What good had Christianity done to the world since 2000 years ago?

[Neverfly]

Here we go again. Whenever you get called out on a mistake or put in a position to admit you were wrong, you accuse the other of twisting your words. It's getting very tiresome.

-Sigh...-
No, Balerion. I have not been put in any kind of a position, either.

I said that they often are naturally mistrusting but because they are children, they can still be manipulated into letting down their guard so parents must teach them to totally mistrust, no matter what.

What did I twist around? You just said that they need to be taught to avoid trusting people. Your whole point earlier was that mistrust of strangers is innate, that it doesn't need to be taught.

Perhaps I worded that one sentence ambiguously, but considering there were more words in my post that are excluded from that one sentence you quoted, I can claim your comprehension is at fault.

I said that they mistrust but that stranger may try to gain their trust in spite of the childs instincts and so the parent must teach them to not let that happen because it is dangerous. This does not mean children will up and just trust strangers- it means that their trust can be bought because they are Children and not prone to thinking things all the way through.

http://www.teachkidshow.com/teach-your-child-to-trust-their-instincts/

A child is more likely to trust a stranger that seems familiar because that's the "village." But to one who is not of the village, the child is naturally inclined to be protective.
This isn't all black and white- it's a complex issue of early brain development and a balance between what they follow as instinct and what they're told.
They are told that they are supposed to mistrust and to trust at the same time.
Trust a cop. Trust a teacher. Don't trust the guy down the street. But you can trust Mr. Johnson Next Door. He's ok.
A child is more likely to make up his own damn mind after a while.

 

[Balerion]

-Sigh...-
No, Balerion. I have not been put in any kind of a position, either.

Of course you have. Well, I mean, you put yourself there, but there you are nonetheless.

I said that they often are naturally mistrusting but because they are children, they can still be manipulated into letting down their guard so parents must teach them to totally mistrust, no matter what.

But they're not often naturally mistrusting. How many times has a child in the line at a grocery story turned around in his or her cart to have a chat with you? Basically every time, right? Black kids, white kids, Asian kids, Arab kids, whatever. Kids aren't naturally distrustful, which is why we have to hammer home to them the concepts of not talking to strangers, and never going somewhere with someone unless the child actually knows them.

Perhaps I worded that one sentence ambiguously, but considering there were more words in my post that are excluded from that one sentence you quoted, I can claim your comprehension is at fault.

You are hysterical. You can barely form a coherent sentence, and you're calling me stupid? You constantly contradict yourself and then blame others for not understanding what you're actually trying to say. The act was old the first time you were here, so I don't know what makes you think it's going to go over better this time around. Maybe you need another vacation.

I said that they mistrust but that stranger may try to gain their trust in spite of the childs instincts and so the parent must teach them to not let that happen because it is dangerous. This does not mean children will up and just trust strangers- it means that their trust can be bought because they are Children and not prone to thinking things all the way through.

So, in other words, they don't trust them but they trust them because they have candy, or because they tell lies to them about their parents, the belief of which requires--what's that?--trust. I see. Sound logic. Was that in your dissertation?

A child is more likely to trust a stranger that seems familiar because that's the "village." But to one who is not of the village, the child is naturally inclined to be protective.

You realize this is a nonsense sentence, right?

Strangers aren't familiar. Skin color isn't a deciding factor. The difference between a child who doesn't know better getting in a stranger's van and not getting in a stranger's van is simply how creepily the stranger behaves, or perhaps how scary the stranger looks. It has nothing to do with familiarity, because strangers can't be familiar--they're strangers.

This isn't all black and white- it's a complex issue of early brain development

Which you clearly don't grasp at all.

 

[Neverfly]

Yes, you make a lot of Claims, Balerion. That's all you make.

In the meantime, in our Melting Pot society, different looking people are now the "Familiar Strangers." You're fitting a round peg in a square hole just to win an argument with no regard as to learning what is the most likely and acceptable course.

I find that dishonest. You're cherry picking. Frankly, an honest person would be willing to accept their stance may have errors. That you're willing to ignore facts while promoting those that you favor shows you have interest only in winning the argument. Clearly so as you'll spout off claims of victory prematurely.

 

[Balerion]

Yes, you make a lot of Claims, Balerion. That's all you make.

In the meantime, in our Melting Pot society, different looking people are now the "Familiar Strangers." You're fitting a round peg in a square hole just to win an argument with no regard as to learning what is the most likely and acceptable course.

I find that dishonest. You're cherry picking. Frankly, an honest person would be willing to accept their stance may have errors. That you're willing to ignore facts while promoting those that you favor shows you have interest only in winning the argument. Clearly so as you'll spout off claims of victory prematurely.

None of this makes any sense. From your decision to capitalize the "C" in "claims," to the accusations of cherry picking, to the incomprehensible "square peg...with no regard as to learning what is the most likely and acceptable course," comment, to the obvious "I'm rubber you're glue" final paragraph, this entire post looks like you took a bunch of words, threw them against a wall and hope some of them stuck.

Bottom line: Your contention that mistrust is the inherent default position of all humans is incorrect.

 

[river]

None of this makes any sense. From your decision to capitalize the "C" in "claims," to the accusations of cherry picking, to the incomprehensible "square peg...with no regard as to learning what is the most likely and acceptable course," comment, to the obvious "I'm rubber you're glue" final paragraph, this entire post looks like you took a bunch of words, threw them against a wall and hope some of them stuck.

Bottom line: Your contention that mistrust is the inherent default position of all humans is incorrect.

I agree

Hence why have children going missing and fraud of all kinds

 

[wynn]

Neverfly..Yes. Certain prejudices preexist their moral justification by religion. But the question remains as to what effect justifying your personal prejudice as the will of God has on your behavior. I say it CAUSES discrimination and intolerance that would otherwise not be acted on. Furthermore, demonizing the particular person you now can rightfully persecute as say a heretic or devil worshipper or infidel or sodomite or jewish viper identifies them with absolute evil. They are on the devil's side, and this gives you even more incentive to strike out against them. You are afterall fighting for team God, and so it becomes your sacred duty to take away their rights and disempower the person you originally only had a prejudice against. Religion is to prejudice what gasoline is to flame, and when released on a mass hysterical scale it becomes a wildfire that nobody can control anymore.

Then what does this say about human nature and human goodness?
That they are apparently awfully easy to corrupt.


So either aggressive behavior is an inherent part of human nature anyway (and can take on many expressions, from religious fundamentalism to militant atheism),
or we have to settle for the fact that human goodness isn't much good to begin with.
Unless you can come up with another option.


The problem with religion bashing and the trivialization of religion (ie. saying it's man-made and such) is that the corollary implication of such criticism is that human nature is unsteady, easy to corrupt and that human goodness is weak and powerless against evil.
Surely this is not the conclusion that many people would accept with open arms.


However, one could also argue that aggressiveness is natural for humans, unavoidable, pointless to fight against because it is impossible to eradicate it, but that only those forms of aggressiveness that are ascribed or connected to religion should be eliminated, while other forms of aggressiveness should be tolerated.
As if to say, "You can maim, torture, blackmail, wrongfully terminate employment contract, kill in the name of money/political power/etc., but not in the name of God."

 

[wynn]

you have interest only in winning the argument.

Who isn't interested in winning?

The difference is only in how different people go about trying to win.

 

[Neverfly]

None of this makes any sense. From your decision to capitalize the "C" in "claims," to the accusations of cherry picking, to the incomprehensible "square peg...with no regard as to learning what is the most likely and acceptable course," comment, to the obvious "I'm rubber you're glue" final paragraph, this entire post looks like you took a bunch of words, threw them against a wall and hope some of them stuck.

Bottom line: Your contention that mistrust is the inherent default position of all humans is incorrect.

Well, I posted a link. You ignored it. I can post more... with quotes, as well. Harder for you to just breeze by that way.
http://kidshealth.org/parent/positive/talk/stranger_smarts.html
"Most kids are likely to be wary of strangers who are mean-looking or appear frightening in some way. But the truth is, most child molesters and abductors are those familiar..."
http://www.ncpc.org/topics/violent-crime-and-personal-safety/strangers
http://www.chop.edu/healthtips/fears-and-phobias.html
http://www.healthofchildren.com/S/Stranger-Anxiety.html
"This stranger anxiety is a normal part of a child's cognitive development . It usually begins at around eight or nine months and generally lasts into the child's second year. Normal separation anxiety develops during this same period. Both of these responses arise because the baby has reached a stage of mental development where she can differentiate her caretakers from other people, and she has a strong preference for familiar faces. Rather than indicating emotional difficulties, the emergence of a fear of strangers in the second half of the first year is an indicator of mental development."

"Infants may react immediately and vigorously to strangers, especially if approached suddenly or picked up by someone unfamiliar. The child may be particularly upset around people who look different to her, for example, people with glasses or men with beards. The setting and way in which the stranger approaches the child can influence how the child may respond. If the stranger approaches slowly when the caregiver is nearby, smiling and speaking softly, offering a toy, the infant will sometimes show interest rather than distress. However, the degree of distress shown by an infant to a stranger varies greatly from baby to baby, a finding that many believe to be rooted in the temperament of the infant. A genetic basis for the development of stranger anxiety has also been shown by twin research. Identical twins show more similar onset of stranger distress than fraternal twins."
Very young children will cling to their mothers at the approach of a stranger... Trust is a learned behavior. I can post a ton of links dealing with how to teach your child to trust, as well.
What I said made perfect sense and you're simply pretending it didn't in order to make it appear as though I'm talking nonsense, yet, you're projecting your behavior, here. You're the one throwing your opinion against the wall hoping it would stick.
The problem is, it won't. You don't know much about Biology, Genetics and Inherent Behaviors. You believe all behaviors are learned and even a college freshman biology student knows that's nonsense.
Next time you want to talk nonsense and hope it sticks, keep the projection of behaviors to yourself. And you should, at the very least, look up your topic before you go claiming precocious victory and declaring that the other party is not making sense.

I had said in many different ways that the average natural behavior is mistrust of unknowns and different or odd people. I did not contend that the default for all children is mistrust. You changed my wording.
And if you go claiming I changed my position after you changed my wording and I corrected your false quoting of what I've said, you will succeed only in showing the use of tactics, not reasoning and intelligent discussion.

River,
I never claimed that children are totally mistrusting. I claimed the exact opposite. I claimed they are wary of strangers but adults are good at manipulation which is why we must teach our children total mistrust and to follow their instincts.
You clearly read none of what I said to have interjected what you said. It doesn't follow.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/face/201101/stranger-danger
You also ignored the points where it's shown that the majority of abductions, etc. are performed by someone familiar, trusted or known by the child.

Who isn't interested in winning?

The difference is only in how different people go about trying to win.

The interest is in learning. To examine all points of view and the evidence that supports them; not just thump your fist on the table and declare your opinion is the one true right opinion that trumps them all.

 

[Balerion]

Then what does this say about human nature and human goodness?
That they are apparently awfully easy to corrupt.

I think it would be more accurate to say that humans are vulnerable. Whether its as children, idealistic youths, or desperate adults.

So either aggressive behavior is an inherent part of human nature anyway (and can take on many expressions, from religious fundamentalism to militant atheism),
or we have to settle for the fact that human goodness isn't much good to begin with.
Unless you can come up with another option.

I'm still waiting to meet this so-called "aggressive atheist" that is supposed to be the non-believing analog of the religious fundamentalist. At this point, he's like Bigfoot, in that all these loony theists and agnostics claim he's out there, but nobody can come up with anything but shaky video or fuzzy photos.

Anyway, I'd have to say you're offering a false dichotomy here. (Though you did so very kindly invite us to submit our own alternatives) I'd just point to the fact that we know, and can demonstrate, that human goodness can be pretty freaking good. And the bad can be awful. We can--and do--have it both ways.

The problem with religion bashing and the trivialization of religion (ie. saying it's man-made and such) is that the corollary implication of such criticism is that human nature is unsteady, easy to corrupt and that human goodness is weak and powerless against evil.

Two things: First, to say religion is man-made isn't to bash it. It's a fact, not a commentary. Secondly, I don't agree with your corollaries. Good and evil are not only subjective qualities, but also have absolutely nothing to do with human biology. There is no "good" gene, no virus that makes you become evil. Morality is man-made. Even altruism is a form of self-preservation, so this quality you think is so corruptible doesn't even exist.That isn't to say there aren't people looking to do what you might call "evil" things, of course, nor that people can't push back against it and fight for their ideals, so it's also incorrect to say that we're powerless. It isn't about eradicating "evil," it's about stopping it when you see it.

Surely this is not the conclusion that many people would accept with open arms.

So? Oh, that's right, your worldview is dependant on other people, so if it isn't popular, wynn can't play. Got it.

However, one could also argue that aggressiveness is natural for humans, unavoidable, pointless to fight against because it is impossible to eradicate it, but that only those forms of aggressiveness that are ascribed or connected to religion should be eliminated, while other forms of aggressiveness should be tolerated.
As if to say, "You can maim, torture, blackmail, wrongfully terminate employment contract, kill in the name of money/political power/etc., but not in the name of God."

And here's the portion of the evening where wynn pulls a gigantic non-sequitur right out of her...well, let's assume it's her closet. Maybe the guest room. Anyway, this makes no sense at all. Arguing against religious authority does not mean that all other forms of tyranny and oppression are acceptable. How would you even come up with that? Oh, I just remembered: by your "logic," if one says that religion in man-made, then they must necessarily accept that human nature is absolute garbage and lay down while the proverbial tank rides right over us. Well, sister, thankfully most of us don't live in that world, and aren't subject to your crazy commandments.

 

[wynn]

The interest is in learning. To examine all points of view and the evidence that supports them; not just thump your fist on the table and declare your opinion is the one true right opinion that trumps them all.

Learning, examining points - for what other purpose, if not for winning?

 

[Neverfly]

Learning, examining points - for what other purpose, if not for winning?

I suppose it depends on how you define "winning."
If a member realizes an error, causing them to not win the argument (lose the argument) you could say he won out, by learning a concept which was foreign to him before.
I seen no sense in debating the semantics with you, Wynn.

 

[elte]

What good had Christianity done to the world since 2000 years ago?

I see sort of a mixed benefit from Christianity and other religions that generally call for love much more than hate. Society is definitely nicer, yet the good feeling is greatly lessened by the artificiality of religions.

 

[Magical Realist]

Then what does this say about human nature and human goodness?
That they are apparently awfully easy to corrupt.


So either aggressive behavior is an inherent part of human nature anyway (and can take on many expressions, from religious fundamentalism to militant atheism),
or we have to settle for the fact that human goodness isn't much good to begin with.
Unless you can come up with another option.


The problem with religion bashing and the trivialization of religion (ie. saying it's man-made and such) is that the corollary implication of such criticism is that human nature is unsteady, easy to corrupt and that human goodness is weak and powerless against evil.
Surely this is not the conclusion that many people would accept with open arms.


However, one could also argue that aggressiveness is natural for humans, unavoidable, pointless to fight against because it is impossible to eradicate it, but that only those forms of aggressiveness that are ascribed or connected to religion should be eliminated, while other forms of aggressiveness should be tolerated.
As if to say, "You can maim, torture, blackmail, wrongfully terminate employment contract, kill in the name of money/political power/etc., but not in the name of God."

Religion has an advantage in that it starts brainwashing kids very early, even before they attend school. By the time I reached 1st grade I was well programmed with the fear of Jesus AND Satan. It takes many years of individual searching and exploration to finally deprogram all that religion out of us. Today I can proudly say that I no longer see humans as evil and wretched sinners deserving of eternal torture in hell. Can you say the same?

 

[Magical Realist]

Great quotes by the late Christopher Hitchens:


“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"The only position that leaves me with no cognitive dissonance is atheism. It is not a creed. Death is certain, replacing both the siren-song of Paradise and the dread of Hell. Life on this earth, with all its mystery and beauty and pain, is then to be lived far more intensely: we stumble and get up, we are sad, confident, insecure, feel loneliness and joy and love. There is nothing more; but I want nothing more."

―The Portable Atheist

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"By trying to adjust to the findings that it once tried so viciously to ban and repress, religion has only succeeded in restating the same questions that undermined it in earlier epochs. What kind of designer or creator is so wasteful and capricious and approximate? What kind of designer or creator is so cruel and indifferent? And—most of all—what kind of designer or creator only chooses to “reveal” himself to semi-stupefied peasants in desert regions?"

―The Portable Atheist

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species."

―God Is Not Great

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"What happens to the faith healer and the shaman when any poor citizen can see the full effect of drugs or surgeries, administered without ceremonies or mystifications? Roughly the same thing as happens to the rainmaker when the climatologist turns up, or to the diviner from the heavens when schoolteachers get hold of elementary telescopes."

―God Is Not Great

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Religion looks forward to the destruction of the world…. Perhaps half aware that its unsupported arguments are not entirely persuasive, and perhaps uneasy about its own greedy accumulation of temporal power and wealth, religion has never ceased to proclaim the Apocalypse and the day of judgment."

―God Is Not Great

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody—not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms—had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance, and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion."

―God Is Not Great

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human mammals.

―God Is Not Great

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"If god really wanted people to be free of [wicked thoughts], he should have taken more care to invent a different species."

―God Is Not Great

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Is it too modern to notice that there is nothing [in the ten commandments] about the protection of children from cruelty, nothing about rape, nothing about slavery, and nothing about genocide? Or is it too exactingly “in context” to notice that some of these very offenses are about to be positively recommended?"

―God Is Not Great

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important. Where once it used to be able, by its total command of a worldview, to prevent the emergence of rivals, it can now only impede and retard—or try to turn back—the measurable advances that we have made.

Sometimes, true, it will artfully concede them. But this is to offer itself the choice between irrelevance and obstruction, impotence or outright reaction, and, given this choice, it is programmed to select the worse of the two.

Meanwhile, confronted with undreamed-of vistas inside our own evolving cortex, in the farthest reaches of the known universe, and in proteins and acids which constitute our nature, religion offers either annihilation in the name of god, or else the false promise that if we take a knife to our foreskins, or pray in the right direction, or ingest pieces of wafer, we shall be “saved.”

―God Is Not Great

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it."

―God Is Not Great

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake."

―God Is Not Great

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Religion is man-made. Even the men who made it cannot agree on what their prophets or redeemers or gurus actually said or did."

―God Is Not Great

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in a quite different world."

―God Is Not Great

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves."

―Hitch-22

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Faith is the surrender of the mind; it’s the surrender of reason, it’s the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals. It’s our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




"Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the ‘transcendent’ and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don’t be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[wynn]

Religion has an advantage in that it starts brainwashing kids very early, even before they attend school. By the time I reached 1st grade I was well programmed with the fear of Jesus AND Satan. It takes many years of individual searching and exploration to finally deprogram all that religion out of us. Today I can proudly say that I no longer see humans as evil and wretched sinners deserving of eternal torture in hell. Can you say the same?

I was never "programmed" the way you were, so I can't relate.

However, what remains open is the issue of the apparently easy-to-corrupt human nature.

 

[Syne]

Has anyone mentioned it stemming the expansion of Islam?

"Although Europe had been exposed to Islamic culture for centuries through contacts in Iberian Peninsula and Sicily, much knowledge in areas such as science, medicine, and architecture was transferred from the Islamic to the western world during the crusade era." -wiki(Crusades)​

 

[Magical Realist]

I was never "programmed" the way you were, so I can't relate.

However, what remains open is the issue of the apparently easy-to-corrupt human nature.

No..what only remains is the easy-to-corrupt nature of a child's mind. And nobody to my knowledge has ever questioned that.

 

[Magical Realist]

Has anyone mentioned it stemming the expansion of Islam?

"Although Europe had been exposed to Islamic culture for centuries through contacts in Iberian Peninsula and Sicily, much knowledge in areas such as science, medicine, and architecture was transferred from the Islamic to the western world during the crusade era." -wiki(Crusades)​

Good point. We have Islam to thank for the preservation of Greek and Roman manuscripts while Christians were busy burning them. Also the very first universities in Europe were derived from Islamic culture. Then there's that whole algebra thing we got from them too. Where would science be today without algebra?

 

[qsa]

I was never "programmed" the way you were, so I can't relate.

However, what remains open is the issue of the apparently easy-to-corrupt human nature.

Of course individual and group behavior is quite complex (psychology, sociology). But my main take is that the group leaders set the tone for the group like bird flocks. Then the group being one of the main powers that makes up society, such as political, economic, military or religious will act in such a way to enhance its role. Usually these groups start by having a co-operative type behavior since they are weak and they need to be established. But as soon as they become strong their tactic changes and will lean toward more aggressive behavior so as to keep the status or enhance position. Such a technique is very humanly like. And the leaders are well versed in this technique as individuals(That is how they became leaders in first place), so they use that same game to enhance their groups.

Examples are abounded; just watch how rich people typically resort to arrogance while poor people are more humble like.

Even all religions started in a humble way, and as a matter of fact they all started as a reaction to some injustice in society, slowly negotiating and gaining power. It is only when they became powerful that that their aggressive behavior starts. And that is true for all other power pillars in society. And society as a whole also acts in this fashion and so do nations and group of nations.

 

[wynn]

I suppose it depends on how you define "winning."
If a member realizes an error, causing them to not win the argument (lose the argument) you could say he won out, by learning a concept which was foreign to him before.
I seen no sense in debating the semantics with you, Wynn.

And the difference between a theist and an atheist is just a semantic one, too, yeah.