in an earlier form.

I would consider it be a prohibition, but I thought you were asking about Abraham. He obviously did not see Gen 9:6 as a blanket command against all kinds of bloodshed.

Blackhorse Slim

I'm getting a little confused here, and maybe out of my depth , so let's put some of this together.

We both agree that god issued a prohibition against the spilling of man's blood in the time of Noah. We also agree that god later instructed Abraham to kill his son.

And he [God] said, [Abraham] Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him [Isaac] there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I [God] will tell thee of. Gen22:2

Surely these instructions are contradictory? And given that we also agree that god's instructions are suspect if he contradicts himself, have we not proven that god instructions are, indeed, suspect?

It's convenient if you are correct that Abraham did not interpret scripture that way, or he would have been forced, like us, to question his god.

Fallen Seraph

Wicknight wrote:

That kind of thinking leaves them wide open to manipulation to do bad things by the religion. Good men doing bad things needs religion.

In fact questioning and doubt are considered bad things in most religion, a sign of weakness of faith. Debate and criticism are considered bad things in most religions. As I said how does one argue to a Christian that God is wrong? They are not prepared to accept that as a possibility. How does one argue to a suicide bomber that God is wrong, that what he is doing is wrong. Even if their is the possibility that he might agree with you he most likely isn't going to.

For all intents and purposes, I agree with the gist of what you say. I still think that an idealised, rational person could behave in a "justifiable" (to a certain, fuzzy extent) and "reasonable" manner while committing such a murder. But, indeed, in the real world, such thing is a rarity.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Wicknight wrote:

What part doesn't make sense?

If God told you to kill someone, say me for example, would you do it?

It wouldn't make sense because, in order to believe that God was ordering me to kill you then I would have to jettison everything else I believe God has revealed to me over the last 26 years. If I jettisoned that, then I would no longer have any basis for believing in God anyway. In that case I wouldn't believe that God was speaking to me at all. Therefore the question makes no sense to me.

In other words, such an action is so at odds with the God that PDN believes in, that he would have to say that he's been completely wrong about God up to now, which would require, quite correctly, a complete re-examination of his whole belief in 'God'.

Seems entirely reasonable to me - it's definitely an answer, not a cop-out. The question remains as to why PDN believes what he believes about his God, but I think that's probably just because he's a good person.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Wicknight wrote:

Ok ...

You get hit by a bus, you die, you go to heaven, you meet God, he shows you around heaven and introduces you to all the angels, you see all your relatives, you have a big party. He then says "Son I'm sending you back to Earth for a special mission. I cannot tell you why, but I need to you shoot Wicknight. This may seem bad to you, but I assure you that it is of utmost importance that Wicknight is killed" You then appear beside me holding a gun.

Do you shoot me?

Would you, if the situation were reversed? Cos thats a pretty damn convincing scenario you portray

Zombrex

Fallen Seraph wrote:

For all intents and purposes, I agree with the gist of what you say. I still think that an idealised, rational person could behave in a "justifiable" (to a certain, fuzzy extent) and "reasonable" manner while committing such a murder. But, indeed, in the real world, such thing is a rarity.

Oh of course. I'm not saying that there is a state of mind where someone can be free from such issues. The point is that we should always be prepared and free (at least mentally) to rationally challenge why we expected to do what are expect to do, and an ideology that puts itself forwards as perfectly infallible is dangerous. It doesn't matter if it is religious or not, it just happens that religion is most often than not set up this way.

Zombrex

Zillah wrote:

Would you, if the situation were reversed? Cos thats a pretty damn convincing scenario you portray

No

I have said before, as have others on this forum, that even if God existed I would not worship or follow his doctrine.

I do not hold God above my own standards of morality. If something is immoral it is immoral even if God himself wishes to do it.

This may seem bizarre to a theists reading this, as they no doubt believe that standards of morality are decided in the first place by God. But naturally I do not hold to that.

Red Hand

Wicknight wrote:

No

I have said before, as have others on this forum, that even if God existed I would not worship or follow his doctrine.

I do not hold God above my own standards of morality. If something is immoral it is immoral even if God himself wishes to do it.

This may seem bizarre to a theists reading this, as they no doubt believe that standards of morality are decided in the first place by God. But naturally I do not hold to that.

What about the "goodies", though Wicknight? Going to heaven and stuff? If he existed, and you saw that he existed, then he might send you to hell. Would you risk hell for your moral principles?:)

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

In other words, such an action is so at odds with the God that PDN believes in, that he would have to say that he's been completely wrong about God up to now, which would require, quite correctly, a complete re-examination of his whole belief in 'God'.

Not 100% sure that is what PDN is saying, at least that is not what I understood.

My understanding is that PDN is saying that such a vision would not be the real God, and as such PDN would just walk way saying "You are not God, therefore I don't have to do what you say". To me that is a cop out, because in the hypothetical senerio there is one God, it is the God PDN has always believed in, and he is asking PDN to kill me. Saying that isn't the real God doesn't work

Of course if I'm misunderstanding that, and your interpretation is correct then it is a proper answer to the question, the answer being No. PDN would reject God as not being what he thought he was, and therefore not worth following, even if it meant losing all that God had promised and ending up in hell.

I hope that is what PDN is saying, though I still think that my original interpretation fits his response.

Perhaps PDN can clear it up for us.

Dades

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

What about the "goodies", though Wicknight? Going to heaven and stuff? If he existed, and you saw that he existed, then he might send you to hell. Would you risk hell for your moral principles?:)

Ah, but it could be a "test".
Worship the morally questionable God to win the prize and you fail!

Zombrex

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

Would you risk hell for your moral principles?:)

I would certainly hope so.

Of course standing at the gates of hell with the idea of eternity of suffering ahead of me I might go completely insane and do anything God wants me to do

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

I would certainly hope so.

Of course standing at the gates of hell with the idea of eternity of suffering ahead of me I might go completely insane and do anything God wants me to do

With you there (perhaps literally!). The principle is clear - I cannot change my rejection of God simply because of punishment or reward. I would hope to have the wherewithal to continue that rejection in the face of the reality - and if Christians are correct, I have no option, since it is my actions in this life that determine what will happen to me after death.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Red Hand

Hmmm...continuing to reject or not to believe in a God even you are confronted with him? Outside of the possibility that you would obviously think you were suffering from a mental illness, you would...what? Continue rejecting/disbelieving him though confronted with reality?

Zombrex

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

Hmmm...continuing to reject or not to believe in a God even you are confronted with him?

I think (judging from past posts of his) that Scofflaw means his rejection of God in the way I mean it, ie I don't think God exists but even if he did I wouldn't worship him.