Topic: Can a Christian be a good American? (Read 11894 times)

Copernicus · « **Reply #40 on:** September 19, 2007, 01:31:41 PM »

Quote from: rareairpug on September 18, 2007, 11:29:09 PM

In the Robert Putnam lecture I referenced already in another thread, he actually made the point that religious people (not necessarily Christians) are statistically BETTER citizens than non-religious ones. Of course, he says that it is not because of their beliefs per se, but because they are involved in a community which makes them more aware and active in the civic arena. Nevertheless, there are now statistics which definitively answer the question posed in this thread. Anyways, just thought of Dicoll when I heard that info. Hope you are well wherever you are, pal. Cheerio!

Rare, I really think that you ought to read that book before you go touting it as support for your ideas about the ills of modern liberalism. I have already admonished you several times about post hoc fallacies, which attribute causal relationships between juxtaposed events. It is also true that atheists tend to commit proportionally fewer crimes than Christians, but that does not mean that Christianity causes criminal behavior (a conclusion that some atheists might easily come to). If you look at the demographics of atheists and Christians, you will find that a higher percentage of atheists are better educated. It may just be that well-educated people tend not to engage in as many crimes as poorly-educated people. A serious study of atheist and Christian behavior would compare like demographic groups.

Internet debates tend to be dominated by these back-of-the-envelope statistical claims, but statistics are really tricky. They can be misused to support just about any position in an argument.

rareairpug · « **Reply #41 on:** September 19, 2007, 09:56:13 PM »

Quote

The opening post details some of the conflicts faced by religious people, with respect to their allegiances. It does not attempt to define a good citizen.

Not define, but by stating what does NOT make a good citizen, you certainly put some qualifications on what a good citizen is, which is all that I said.

Quote

Compliance does make a good citizen from a governmental point of view.

Then isn't this an argument against your thesis?

Quote

Au contraire!
"A growing number of Canadians are losing their religion.
In fact, 4.8 million Canadians, 16 per cent of the population, declared themselves as having no religion, Statistics Canada reported Tuesday in the latest and final report to come from the 2001 census.
A decade ago only 12 per cent of Canadians said they had no religion. The increase represents a staggering 44 per cent jump.........."
http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=3904&sec=74&con=5

The above is based on 2001 statistics and we are very interested in how the 2006 census will turn out.

I see you've been busy!

rareairpug · « **Reply #42 on:** September 19, 2007, 10:09:24 PM »

Quote

Rare, I really think that you ought to read that book before you go touting it as support for your ideas about the ills of modern liberalism. I have already admonished you several times about post hoc fallacies, which attribute causal relationships between juxtaposed events. It is also true that atheists tend to commit proportionally fewer crimes than Christians, but that does not mean that Christianity causes criminal behavior (a conclusion that some atheists might easily come to). If you look at the demographics of atheists and Christians, you will find that a higher percentage of atheists are better educated. It may just be that well-educated people tend not to engage in as many crimes as poorly-educated people. A serious study of atheist and Christian behavior would compare like demographic groups.

Cop, I think you are reading a lot more into my comments than what I've actually been saying. First of all, I don't think I've made any comment on the "ills of modern liberalism." I'm just parroting the statistics that Putnam researched back to you. In fact, I don't believe either he or I even mentioned liberalism. What I brought up was the religiosity of a citizen. Now, while that may be more LIKELY to be lower in a liberal, I'm sure we would both admit that there are religious liberals and non-religious conservatives. This isn't about politics at all. I'm not sure why you are trying to make it so. (Interestingly enough, Putnam would have predicted that you would--but that is another conversation)

Second of all, I'm not claiming that this is the SOLE reason behind good citizenship or anything like that. Maybe I came across too strongly in my post there, but I was just trying to bring Dicoll out of hibernation.

Nevertheless, I think if you are going to argue with Dicoll that Christians are not good Americans, than you should at least have to answer the evidence that points to the contrary.

Quote

Internet debates tend to be dominated by these back-of-the-envelope statistical claims, but statistics are really tricky. They can be misused to support just about any position in an argument.

Fair enough. I just thought that ya'll might respect a Harvard prof. I mean, how could we, mere peons, possibly go against anything said by a highly-educated specialist like him??

Zagzagel · « **Reply #43 on:** October 25, 2007, 10:45:08 PM »

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

If one takes "the good book" seriously, I cannot see how!

Some just don't waste their time on those who aren't genuine.. tis all.
But I am the exception.. I love throwing my pearls.. ha

Theologically, no, because his allegiance is to Yahweh, the ancient Hebrew god.

I believe this is exactly the spot where the converse should end. Do you really understand the theology of studious saints?

Dicoll · « **Reply #44 on:** October 26, 2007, 06:51:53 AM »

"Do you really understand the theology of studious saints?"

Yes, it always boils down to interpretation.

It must be part of gods grand design to have constructed his book of rules and conduct in such a way, that it can be interpreted in many different fashions, in order to cause maximum confusion and derision amongst his followers.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #45 on:** October 26, 2007, 08:17:57 AM »

That is the official line out of the atheist's handbook. No doubt, there have been people running around with all sorts of crazy interpretations. But that doesn't mean that all interpretations are equally valid. Some of them are stupid. Some passages are clear, others less so.

What you and your other cohorts fail to understand is that if you choose to make that argument then we are free to make the same argument about anything that comes out of your mouths.

For example, let's focus on this:

"in order to cause maximum confusion and derision amongst his followers."

Why would you say that you love to run around in a ballerina's skirt in your neighbor's basement? That is a silly thing to say. Why would you say that?

Dicoll · « **Reply #46 on:** October 26, 2007, 09:59:55 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on October 26, 2007, 08:17:57 AM

That is the official line out of the atheist's handbook.

I am sure it has been said before but I came up with it on my own.
I guess it just makes sense.

Quote

No doubt, there have been people running around with all sorts of crazy interpretations. But that doesn't mean that all interpretations are equally valid. Some of them are stupid. Some passages are clear, others less so.

That is precisely the point. Who gets to interpret what is stupid and what is less so?
To an Atheist all god interpretations are equally strange and invalid.

Quote

What you and your other cohorts fail to understand is that if you choose to make that argument then we are free to make the same argument about anything that comes out of your mouths.

Atheist only make one claim, namely that your claim is bogus.

Quote

Why would you say that you love to run around in a ballerina's skirt in your neighbor's basement? That is a silly thing to say. Why would you say that?

Why indeed.
And why would you write that?
Are you at the end of your wit?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #47 on:** October 26, 2007, 12:03:28 PM »

Quote

Why indeed.
And why would you write that?
Are you at the end of your wit?

I wrote that because that is what you said! Who are you to say my interpretation is stupid?

Zagzagel · « **Reply #48 on:** October 26, 2007, 08:38:36 PM »

hehe..

Dicoll · « **Reply #49 on:** October 28, 2007, 08:02:41 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on October 26, 2007, 12:03:28 PM

Quote
Why indeed.
And why would you write that?
Are you at the end of your wit?

I wrote that because that is what you said! Who are you to say my interpretation is stupid?

You lost me completely.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #50 on:** October 29, 2007, 09:16:39 AM »

Your boss eats Wheaties?

How is that relevant?

Dicoll · « **Reply #51 on:** October 29, 2007, 11:36:30 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on October 29, 2007, 09:16:39 AM

Your boss eats Wheaties?

How is that relevant?

Are you cross-communicating from a different thread or has the mind virus taken its toll?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #52 on:** October 29, 2007, 04:39:31 PM »

Let's just say that in the future when you think something 'just makes sense' you might want to consider getting a second and a third opinion. And by all means, please abstain from operating heavy machinery. At least, don't hope that by reading the manual you know how to do it. You'll be better off if someone showed you, I think.

Dicoll · « **Reply #53 on:** October 30, 2007, 05:46:30 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on October 29, 2007, 04:39:31 PM

Let's just say that in the future when you think something 'just makes sense' you might want to consider getting a second and a third opinion. And by all means, please abstain from operating heavy machinery. At least, don't hope that by reading the manual you know how to do it. You'll be better off if someone showed you, I think.

I s'pose that your machines are all running by divine guidance.
Keep your eyes closed, shut out the world and pray for the best.
I guess that's what makes sense to your kind.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #54 on:** October 30, 2007, 10:45:19 PM »

Now you are talking about cheeseburgers. I really don't understand you, Dicoll. You come here all talking as though you've got the intellectual upper hand, and you say something silly about not putting pickles on a cheeseburger, only on regular hamburgers? That's your argument? You're killing me.

Dicoll · « **Reply #55 on:** October 31, 2007, 08:10:09 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on October 30, 2007, 10:45:19 PM

Now you are talking about cheeseburgers. I really don't understand you, Dicoll. You come here all talking as though you've got the intellectual upper hand, and you say something silly about not putting pickles on a cheeseburger, only on regular hamburgers? That's your argument? You're killing me.

You're speaking in tongues again.

Never understood that gibberish.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #56 on:** November 19, 2007, 10:11:23 AM »

Before I enter this into my book of anecdotes, I want to be crystal clear. Dicoll, do you not understand my comment:

Quote

No doubt, there have been people running around with all sorts of crazy interpretations. But that doesn't mean that all interpretations are equally valid. Some of them are stupid. Some passages are clear, others less so.

What you and your other cohorts fail to understand is that if you choose to make that argument then we are free to make the same argument about anything that comes out of your mouths.

You did not think my interpretations of your statements made any sense. Clearly they did not. Don't you see that the same principle can be applied towards Biblical interpretation? Not all interpretations of the Scriptures are justifiable... some are better than others. If this is not true in regards to the Scriptures, it is not true of any written text... including whatever it is you say.

You responded to Zag:

Quote

Yes, it always boils down to interpretation.

It must be part of gods grand design to have constructed his book of rules and conduct in such a way, that it can be interpreted in many different fashions, in order to cause maximum confusion and derision amongst his followers.

But it is not actually true that just because it has been interpreted in 'many different fashions' that it reasonably can be interpreted 'in many different fashions.'

Your argument is not a rational one. It is a pot shot, nothing more. If it is anything more, than you should refrain in the future from such pointed jabs at ballerinas and their skirts.

Dicoll · « **Reply #57 on:** November 19, 2007, 11:06:58 AM »

"But it is not actually true that just because it has been interpreted in 'many different fashions' that it reasonably can be interpreted 'in many different fashions.'
Your argument is not a rational one. It is a pot shot, nothing more."

The Abrahamic God is the root of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Bah

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #58 on:** November 19, 2007, 12:03:10 PM »

"The Abrahamic God is the root of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Bah

Dicoll · « **Reply #59 on:** November 19, 2007, 02:05:11 PM »

"This has nothing to do with atheism or interpreting it."
That what I said.

"This has to do with your silly challenge that people have disagreed on how to interpret the Christian Scriptures. "
Nothing silly about it. Disagreements of scripture interpretation has caused much heartship including your Civil War. The effects of varying interpretations are all over christianity. Just look at all the different factions.

"If your position is that atheism requires no interpretation because it stakes no territory I don't think that is a point in your favor."
That has been my position all along. Atheism is a defensive position saying that religious proposals are nonsense and irrational.

"If in order to escape your own argument you are forced to say nothing of substance at all, that can only mean that your argument has nothing of substance going for it."
How can I counter with substance, that which has no substance.

"So, atheism proposes that it doesn't propose anything, is that it?"
No, Atheism says that your claim is bogus because of a lack of substance.

"In not proposing that it does not propose something does it not in fact propose something? I think you're wrong that agnosticism requires no interpretation. I am glad to hear you finally admit that there is a god. You are so close to becoming a Christian."
See how you just spun this nonsense out of your own misunderstanding of Atheism.

Author Topic: Can a Christian be a good American? (Read 11894 times)