Forum

http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2009/07/does-this-make-sense-to-you-it-makes.html

I recently saw a bumper sticker that read, "Open-Minded Christian". This person had other bumper stickers that I agreed with, but this one puzzled me. Obviously it is possible that this person is the most "Open-Minded Christian I have ever crossed paths with on various topics, but the question I have is whether this, or any other religious person professing to be open minded, can truly have an open mind about their religion or view points that conflict with their teachings, in this case Christianity but others can be substituted in nicely. To be fair, I assume this person was talking about issues such as the right for Gays to married in the United States after seeing their other bumper stickers and not referencing other questioning of their religion, but the question still holds. My first thought was basically, " You may not be in line with the majority of your fellow believers in believing that Gay's are on the fast track to eternal damnation, but when it gets down to the details there is a large amount of things you (person driving the car now stands in for all the religious) simply have no ability to be open-minded about. Depending on the religion there are large number of things that have to get set off to the side when one opens up their mind or at least this is my assumption. Questions such as the existence of God or the belief in the bibles story of Jesus are required to be a Christian hence making them off limits if one wants to stay a Christian The point of this post is to start a discussion on whether the idea of an "Open Minded Christian" can hold up to closer scrutiny or whether the bumper sticker should have read, "Open Minded Christian On A Few Things".

I love quotes and I am currently reading Russell's "Why I Am Not a Christian" and I thought I would share some tidbits I thought delightful. These two are both regarding the way in which the United States, and many other countries pile on the punishment to reduce crime. Russell believes that retributive justice is not only immoral and ineffective, but also linked to the Christian faith. "There is another method (than Retributive Justice), more fundamental, and far more satisfactory when it succeeds. This is to alter men's characters and desires in such a way as to minimize occasions of conflict by making the success of one man's desires as far as possible consistent with that of another's" (p.64) I think that one of the gravest injustices of our time is that a few of the world's inhabitant's can have the ability to play chess on their home computers while many are forced to struggle to get clean water into their home. I think this quote alludes to the problems created by that inequality. "The vindictive feeling called "moral indignation" is merely a form of cruelty. Suffering to the criminal can never by justified by the notion of vindictive punishment. If education combined with kindness is equally effective, it is to be preferred; still more is it to be preferred if is is more effective. Of course the prevention of crime and the punishment of crime are two different questions; the object of causing pain to the criminal is presumably deterrent. If prisons were so humanized that a prisoner got a good education for nothing, people might commit crimes in order to qualify for entrance. No doubt prison must be less pleasant than freedom, but the best way to secure this result is to make freedom more pleasant than it sometimes is at present." (p.71) "To live a good life in the fullest sense a man must have a good education, friends, love, children (if her desires them), a suffcient income to keep him from want and grave anxiety, good health, and work which is not uninteresting. All of these things, in varying degrees, depend upon the community and are helped or hindered by political events. The good life must by lived in a good society and is not fully possible otherwise." (p.75) This last quote was in reference to the Christian ideal of personal salvation as the path to the "good life". This belief Russell's points to as causing the rampant individualism one can find in the West making it difficult for our societies to see the extremely strong force society has over the individual. More quotes to come as I find them.

I wonder if anyone else here listens to podcasts? I find them to be a great motivator to actually get some exercise, by taking long walks while listening to interesting discussions and interviews on my mp3 player. I thought that this group might share some of my interests, so if you've got any podcasts worth pointing out with a skeptical/godless side to them, here's a thread to let others know. Here's my top 5, in order of preference: Skeptoid - a GREAT podcast by Brian Dunning, where he covers various supernatural/pseudoscientific/otherwise interesting subjects with a critical eye. The episodes are really thoroughly researched, and of high quality. Highly recommended. Skeptic's Guide to the Universe - A Group of skeptics producing an interesting show that often has an interview with someone interesting, a section where they analyze recent news items; usually with a science angle in them, and some other stuff too. They also produce a shorter "The Sceptic's Guide 5X5" podcast, where the shows are 5 minutes long. Reasonable Doubts - A Group of skeptics from Grand Rapids, MI, make this very well produced show where they take a thoughtful, critical look into various phenomena surrounding religion. Occasionally they have interviews. This podcast deserves more attention! Quackcast - Evidence based ridicule of SCAMS (Supplements, Complementary and Alternative Medicine), by Dr. Mark A. Crislip. Great information and analysis on various popular health-claims, delivered with a self-(and others)deprecating sense of humour. Atheist Experience - a call-in show from Austin, Texas, where the hosts discuss various issues around atheism and theism and religion, taking in callers of various religious/atheistic persuasions, with various ideas, of very varying quality. Sometimes funny, sometimes frustrating (when you'd just want to butt in and have your say), well worth a listen. So anybody else have good shows in mind, not mentioned here?

" Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " To many, the above logic seems airtight. Responses to it are called theodicies, and are the topic of this thread.The problem of evil is often the tiebreaker for religious debates that get past teleological arguments. I will give evil a fairly narrow definition for this thread:Evil - actions morally reprehensible by human standards such as early deaths from natural forces OR what would be considered "sin" by whatever religion you are thinking about. As a non-theist, pick apart the following theodicies (these are the most common, but tell me if there are more): 1. Free will: God cannot eliminate evil without eliminating free will. The first objection to this argument is that it undermines omnipotence (bring in the concept of heaven, and ask if there is free will and no evil in heaven). However, if you accept that god cannot eliminate evil without eliminating free will, the next objection to this argument is that it does not account for natural disasters. 2. All part of god's plan: the evil now is necessary for good later. The first objection to this is that there is no shortage of gratuitous evil that does not further any "plan", such as malaria's 'relationship' to children in Africa and Asia. The religious objection to this objection is that humans with our feeble minds not finding a purpose for evil does not mean there is not one. 3. Sin, Karma, and Punishment: evil is punishment for sin, and people get what they deserve. The objection to this is the same as the objection to the God's plan justification--there is gratuitous evil that does not punish anyone who has done anything wrong (if someone brings in the concept of original sin to justify killing small children, your arguments are working ). 4. God is not omnipotent and/or not omniscient: this might work for polytheists, but not the Abrahamic religions which preach an omnipotent and omniscient god. Unless that Abrahamic person subscribes to the next one. 5. Satan: there is a god or demigod who brings evil into the world. The way believers in an omniscient/omnipotent god justify god allowing the existence of an evil force is usually one of the other theodices. Discuss.

Last Sunday night when I was at work in a homeless shelter in Minneapolis, which happens to be in a church because city law requires that all shelters be in churches, a woman came to the door with a donation of sandwiches. While waiting for me to fill out the paperwork for the sandwiches she asked me what denomination I am I told her that I am a "nothing" She had a hard time believing this at first and then asked me why I am here then. I run into this sentiment frequently at the shelter and it never fails to piss me off. Obviously if there are people who care about the homeless in their community they must be christian. I told her that the homeless have never cared that I don't believe in god. I knew what was coming next, but I was hoping she would drop it but she clearly wasn't the type. For the next ten minutes I was forced to listen to her "talk" me into believing in god while I filled out the previously mentioned paperwork. She had two arguments in her conversion repertoire. The first was the common, "How do you explain all of this then, making a sweeping gesture with her arms." I assume she meant the Earth and its inhabitants rather than a dirt parking lot in a bad neighborhood of Minneapolis. The second argument, if it can be called that was, "It takes more faith to not believe in a god than it takes to believe in one." The first is one I hear almost everytime someone feels the need to save me. What I have a hard time understanding is how the people who use this line of thought believe that their belief in god is a superior explanation to my "I don't know" What science has not already explained god does not simply take care of the rest. In fact, not only does belief in god not explain the things our society does not understand it adds one more really big idea that needs explaining, which is the existence of god itself. I chose to ignore this line of thought because I felt that the argument would go no where, but now I wish I would have began the debate. Her second argument was truly ridiculous. By making the statement that, "It takes more faith not to believe in god than it does to believe," a person is already assuming that the evidence for god is overwhelmingly in their favor. It may be the case, but if I already don't believe in god obviously I don't feel the same way about the evidence or what you take to be evidence. After simply ignoring her for much of the conversation she started repeating, "Think about it." This was when I finally started to respond and then she quickly left. This is another type of thinking that I face from this type of person frequently. Obviously, if a person is an atheist they must have never actually thought about the topic before. They then feel that if they merely lay the simplest arguments at my feet a revelation will take place and I will finally see the error of my ways. All I said to her on this topic was, "What makes you believe that after knowing me for only a few minutes that this is the first time that I have ever thought about the existence of god?" She said "think about it" one more time not realizing how much that pisses me off and left. This story isn't remarkable nor is it uncommon I would guess for many of us. I post it only because it would be interesting to hear what you all have to say on this topic and if you wish to post interesting conversion stories of your own. George

Last night there was a story on NPR (National Public Radio) that made a reference to original sin and it got me thinking. I have thought about this before and had come to similar conclusions, but I think yesterday was the first time I had put all of the pieces together at one time. God, in Christian thought, is omniscient or all knowing. This means that when he supposedly created Adam and Eve he knew he was creating something that was imperfect by his own stated standards and did it anyway. He then placed the Tree of the Knowledge of Life and Death in the Garden of Eden, again, with the full knowledge that they would eat from it. Adam and Eve, doing essentially what they were created to do, eat from the tree and then god punishes them. I have heard the argument here that this is where free will comes into the story, but that makes little sense because god knew they were too flawed to follow his directions yet set them up for failure anyways. Free will doesn't mean much if god already is supposed to know everything. This makes me wonder how Christians, Muslims, and Jews can believe both in a god who knows everything and the idea of heaven and hell. In my own case, god knew when he was creating me that I would be an atheist and would be sent to hell, but did it anyways. This makes no sense. Why have a heaven and hell as concepts of rewards and punishment based off a decision the subjects had no control over. If god knows everything and wants me to go to heavan then he simply would have made me better. If I were to build a toaster that didn't toast bread I surely couldn't blame the toaster, but it becomes even more ridiculous if one considers that I built a shitty toaster knowing it would be shitty and still blame the toaster.

I have ordered a copy of Bertrand Russell's "Why I am Not a Christian" and it occurred to me that I have not read any recent arguments for the existence of god. For the most part, I usually try to stay away from the thinking that one must ALWAYS give all sides of an argument equal time regardless of their merit, but in this case it is interesting to see what the other side is thinking. I found this website, not an authoritative site but it lays out the basic arguments on each side in a very understandable manner. The ontological argument for the existence of god is probably my favorite just for the fact that intelligent people have prescribed to such garbage thinking. http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/ I have an e-mail into a former philosophy professor of mine to see if he knows of any current arguments that merit time to read and when he gets back to me I will post his suggestions in this forum.

[COMMENT DELETED]