Atheist Children

[Zarathustra]

And another thread which has nothing to do with Orthodox Christianity devolves into a defense of Orthodox Christianity.

Simple - b/c you would then believe they are all wrong. Not just about some little fact that is irrelevant, but about their world view, how they imagine the world "works". And look here how much it pisses people off. rus is "rude", or "arrogant", for only one reason - he believes his world view is correct and the rest are wrong.

As I've said before, it's not the worldview that pisses me off. It's the person. Thinking that your view is correct is one thing ... arguing for putting people in jail who don't hold your worldview is another thing entirely. I think people like that are enemies of freedom and human rights. Please get my complaint right before you repeat to others.

Others here profess the same, Z for instance (and I may even remember rus commending him for that), yet none get the abuse that rus does.

I've never claimed that my worldview is correct and everyone else's is wrong. I've said I could believe in God if I saw some evidence that it's true. Hell, I WANT it to be true. I wish my worldview was incorrect. My level of "commitment" to my worldview is the EXACT OPPOSITE of Rus's. I can't believe anyone would even make the comparison.

If I thought my worldview was correct and everyone else was wrong, why would I be willing to let my children be Christians, if they want to be? Your characterization of me is entirely inaccurate.

[rusmeister]

rus said that about the demons. Second page of the Sold My Soul... thread. (Can't quote it while on my son's PSP. heh)

You're posting from your son's PSP???

[rusmeister]

And another thread which has nothing to do with Orthodox Christianity devolves into a defense of Orthodox Christianity.

Simple - b/c you would then believe they are all wrong. Not just about some little fact that is irrelevant, but about their world view, how they imagine the world "works". And look here how much it pisses people off. rus is "rude", or "arrogant", for only one reason - he believes his world view is correct and the rest are wrong.

As I've said before, it's not the worldview that pisses me off. It's the person. Thinking that your view is correct is one thing ... arguing for putting people in jail who don't hold your worldview is another thing entirely. I think people like that are enemies of freedom and human rights. Please get my complaint right before you repeat to others.

Others here profess the same, Z for instance (and I may even remember rus commending him for that), yet none get the abuse that rus does.

I've never claimed that my worldview is correct and everyone else's is wrong. I've said I could believe in God if I saw some evidence that it's true. Hell, I WANT it to be true. I wish my worldview was incorrect. My level of "commitment" to my worldview is the EXACT OPPOSITE of Rus's. I can't believe anyone would even make the comparison.

If I thought my worldview was correct and everyone else was wrong, why would I be willing to let my children be Christians, if they want to be? Your characterization of me is entirely inaccurate.

So get me banned, Z. If a thing is TRUE, and if that thing is a worldview, then what is the logical person to do?

If I think a pedophile's world view wrong - that children exist to provide him pleasure - then I want him JAILED and I. AM. RIGHT. TO. WANT. THAT.
So call me an enemy of freedom and rights for wanting to restrain the pedophile. You have to retool your argument, Z, so that it excludes him... (I've had a couple of beers and am expecting my family home now so don't want to take the extensive time needed to elaborate - but I DO think, in general, that you are worth the time.

I see self-contradiction in your statements here. You have extremely strong opinions, because you actually believe your worldview to be true, although you wish it weren't. But you DO believe it to be true, or else, as GKC said, it is not your world view.

The good news is, your worldview actually ISN'T true, and we ARE eternal beings... I hope to catch you on the other side - in paradise, dude, and laugh with you!

[Fist and Faith]

Not the easiest thing to do!! Only a certain number of characters. Gotta move the cursor over, say, the ABC2 image, and hit the button the appropriate number of times. Try typing "monomial"!!

[rusmeister]

Yes dukkha, you're exactly right. That's why Jesus said the world will hate you. But wait, Jesus preached such good things right? If you follow Him, why would the world hate you?

Simple - b/c you would then believe they are all wrong. Not just about some little fact that is irrelevant, but about their world view, how they imagine the world "works". And look here how much it pisses people off. rus is "rude", or "arrogant", for only one reason - he believes his world view is correct and the rest are wrong. Others here profess the same, Z for instance (and I may even remember rus commending him for that), yet none get the abuse that rus does. Recently, harbinger and HLT are good examples - Jesus is myth, believing anything written about him is ridiculous and silly. Silence in response, or agreement. But wait, are you saying its wrong? How arrogant! How rude!

Talk about blinders.

Why don't you try to respond to harbinger and HLT? Or the points they make? You're dodging the argument when it suits you and you wonder why no one takes you seriously?

My dear Orlion, what can you do when someone reduces all intelligent discussion to "You believe in fairy tales"? There is only so much you can say to such people. As long as they know next-to-nothing of the long history of my faith, in detail, there is nothing I can say to them. If they begin to learn exactly who John Chrysostom was, read some Alexander Men' or Alexander Schmemann, saw that - "Hey, these guys are actually quite reasonable and have thought about a lot of the same things I think about!", then maybe vistas might open for communication. But against uninformed dogma that knows only the fragmented local version of what it rails against? Can't do it, sir.

[I'm Murrin]

If I think a pedophile's world view wrong - that children exist to provide him pleasure - then I want him JAILED and I. AM. RIGHT. TO. WANT. THAT.

To want that shows you are rational and capable of empathy; right is a matter of definition.

(No response to my earlier post? You can take it to a more relevant thread if you prefer, or if you feel you have already addressed it, please point me in that direction.)

[Fist and Faith]

rus, the problem is that the words of the giants of your faith are as lacking in substance as yours are. The podcast you pointed me to regarding the OC's position that the western conception of Hell is wrong says that there IS an eternal afterlife named after a burning trashpit. How are we in God's image and likeness? Not physically. Not in understanding of a basic and incredibly important concept. GKC declaring society can't exist unless the traditional family is the only kind allowed makes it fact?

[Fist and Faith]

It's all been nonsense SO far, but you criticize us for not gobbling up every single word you point us to.

[rusmeister]

Yes dukkha, you're exactly right. That's why Jesus said the world will hate you. But wait, Jesus preached such good things right? If you follow Him, why would the world hate you?

Simple - b/c you would then believe they are all wrong. Not just about some little fact that is irrelevant, but about their world view, how they imagine the world "works". And look here how much it pisses people off. rus is "rude", or "arrogant", for only one reason - he believes his world view is correct and the rest are wrong. Others here profess the same, Z for instance (and I may even remember rus commending him for that), yet none get the abuse that rus does. Recently, harbinger and HLT are good examples - Jesus is myth, believing anything written about him is ridiculous and silly. Silence in response, or agreement. But wait, are you saying its wrong? How arrogant! How rude!

Talk about blinders.

Thanks, Andy.
I don't thank you as often as I should.
PS - both my son and two of my closest friends bear that name - and St Andrew (OK, the apostle Andrew to you) is an awesome saint)

[rusmeister]

Not the easiest thing to do!! Only a certain number of characters. Gotta move the cursor over, say, the ABC2 image, and hit the button the appropriate number of times. Try typing "monomial"!!

I've only seen them in stores - we never bought them for our kids - but it sure as heck didn't look like a typing platform.

[Zarathustra]

A pedophile doesn't molest children because of a worldview ... he isn't trying to live in a consistent way with a belief. In fact, many pedophiles will admit that they know what they're doing is wrong, but do it anyway. The Dugard girl (in the news recently) who was kidnapped, held prisoner and for years, said that her captor/rapist cried afterwards in guilt and saught her forgiveness/comfort.

Protecting people's rights, protecting them from being victimized, is entirely different from enforcing a worldview. We know this because people with different and conflicting worldviews can still agree that we shouldn't allow victimization, because that's a violation of basic human rights, not a violation of a all-encompasing worldview. For instance, an atheist and a theist can both agree that murder is wrong. How is that possible, if they both hold incompatible worldviews, and their laws are merely an enforcement of those views? If that law is the enforcement of a worldview, then which worldview is it enforcing? Atheism? Or Theism? The answer is neither. Obviously, it can't enforce both at the same time. And in fact, it isn't enforcing a worldview at all, but a theory of rights. A theory of rights can be part of a worldview, but it is not itself a worldview, because it doesn't encompass all of reality in the theory.

Just because the people who write laws also have their own worldviews doesn't mean that the law is an enforcement of that worldview. If our laws were enforcements of worldviews, they'd be dependent upon and take into account that which the worldview holds, including the nature of reality, the fate of man after death, the existence of supernatural, etc., etc. But our laws on murder, for instance, are not dependent upon whether or not god exists, much less the nature of reality. The law is the same either way. It is independent of the god question. And as such, it is independent of worldview (if we accept that *some* kind of position on the god quesiton is fundamental to any worldview).

An opinion like, "I don't think people should be victimized" is NOT a world view. It's not a theory of reality, or an explanation for what happens after we die, or a position on the existence of god, or an explanation of the creation of the universe. It's just a statement about how we'd like to be treated. While it's possible for people to build a morality around such opinions, it is not necessarily true that such an opinion is itself a constituent of a moral system ... no more than an animal not wanting to get eaten is a constituent of a moral system. I can prefer that you not steal my money, without necessarily believing in Good and Evil. And the fact that you can believe I shouldn't steal your money--even though you might believe in Good and Evil--shows that this opinion (and more importantly: laws enforcing that opinion) is independent of the quesiton of absolute vs relative morality. Again, this is evidence that enforcing such a law is done so regardless and independent of the worldview of the people who created it. Which is another way of saying: it's not an enforcement of a worldview.

There is no need to retool my argument to exclude the desire jail the pedophile. I've already said numerous times that our laws should protect us from victimization, not from ourselves. In fact, that is the basis of my argument. Therefore, my positon [i.e. "it's anti-freedom and anti-human rights to want to jail people who aren't victimizing others merely because their behavior offends your personal sense of morality] already excludes the desire to jail the pedophile from the start.

[Cybrweez]

Thinking that your view is correct is one thing ... arguing for putting people in jail who don't hold your worldview is another thing entirely.

By all means, bold your thoughts and feel like you're different. I get your righteous indignation. But I'm sure you certainly would argue that one who doesn't hold your worldview (for instance, those who don't mind violating others' rights), should go to prison.

I'll call it a legal identity - if you make a law, you are legislating one thing is right, and another wrong. Period. Its really that simple.

But I know, much like the accounting identity MMT tries to make clear, it just doesn't ring for some.

If I thought my worldview was correct and everyone else was wrong, why would I be willing to let my children be Christians, if they want to be? Your characterization of me is entirely inaccurate.

But, aren't you saying rus is wrong? Or are you saying you hope he's right? Now I'm thoroughly confused.

EDIT: sorry, just read your last post. Actually, the picture you paint of the law is just the current, American understanding. You might hope that it takes root forever, everywhere, but its relatively new. The Constitution, and the reason for any basic rights, were believed by the founders to be given from a Creator. Not anything to do with stuff that didn't matter whether a god existed or not. But, b/c of this Creator, there were certain rights.

Now, we try to say, well, the rights are just there. Victimization, its just known its a right, b/c, well, it doesn't matter if there's a God or not, we just shouldn't victimize others. Duh, winning.

[Cybrweez]

Thanks, Andy.
I don't thank you as often as I should.
PS - both my son and two of my closest friends bear that name - and St Andrew (OK, the apostle Andrew to you) is an awesome saint)

Well, I don't thank ever. I figure its easy to know which posts people would thank anyway, and if it can't be figured out, why bother? But I do go back and forth on whether I should.

[Cybrweez]

My dear Orlion, what can you do when someone reduces all intelligent discussion to "You believe in fairy tales"? There is only so much you can say to such people. As long as they know next-to-nothing of the long history of my faith, in detail, there is nothing I can say to them. If they begin to learn exactly who John Chrysostom was, read some Alexander Men' or Alexander Schmemann, saw that - "Hey, these guys are actually quite reasonable and have thought about a lot of the same things I think about!", then maybe vistas might open for communication. But against uninformed dogma that knows only the fragmented local version of what it rails against? Can't do it, sir.

For my part, I reach a point where I give up. Seriously, its not really debate, but spewing of more stuff. I've seen the same from harbinger in the US Debt thread. I asked what's the problem w/the debt, as have others, and there's no answer. Rather, a friend says MMT is bunk. Then the next day a post about how terrible the debt is. Still, we're clueless about what the problem is.

I love Jesus' saying, don't cast your pearl before swine. Its hard to step away, you constantly want the last word, but I'm learning you just have to pick your battles. Now, this could be construed as the last word, so please, someone throw out something.

[Zarathustra]

Thinking that your view is correct is one thing ... arguing for putting people in jail who don't hold your worldview is another thing entirely.

By all means, bold your thoughts and feel like you're different. I get your righteous indignation.

I frequently use bold font to emphasize my main point and to grab the attention those who might be skimming, not necessarily to indicate an emotion like indignation. But yes, in this case, there is a bit of indignation in there.

But I'm sure you certainly would argue that one who doesn't hold your worldview (for instance, those who don't mind violating others' rights), should go to prison.

Don't be so sure. (See post above.) My opinion that pedophiles should go to jail has absolutely nothing to do with my position on the nature of reality, the question of god's existence, the afterlife, or anything else that fits into the term, "world view." My opinion is part of a "rights view," but not a world view. I would hold the same position even if I was a Christian.

I'll call it a legal identity - if you make a law, you are legislating one thing is right, and another wrong. Period. Its really that simple.

No, it's not that simple. Many laws have absolutely nothing to do with right/wrong. For instance, laws that determine how our President is selected, laws that declare federal holidays, etc., etc. How we choose to organize our society does not necessarily include our views on right/wrong. Much of it is pure bureaucracy.

If you really believe this--that laws are nothing more than an enforcement of right and wrong--then do you think it's okay to legislate a belief in God? Why or why not? This should be interesting ....

If you can't force people to believe in religious worldviews, then you can't force people to abide by religious world views. Pretending to not see the difference is pretending that the 1st amendment doesn't exist. Therefore, since there is a huge difference between making murder illegal and making Christianity compulsory, there has to be a difference between enforcing religious views and protecting people's rights.

Surely we can all (well, maybe all except one) understand there is a fundamental, categorical difference between dictating how people should act (anti-freedom) and dictating that people can't violate another person's freedom (pro-freedom). This religious ploy of pretending that there is no distinction between these two is disingenuous, anti-american, and frankly just plain ignorant.

But, aren't you saying rus is wrong? Or are you saying you hope he's right? Now I'm thoroughly confused.

I wish Rus was right. I wish an all-powerful being would make me immortal and let me live in Paradise. Who wouldn't want that? However, I've not seen any evidence to convince me of it.

[Orlion]

My dear Orlion, what can you do when someone reduces all intelligent discussion to "You believe in fairy tales"? There is only so much you can say to such people. As long as they know next-to-nothing of the long history of my faith, in detail, there is nothing I can say to them. If they begin to learn exactly who John Chrysostom was, read some Alexander Men' or Alexander Schmemann, saw that - "Hey, these guys are actually quite reasonable and have thought about a lot of the same things I think about!", then maybe vistas might open for communication. But against uninformed dogma that knows only the fragmented local version of what it rails against? Can't do it, sir.

For my part, I reach a point where I give up. Seriously, its not really debate, but spewing of more stuff. I've seen the same from harbinger in the US Debt thread. I asked what's the problem w/the debt, as have others, and there's no answer. Rather, a friend says MMT is bunk. Then the next day a post about how terrible the debt is. Still, we're clueless about what the problem is.

I love Jesus' saying, don't cast your pearl before swine. Its hard to step away, you constantly want the last word, but I'm learning you just have to pick your battles. Now, this could be construed as the last word, so please, someone throw out something.

Here's the thing: we aren't talking about Jesus' teaching or even if he is effective to enact redemption for mankind on a spiritual plan. Those things can be relegated to a personal, spiritual, and/or a non-observable realm. At that point, you either believe it or don't, there really is no material evidence to influence someone one way or the other (if there were, it wouldn't be a matter of faith). What is compared is when Jesus somehow bypasses the Law of Conservation of Matter in producing food out of nothing or somehow manages to not explode the entire state of Israel when he breaks the bonds of a bunch of water and forms other bonds with carbon from somewhere to make wine according to Thermodynamics. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't God suppose to only be able to do that which is intrinsically possible? And didn't Lewis, through his Jesus-lion, claim that God follows his own laws? How could we not compare these stories of Jesus with the fantastic holiday mascot of Coca-Cola?
Can these stories and teachings still be helpful, if fictional? Of course, I'd be lying if I said otherwise... I am posting on a board where a fictional series is hailed as a life changing experience with worthwhile lessons (and Rus, you sometimes use Superman references to make a point;)) However, that doesn't mean that Scriptures necessarily hold any objective spiritual truths, let alone historically accurate ones.
Here's another example: Some people will say that Jesus is the only recorded person in history to be resurrected. I could respond and say that Gandalf had been resurrected after his battle with the Balrog and Fist and Z would think we're both crazy.
The point being that the story of Jesus has a lot in common with fiction. And a lot of us don't think that there is any reason we should believe that it happened anymore than that Hogwarts exists. And you guys give us nothing. Cyber whines and tries to be clever and you (Rus) talk about history (which is only fruitful within the context of Christianity. In other words, you all ready accept the gospel of Jesus and the history connects your modern Church with that point in history both in doctrine and authority. Good job with that, but the problem still remains because some reject the gospel of Jesus as authentic or having substance).

[rusmeister]

A pedophile doesn't molest children because of a worldview ... he isn't trying to live in a consistent way with a belief. In fact, many pedophiles will admit that they know what they're doing is wrong, but do it anyway. The Dugard girl (in the news recently) who was kidnapped, held prisoner and for years, said that her captor/rapist cried afterwards in guilt and saught her forgiveness/comfort.

This is the only thing to respond to, Z. This IS the issue. You speak of a world view as something consciously held by a consciously thinking philosopher. I speak of a world view as how someone sees the world, whether or not they think about it. So of COURSE the pedophile has a world view. They may act in accordance with that world view, or do wickedness that they know to be wicked in spite of it. What I was saying applies equally to the pedophile who knows that his desire is wicked to the one that thinks it's 'all right'. And again, I speak of the pedophile specifically because this is an issue that (for now) we still agree on (but I think your grandchildren will disagree with mine on, because you really have abandoned the only basis that can really stop people from justifying him - you may disagree with those people, but will not a common moral basis to appeal to. Even now, we only coincidentally agree on the immorality of pedophilia. Even 75 years ago, the religious principle of morality united most people on these questions and so there was a common basis to which we could appeal to against the most radical intellectuals who would justify all behavior in theory, and now it does not unite us. We're only (by chance) going the same way on that issue for the moment, because of the momentum of our moral heritage, which has already been lost regarding adultery, promiscuity and homosexuality (in that historical order), and will eventually be lost on these other things as well.

So everyone has a world view, from the most ignorant rube (or urban intellectual) who never thinks about it to the most conscious philosopher.

[rusmeister]

Thanks, Andy.
I don't thank you as often as I should.
PS - both my son and two of my closest friends bear that name - and St Andrew (OK, the apostle Andrew to you) is an awesome saint)

Well, I don't thank ever. I figure its easy to know which posts people would thank anyway, and if it can't be figured out, why bother? But I do go back and forth on whether I should.

My thanks come from a place of exhaustion at trying to battle the uncommon nonsense of the modern world at numerical odds of ten to one, so the support is genuinely appreciated.

[rusmeister]

My dear Orlion, what can you do when someone reduces all intelligent discussion to "You believe in fairy tales"? There is only so much you can say to such people. As long as they know next-to-nothing of the long history of my faith, in detail, there is nothing I can say to them. If they begin to learn exactly who John Chrysostom was, read some Alexander Men' or Alexander Schmemann, saw that - "Hey, these guys are actually quite reasonable and have thought about a lot of the same things I think about!", then maybe vistas might open for communication. But against uninformed dogma that knows only the fragmented local version of what it rails against? Can't do it, sir.

For my part, I reach a point where I give up. Seriously, its not really debate, but spewing of more stuff. I've seen the same from harbinger in the US Debt thread. I asked what's the problem w/the debt, as have others, and there's no answer. Rather, a friend says MMT is bunk. Then the next day a post about how terrible the debt is. Still, we're clueless about what the problem is.

I love Jesus' saying, don't cast your pearl before swine. Its hard to step away, you constantly want the last word, but I'm learning you just have to pick your battles. Now, this could be construed as the last word, so please, someone throw out something.

Yeah. In the end, I, too, will shake the dust off my feet and logout forever. But there is good here - there are people who are not only intelligent - the least valuable quality - but worthy of dialog. That is the hope I hold out, supported when sometimes Ali or Murrin or somebody says a human word, but most of the time trampled on, so it's Harbinger, or now Orlion's "Jesus-lion" crack and so on. Mere heckling. And we can't - and shouldn't - bear the heckling forever.

I would hope for something like Lewis's Socratic Club - where the best of belief and unbelief meet, and both sides listen to each other and respond to points, rather than ignore them, when people have to sit and listen to a 20-minute paper, rather than merely spout off their own opinion and won't read more than a bite-sized post.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Socratic_Club
Commenting on the Socratic Club at Oxford, C.S. Lewis stated, “

In any fairly large and talkative community such as a university, there is always the danger that those who think alike should gravitate together into ‘coteries’ where they will henceforth encounter opposition only in the emasculated form of rumor that the outsiders say thus and thus. The absent are easily refuted, complacent dogmatism thrives, and differences of opinion are embittered by group hostility. Each group hears not the best, but the worst, that the other groups can say.

”

I'd say that I am trying to live that ideal by posting on a forum largely hostile to my faith., and I'd like to challenge unbelievers to do the same (meaning both to learn the best of what they would refute, and even to post, politely and regularly, on a forum generally hostile to their unbelief).

[rusmeister]

(No response to my earlier post? You can take it to a more relevant thread if you prefer, or if you feel you have already addressed it, please point me in that direction.)

Murrin, my apologies - the best posts tend to get back-burnered. Maybe later today (if I wind up home alone, I'll have the time such good questions deserve). Ali's waiting on me, too.