Breivik claimed that he is a Christian in various forums, but most explicitly and in greatest detail in the 1,500-page manifesto he compiled over several months and posted on the Internet.
"At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised (sic) and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church," the 32-year-old Breivik wrote. "I consider myself to be 100 percent Christian."
So what have we learned children? A person who lacks "lack god belief" can be a Christian and a Catholic Christian who denies a specific philosophical view of God can be an Atheist.
Even Sam Harris acknowledges that Breivik isn't the fundamentalist-Christian the media / certain New-Atheists want to paint him as (link: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/christian-terrorism-and-islamophobia/). I don't see how anyone whose spent the time reading his (Breivik's) manifesto can come to the conclusion that he is (Christian).
"Richard Dawkins also called himself a "Cultural Christian" once. Let me see Breivik is a 'Cultural Christian" so is Dawkins? Do the math.;-)"
The big difference that seems to have gone unnoticed is the modus of intent. Breivik, at age 15, decidedly and consciously became a christian by being baptised.
If what he called being 'part of monocultural Europe', the basis of his manifesto, was important , to Breivik it was necessary to be identified as a christian.
Whether Sam Harris believes Breivik was a 'fundamentalist christian' or not, is rather moot. It nonetheless, constitutes one of the base premises that Breivik claims, among a number of others, that clearly distinguishes and characterizes one as a member of the 'monocultural Europe' family.
Ben, your comment, "Plus there is a clear link between Dawkins and Breivik since they are both "Cultural Christians"." My son, you have learned well the intricate art of mirror illusion and pious conflation from the great Masters of Apologetics.
I mention Harris because of his past (current?) disposition toward Christianity / Christians / anyone claiming to be Christian. If "even" Harris - a strong critic of Christianity - is willing to consider that Breivik isn't Christian, then I think there is something to be said there.
If the point is moot, then I think it's moot because / in light of the reality that no 'follower of Christ' would go off setting bombs or slaughtering people, regardless of a commitment they made at the age of 15.
*Note that I say this not fully understanding where you're coming from, Papalinton.
Andrew also said in his declaration that he considers himself not religious by any stretch, and that he admittedly uses religion as a crutch, and that he's actually agnostic about God.
I tried to stop the noise about this over at Debunking Christianity.
...oh well.
I think that what people are reacting to is legitimate: namely, the conservative punditry which are making the same excuses for Breivik's crusader restorationism that they reject when similarly made by others for Jihadism.
But yeah, we shouldn't look at Breivik as a normal Christian. I ask that people do not look at Stalin as a normal atheist. I ask that people do not look at bin Laden as a normal Muslim. I think that this is all only too fair.
Up to apologetics/counter-apologetics, Breivik's atrocities have little significance.
Does anyone really think they can make a point using the proclamations of a mad man? Did Ted Kaczynski prove anything one way or the other about those who want clean water?
If anyone can tell me whether Christ rose from the dead based on what Discovery Channel gunman James Lee thought about the subject, by all means (Pappy) let me know.
"But yeah, we shouldn't look at Breivik as a normal Christian. I ask that people do not look at Stalin as a normal atheist. I ask that people do not look at bin Laden as a normal Muslim. I think that this is all only too fair."
I agree with you Jesse, Breivik is not a christian in the traditional sense. But what is the traditional sense? Nobody on this thread seems to know, including me.
Maniacs can and do upset any society for all manner of reasons regardless of their religious predisposition or not. More importantly is how this ever so secular nation is rallying enormously and courageously around, and to a person, declaring that not one bit of the Breivik tragedy is going to derail the kind of life Norwegians enjoy. Indeed this tragedy makes them so much the stronger as a nation, a testament they are tracking along the right and balanced path dedicated to human flourishing. And there has been no call for revenge, no increase in the level of institutional punishment to be metered out to the perpetrator. Even the mother of Breivik is being comforted by the nation, with over 38,000 people now registered as a helper to see and help her through this tragedy. She too is an unintended victim of this crime, not of her making. Such a huge numbers for such a small population.
To me, that is the surest sign of a peaceful, loving caring society that has matured into a nation worthy of our deepest respect and admiration. Life can be good with god or without god. Indeed god is unnecessary but it is acknowledged that this is important for those who wish it so.
I am not convinced that Dr Reppert's OP somehow has avoided missing the boat on this sad and revealing story.
"I agree with you Jesse, Breivik is not a christian in the traditional sense. But what is the traditional sense? Nobody on this thread seems to know, including me."
I don't think we know exactly, but we can know the outlines well enough so as to exclude Breivik.
I agree that Reppert's OP `missed the boat', but I don't think he intended it as a sufficient summary of all the moral lessons to be drawn from this event. If I'm wrong, I'll leave that to him to explain.
What a joke. I'm sick of this brutal and bizarre kangaroo court inquisition of "Christianity" being perpetuated by an unintelligent, witless, brainless media. Labelling this serial killer with the name "Christian" tarnishes the name of Jesus and I'm freaking sick of it.
People do not have the right to make up their own labels for themselves. End of story.
I can call myself a Muslim if I want, but If I don't believe in Mohammed as a prophet (I don't), then I'm not a Muslim.
I can call myself an American but if I wasnt born or raised in America then I sure ain't American.
“If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.”
Papalinton, do yourself a favour and quit your ranting.
Readers- I'm a regular reader, occasional poster. I've been ignoring Papa's posts for months. Why don't you all do yourselves a favour and do the same? Why engage with a dogmatic troll? Why waste your valuable time??
I'm newer here, so I'm willing to give him a fair shot :D
All,
My challenge is very simple: could Breivik had been an atheist? If his manifesto is any guide, he might well have been one. But forget the manifesto. Might some atheistic nutter have done something like this?
The answer I think is rather straightforward: yes. If we want to use behaviors of proponents to pass judgments on philosophies or religions, we have to be sure that we're not discussing extreme outliers, even if we can retrospectively fit those outliers into that philosophy.
Forget Breivik, even. Every major ideological party involved, religious or political or whatever, is guilty of regularly violating the above advice. I'm sick of this noise.
There is one overriding point that I keep coming back to on issues like this.
See John Dickson's article for the context of this quote, because his article is brilliant (http://www.publicchristianity.org/religious_violence.html)
"only one way of life is logically compatible with Christianity; any kind of life is logically compatible with atheism".
If Dickson is right (and I would strongly challenge anyone who disagrees to show why he's wrong), then Brievik's actions were compatible with a belief in atheism but incompatible with Christian belief.
That point is very old, very trivial, and very misleading. In the minimal, dictionary sense, yes, atheism includes no thou shalt nots.
And, passing over the `one way' difficulties, the point is that atheists do not, on becoming atheists, suddenly have their brains randomized. We still have similar values and desires and all that jazz.
The logical compatibility is there, but the actual compatibility isn't.
How can the atheists claim Breivik is a Christian while they distance themeselves from Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and the other WORST MASS MURDERERS IN HISTORY.
Anonymous said... "only one way of life is logically compatible with Christianity; any kind of life is logically compatible with atheism".
Both slaveowners and abolitionists have used Christianity to justify their lifestyle. Both Crusaders and pacifists. etc. What is this supposed "kind of life"?
then Brievik's actions were compatible with a belief in atheism but incompatible with Christian belief.
If you claim Brievik's actions were incompatible with Christianity, that would be up to you to demonstrate it.
How can the atheists claim Breivik is a Christian while they distance themeselves from Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and the other WORST MASS MURDERERS IN HISTORY.
Has Stalin, Lenin, or Trotskyh excluded atheists from mass murders, then you would have a case for the decision being based on religion.
Anon: [quoting Dickson]" 'only one way of life is logically compatible with Christianity; any kind of life is logically compatible with atheism'. If Dickson is right (and I would strongly challenge anyone who disagrees to show why he's wrong), then Brievik's actions were compatible with a belief in atheism but incompatible with Christian belief."
I think you are correct when quoting Dickson, but you misunderstand him when you conclude that atheism is a belief. That's because you can't have it both ways; either atheism is a kind of belief (with its entailments), or it's a description of non-belief (in which case it carries none of the entailments of a belief.
And even if some atheists would concede that their atheism is a kind of belief, I've never discussed the topic with any who disagree that atheists must find their ethical system outside their atheism. Religions prescribe and proscribe what we ought to do; atheism makes no such normative judgments (at least not none that I can think of).
BenYachov said... >Has Stalin, Lenin, or Trotskyh excluded atheists from mass murders, then you would have a case for the decision being based on religion.
Did Brievik exclude "Christians" from his rampage?
Nuff said.
What's the comparison supposed to be? Are you saying that Brievik, given totalitarian power, would have killed Christians? It seems like you are confusing targets of oppotunity with targets of intention.
>Are you saying that Brievik, given totalitarian power, would have killed Christians?
Naturally, I wouldn't put it past him.
>It seems like you are confusing targets of opportunity with targets of intention.
No I am just pointing out Stalin killing those who opposed him who happened to be Atheists didn't make him neutral or benign toward religion or not Pro-Atheist.
Besides if you where an Atheist but didn't oppose Stalin he left you alone. OTOH if you tried to Promote Religion in Stalin's Russia Uncle Joe went after you harshly.
The definition of Atheist is rather fluid around here. One minute it is "lack of god belief" which would include Agnostics and or skeptical naturalists like Carl. Another it is "lack of belief in any god"(we just believe in one less god blash blah) or it is the positive assertion there are no gods or there likely are no gods.
Thus Stalin can be "religious" and Theists are somehow tarred with him.
Brievik calls himself a "cultural Christian" & says his beliefs are Agnostic and is counted as a Christian yet Richard Dawkins also calls himself a "cultural Christian" and is yet still an Atheist but somehow is exempt from the collective blame the usual suspects wish to pin on Theists for the actions of Brievick?
BenYachov said... No I am just pointing out Stalin killing those who opposed him who happened to be Atheists didn't make him neutral or benign toward religion or not Pro-Atheist.
On the other hand, if you want to use atheism as a motivation, you'll need to use more than Stalin's being an atheist.
Besides if you where an Atheist but didn't oppose Stalin he left you alone. OTOH if you tried to Promote Religion in Stalin's Russia Uncle Joe went after you harshly.
Did you really think you could slip in the diference between "didn't oppose" and "promote" unnoticed? If you were a religious person who didn't oppose Stalin and didn't promote your religion, Stalin still left you alone. If you were an atheist who promoted any view not adopted by Stalin (such as evolutionary theory), away you went.
BenYachov said... What is it with you and ambiguity? ... A meaningless question without an agreed on definition of what constitutes a Christian or whose definition you are going to use.
I find your continued insistence on me being responsible for defining the terms brought into the discussion by other people highly amusing. I suggest you direct your request for a better definition to Anonymous @ July 29, 2011 10:06 AM, the source of the position.
BenYachov said... The definition of Atheist is rather fluid around here.
Much like the defniiton of Christain can be fluid. There are over 1,000 different demonimaitons that call themselves Christian, united by a handful of basic beliefs. Similarly, there are probably at least a dozen distinct worldviews that are atheistic, of which you listed a few. "Atheist" no more describes a single viewpoint than "Christian" does.
Thus Stalin can be "religious" and Theists are somehow tarred with him.
Stalin was devoted to a worldview with a religious zeal, which is certainly possible for an atheist. However, that is an indictment of zealotry, not theism.
"One Brow" writes: "If you were a religious person who didn't oppose Stalin and didn't promote your religion, Stalin still left you alone."
Not true... not true at all. In fact, it's the opposite of truth.
Stalin's League of the Godless (there really was such a thing! Look it up.) posted "sentries" outside places of worship, and took down the names of everyone who went in. These names were then posted outside places of work, etc., and the people so identified were subjected to endless harassment (right up to arrest).
Stalin's goons would arrange to have street thugs break up Orthodox funerals (funerals, for God's sake!), dumping excrement on coffins, breaking up icons, and hurling abuse at mourners. These things happened!
Possession of religious literature was often grounds for arrest. Educating your own children in your faith was a crime against the state. (I note with great interest that noted New Atheists such as Sam Harris want to see religious education classed as "child abuse". Shades of Stalinism.) But I guess that educating your own children would count in your eyes as "promoting your religion".
I could go on, but libraries have been written on the ruthless suppression of religion under Stalin (with the sole exception of his cynical exploitation of the church to rally the faithful after Hitler's invasion of Russia).
What horrors await us all if atheists ever gain the upper hand in this country!!!
What horrors might be planned? I'll give just one example.
Sam Harris, bright light of the New Atheists, is on record as wanting to see giving a child a religious upbringing classed as criminal child abuse, on a par with incest.
Now let's think about this for a moment. To put this remarkable idea into practice, we will need to create a country-wide network of surveillance and informants, reaching into everyone's home. We would require children to testify against their parents. (Might I recommend googling "Pavlik Morozov", if you've got the stomach for it.) It would introduce into law in this country the concept of thought crime. It would make criminals of families attending church together on Sunday mornings. A mother could be accused (and convicted!) of child abuse for hanging a religious image on a nursery wall.
Paranoid fantasy, you say? Not in the slightest! I have, after all, only a few examples of officially atheist governments to draw on to see what such a thing is like, and they are uniformly horrific: the Soviet Union and its satellites, North Korea, China under Mao Tse Tung, Revolutionary France during the period 1793-95. (I may have missed one or two insignificant others.) I won't include Nazi Germany in this list, because I don't think its unique insanity is classifiable. But even without that ultimate evil, the list is grim reading indeed. For the life of me I can't think of a single formally atheist state that hasn't been an absolute chamber of horrors (And please don't respond with the name of a "secular" government. Secular and atheist are not the same thing!).
Theocracies are scarcely any better, but only the worst of them ever aspired to such unrelieved awfulness as the regimes named above (e.g., the Taliban in Afghanistan, Oliver Cromwell in England, Salem Massachusetts in 1688-93).
B. Prokop said... Sam Harris, bright light of the New Atheists, is on record as wanting to see giving a child a religious upbringing classed as criminal child abuse, on a par with incest.
What does "classed as mean? What are the legal remification for this classification? Are there any? So far, this is a scare tactic on your part, not a serious attempt to verify a danger.
Now let's think about this for a moment. To put this remarkable idea into practice, we will need to create a country-wide network of surveillance and informants, reaching into everyone's home.
So that we can classify every individual? What an pointless wastre of money.
It would introduce into law in this country the concept of thought crime.
Did Sam harris recommend this as a matter of law? I'll need to see a quote and a citation for that, if you don't mind. I flatly disbelieve it.
Paranoid fantasy, you say?
No. Flat out untruth, I say, based on fears of persecution.
Not in the slightest! I have, after all, only a few examples of officially atheist governments to draw on to see what such a thing is like,
You mean like the United States?
and they are uniformly horrific:
I think much more highly of the USA than you.
the Soviet Union and its satellites, North Korea, China under Mao Tse Tung,
China today, for that matter.
Revolutionary France during the period 1793-95. (I may have missed one or two insignificant others.)
You mean, like Canada, Mexico, Sweden, Modern-day Germany, modern-day France, Japan, etc. Atheistic states (that is, those that support no religious preference) appear on all continents.
(And please don't respond with the name of a "secular" government. Secular and atheist are not the same thing!).
Then, you have evidence Sam Harris supports forced atheism, right? Otherwise, you'll look like some ignorant blowhard.
Theocracies are scarcely any better,
I agree that having any official state religion is bad. No, wheres yor evidence that if atheists ever gain the upper hand, they'll impose a state religion?
Did you even read my post? It certainly doesn't appear so. At least, judging by your incoherent response, that would be the most charitable explanation.
I specifically said to not confuse secular governments with atheistic states, and you respond with the USA!?!?! (And by the way, I think it supremely unlikely that you think more highly of the USA than I do. Did you devote 34 years of your life to its service? Judging by your profile, I think not.)
And yes, I myself heard Sam Harris on live TV in Britain clearly telling a questioner from the audience that he would like to see giving one's own child a religious upbringing criminalized, and he quite explicitly compared doing so to sexual abuse of children. In fact, he said it was worse! (And this comment was met with applause.)
As for your last question, I can only repeat myself (which leads me to believe you never read my original post, or at least failed to understand it). What evidence? The USSR, North Korea, Maoist China, Revolutionary France, etc., etc., etc.
B. Prokop said... Did you even read my post? It certainly doesn't appear so.
If I had not read it, I could not have laughed at it.
At least, judging by your incoherent response, that would be the most charitable explanation.
I take your determination of coherency with all the merit your judgment has earned.
I specifically said to not confuse secular governments with atheistic states, and you respond with the USA!?!?!
You feel free to conflate not having a state religion with having a state-mandated religious viewpoint for Harris, but not for historical countries. I am just pointing that out.
And yes, I myself heard Sam Harris on live TV in Britain clearly telling a questioner from the audience that he would like to see giving one's own child a religious upbringing criminalized, and he quite explicitly compared doing so to sexual abuse of children.
Program and date, please. I flatly disbelieve you.
What evidence?
That's my question to you. What evidence do you have about Harris wishing to enforce state atheism?
Did you even try a google search for a link? If you did, you would have found out that the child abuse claim came from Dawkins, that it was in print, and that there was never an intent to criinalize religion attached to it.
When you get basics like this wrong, how serious should I take your claims that some atheist state is being imagined?
So all you've shown me is that both of them have proposed it at different times. Shows how widespread the desire to criminalize religious child care is among the New Atheists.
And Google can somehow find everything that's ever occurred? There is no Google reference to my interviewing Ray Bradbury in 1970, or to my 1991 meeting with Buzz Aldrin (2nd man on the moon), but both things happened. You won't find via Google the fact that my father served on the USS Dallas in WWII, but he did. So what's your point?
I'm through here. I thought I was just dealing with a fool, but I now see that I have been attempting to converse with a jerk.
I've been called a lot of things on this website (deluded, ignorant, fanatic, etc.). That's not exactly OK, but to me it's water off a duck's back. It's what you unfortunately have to expect on the sewer that the internet has become. But you're calling me a liar, and that is completely over the line. At this point, the only proper response to you is silence. Goodbye. This is my last posting on this thread. And don't bother making any more yourself - I won't be reading them.
B. Prokop said... But you're calling me a liar, and that is completely over the line.
Actually, my thought was that you were misremembering, but you were accurately portraying what you remembered. If you look at all into the study of human memory, you'd see that does not make you different from any other human, and certainly not from me. I misremember things regularly.
If I weregoing to insult you, it would be for the level of arrogance shown in dismissing the thought you might have remembered something incorrectly, not by calling you a liar.
And don't bother making any more yourself - I won't be reading them.
BenYachov said... So One Brow you still believe it's everybody else who has the problem understanding you?
It's not you at all right?
Do you see any passage where I called B. Prokop a liar? If you can point it out, I'll apologize.
Outside of that, misunderstadings are a part of human existence.
I find it typical that you chose this thread to post your comment, and not the other thread where grodrigues, StoneTop, and I are are engaging in a quite conversation where we understand each other quite well.
BenYachov said... grodriguez is debating djindra & seems to be ignoring you.
That explains why grodriguez had three comments directly responding to mine -- he was ignoring me. IN the world of Ben Yachov, it probably takes 30 to pass the threashold of "ignoring".
BDK praised your effort & Tme in writing a critique of TLS but said he didn't read it & doesn't know enough about Aristotle to comment on it.
So, you're saying because he did not do this, he doesn't understand what I post? What a curious inference to draw.
>So, you're saying because he[BDK] did not do this[i.e. read your critique of TLS], he doesn't understand what I post? What a curious inference to draw.
How is it evidence he does? See what I mean you can't be understood.
BenYachov said... Did you really write this One Brow?
Yes.
>So, you're saying because he[BDK] did not do this[i.e. read your critique of TLS], he doesn't understand what I post? What a curious inference to draw.
How is it evidence he does?
It wasn't. Pointing out your evidence is faulty is not a claim that said evidence is reliable for the opposite point of view. Again, this is a very curious inference.
See what I mean you can't be understood.
I fully acknowledge that if you insist that every piece of evidence be considered to support one side or the other, you will find it unintelligible when I point out that a piece ofeivdence supports neither. I don't see that as an example of my inability to be understood.
BenYachov said... Because One Brow without evidence anyone understands you I flatly disbelieve it & you.
Since you have (unintentionally) pointed out such a conversation (between me and grodriguez), your disbelief is apparently not founded on evidence. I have no problem with that. I see no further use in continuing what has become bickering. Feel free to get in the last word, or two, of ten, or however many posts yo need to add.
>It wasn't. Pointing out your evidence is faulty is not a claim that said evidence is reliable for the opposite point of view. Again, this is a very curious inference.
But I didn't offer evidence. I challenged you too offer some and as per usual you did a bait and switch.
81 comments:
Link?
Who said what?
LOL
Is this a troll post?
Victor
Or at least wrote it
I think all of them have said 'this'.
Even though (like the other commenters) I don't know what we're being asked, I'm going to guess 'none of the above'.
Victor, will you answer this question with 'No'?
You're not looking at the meta-data. This is Victor's say of saying that they have Nothing of Substance to say!
I don't know what happened to the quote. But here it is.
My google-fu tells me the quote is from Anders Behring Breivik.
Precisely. The guy who has been touted as a "Christian fundamentalist" and proof that religion leads to violence.
Breivik claimed that he is a Christian in various forums, but most explicitly and in greatest detail in the 1,500-page manifesto he compiled over several months and posted on the Internet.
"At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised (sic) and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church," the 32-year-old Breivik wrote. "I consider myself to be 100 percent Christian."
Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Is-Anders-Breivik-a-Christian-terrorist-1624540.php#ixzz1TRVw8rR5
Richard Dawkins also called himself a "Cultural Christian" once.
Let me see Breivik is a 'Cultural Christian" so is Dawkins?
Do the math.;-)
Here is Dawkins discussing how he is a Cultural Christian.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7136682.stm
I knew it! Those Christians! Just like Dawkins causing violence!
I just knew it!
BTW I am an Atheist(in regards to belief in any Theistic Personalist concept of God).
Xians like Paps need to re-examine their beliefs.
So what have we learned children? A person who lacks "lack god belief" can be a Christian and a Catholic Christian who denies a specific philosophical view of God can be an Atheist.
Awesome!
Plus there is a clear link between Dawkins and Breivik since they are both "Cultural Christians".
Even Sam Harris acknowledges that Breivik isn't the fundamentalist-Christian the media / certain New-Atheists want to paint him as (link: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/christian-terrorism-and-islamophobia/). I don't see how anyone whose spent the time reading his (Breivik's) manifesto can come to the conclusion that he is (Christian).
"Richard Dawkins also called himself a "Cultural Christian" once.
Let me see Breivik is a 'Cultural Christian" so is Dawkins?
Do the math.;-)"
The big difference that seems to have gone unnoticed is the modus of intent. Breivik, at age 15, decidedly and consciously became a christian by being baptised.
If what he called being 'part of monocultural Europe', the basis of his manifesto, was important , to Breivik it was necessary to be identified as a christian.
Whether Sam Harris believes Breivik was a 'fundamentalist christian' or not, is rather moot. It nonetheless, constitutes one of the base premises that Breivik claims, among a number of others, that clearly distinguishes and characterizes one as a member of the 'monocultural Europe' family.
Ben, your comment, "Plus there is a clear link between Dawkins and Breivik since they are both "Cultural Christians"."
My son, you have learned well the intricate art of mirror illusion and pious conflation from the great Masters of Apologetics.
I mention Harris because of his past (current?) disposition toward Christianity / Christians / anyone claiming to be Christian. If "even" Harris - a strong critic of Christianity - is willing to consider that Breivik isn't Christian, then I think there is something to be said there.
If the point is moot, then I think it's moot because / in light of the reality that no 'follower of Christ' would go off setting bombs or slaughtering people, regardless of a commitment they made at the age of 15.
*Note that I say this not fully understanding where you're coming from, Papalinton.
Papalinton,
Andrew also said in his declaration that he considers himself not religious by any stretch, and that he admittedly uses religion as a crutch, and that he's actually agnostic about God.
No Paps I am merely being comically ironic.
That you took me seriously is hysterical. But not as hysterical has your argument by special pleading and your shameless irrational double standards.
It must take a lot of mental compartmentalization to believe such contradictory nonsense.
Weird.
>and that he's actually agnostic about God.
So that means he lacks god belief!
So he is an Atheist and a Professed Christian. Like Richard Dawkins!
This is too much fun.
I tried to stop the noise about this over at Debunking Christianity.
...oh well.
I think that what people are reacting to is legitimate: namely, the conservative punditry which are making the same excuses for Breivik's crusader restorationism that they reject when similarly made by others for Jihadism.
But yeah, we shouldn't look at Breivik as a normal Christian. I ask that people do not look at Stalin as a normal atheist. I ask that people do not look at bin Laden as a normal Muslim. I think that this is all only too fair.
Up to apologetics/counter-apologetics, Breivik's atrocities have little significance.
`nuff said.
Does anyone really think they can make a point using the proclamations of a mad man? Did Ted Kaczynski prove anything one way or the other about those who want clean water?
If anyone can tell me whether Christ rose from the dead based on what Discovery Channel gunman James Lee thought about the subject, by all means (Pappy) let me know.
@ Jesse Parish
"But yeah, we shouldn't look at Breivik as a normal Christian. I ask that people do not look at Stalin as a normal atheist. I ask that people do not look at bin Laden as a normal Muslim. I think that this is all only too fair."
I agree with you Jesse, Breivik is not a christian in the traditional sense. But what is the traditional sense? Nobody on this thread seems to know, including me.
Maniacs can and do upset any society for all manner of reasons regardless of their religious predisposition or not. More importantly is how this ever so secular nation is rallying enormously and courageously around, and to a person, declaring that not one bit of the Breivik tragedy is going to derail the kind of life Norwegians enjoy. Indeed this tragedy makes them so much the stronger as a nation, a testament they are tracking along the right and balanced path dedicated to human flourishing. And there has been no call for revenge, no increase in the level of institutional punishment to be metered out to the perpetrator. Even the mother of Breivik is being comforted by the nation, with over 38,000 people now registered as a helper to see and help her through this tragedy. She too is an unintended victim of this crime, not of her making. Such a huge numbers for such a small population.
To me, that is the surest sign of a peaceful, loving caring society that has matured into a nation worthy of our deepest respect and admiration. Life can be good with god or without god. Indeed god is unnecessary but it is acknowledged that this is important for those who wish it so.
I am not convinced that Dr Reppert's OP somehow has avoided missing the boat on this sad and revealing story.
"I agree with you Jesse, Breivik is not a christian in the traditional sense. But what is the traditional sense? Nobody on this thread seems to know, including me."
I don't think we know exactly, but we can know the outlines well enough so as to exclude Breivik.
I agree that Reppert's OP `missed the boat', but I don't think he intended it as a sufficient summary of all the moral lessons to be drawn from this event. If I'm wrong, I'll leave that to him to explain.
What a joke. I'm sick of this brutal and bizarre kangaroo court inquisition of "Christianity" being perpetuated by an unintelligent, witless, brainless media. Labelling this serial killer with the name "Christian" tarnishes the name of Jesus and I'm freaking sick of it.
People do not have the right to make up their own labels for themselves. End of story.
I can call myself a Muslim if I want, but If I don't believe in Mohammed as a prophet (I don't), then I'm not a Muslim.
I can call myself an American but if I wasnt born or raised in America then I sure ain't American.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/norway-shooting-bombing-alleged-killers-manifesto-denies-true-faith-in-jesus-52798/
He writes on page 1307 of his online manifesto:
“If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.”
Papalinton, do yourself a favour and quit your ranting.
Readers- I'm a regular reader, occasional poster. I've been ignoring Papa's posts for months. Why don't you all do yourselves a favour and do the same? Why engage with a dogmatic troll? Why waste your valuable time??
Anonymous,
I'm newer here, so I'm willing to give him a fair shot :D
All,
My challenge is very simple: could Breivik had been an atheist? If his manifesto is any guide, he might well have been one. But forget the manifesto. Might some atheistic nutter have done something like this?
The answer I think is rather straightforward: yes. If we want to use behaviors of proponents to pass judgments on philosophies or religions, we have to be sure that we're not discussing extreme outliers, even if we can retrospectively fit those outliers into that philosophy.
Forget Breivik, even. Every major ideological party involved, religious or political or whatever, is guilty of regularly violating the above advice. I'm sick of this noise.
There is one overriding point that I keep coming back to on issues like this.
See John Dickson's article for the context of this quote, because his article is brilliant (http://www.publicchristianity.org/religious_violence.html)
"only one way of life is logically compatible with Christianity; any kind of life is logically compatible with atheism".
If Dickson is right (and I would strongly challenge anyone who disagrees to show why he's wrong), then Brievik's actions were compatible with a belief in atheism but incompatible with Christian belief.
Anonymous,
That point is very old, very trivial, and very misleading. In the minimal, dictionary sense, yes, atheism includes no thou shalt nots.
And, passing over the `one way' difficulties, the point is that atheists do not, on becoming atheists, suddenly have their brains randomized. We still have similar values and desires and all that jazz.
The logical compatibility is there, but the actual compatibility isn't.
http://www.publicchristianity.org/religious_violence.html
Just another unchallenged obfuscatory christian apology.
Papalinton, Dawkins is just as much a cultural Christian as the Norway shooter.
Breivik also says he is "not religious", is a PRAGMATIST, and that you don't need to believe in Jesus.
He is no Christian.
He is an Atheist.
How can the atheists claim Breivik is a Christian while they distance themeselves from Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and the other WORST MASS MURDERERS IN HISTORY.
Its called the Atheist Two Step.
Anonymous said...
"only one way of life is logically compatible with Christianity; any kind of life is logically compatible with atheism".
Both slaveowners and abolitionists have used Christianity to justify their lifestyle. Both
Crusaders and pacifists. etc. What is this supposed "kind of life"?
then Brievik's actions were compatible with a belief in atheism but incompatible with Christian belief.
If you claim Brievik's actions were incompatible with Christianity, that would be up to you to demonstrate it.
How can the atheists claim Breivik is a Christian while they distance themeselves from Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and the other WORST MASS MURDERERS IN HISTORY.
Has Stalin, Lenin, or Trotskyh excluded atheists from mass murders, then you would have a case for the decision being based on religion.
>Has Stalin, Lenin, or Trotskyh excluded atheists from mass murders, then you would have a case for the decision being based on religion.
Did Brievik exclude "Christians" from his rampage?
Nuff said.
Anon: [quoting Dickson]" 'only one way of life is logically compatible with Christianity; any kind of life is logically compatible with atheism'. If Dickson is right (and I would strongly challenge anyone who disagrees to show why he's wrong), then Brievik's actions were compatible with a belief in atheism but incompatible with Christian belief."
I think you are correct when quoting Dickson, but you misunderstand him when you conclude that atheism is a belief. That's because you can't have it both ways; either atheism is a kind of belief (with its entailments), or it's a description of non-belief (in which case it carries none of the entailments of a belief.
And even if some atheists would concede that their atheism is a kind of belief, I've never discussed the topic with any who disagree that atheists must find their ethical system outside their atheism. Religions prescribe and proscribe what we ought to do; atheism makes no such normative judgments (at least not none that I can think of).
BenYachov said...
>Has Stalin, Lenin, or Trotskyh excluded atheists from mass murders, then you would have a case for the decision being based on religion.
Did Brievik exclude "Christians" from his rampage?
Nuff said.
What's the comparison supposed to be? Are you saying that Brievik, given totalitarian power, would have killed Christians? It seems like you are confusing targets of oppotunity with targets of intention.
>Are you saying that Brievik, given totalitarian power, would have killed Christians?
Naturally, I wouldn't put it past him.
>It seems like you are confusing targets of opportunity with targets of intention.
No I am just pointing out Stalin killing those who opposed him who happened to be Atheists didn't make him neutral or benign toward religion or not Pro-Atheist.
Besides if you where an Atheist but didn't oppose Stalin he left you alone. OTOH if you tried to Promote Religion in Stalin's Russia Uncle Joe went after you harshly.
Those is just the brute facts.
@One Brow
What is it with you and ambiguity?
>If you claim Brievik's actions were incompatible with Christianity, that would be up to you to demonstrate it.
A meaningless question without an agreed on definition of what constitutes a Christian or whose definition you are going to use.\
For example I wouldn't so much mind living under the Atheism of a Carl Sagan as I would the Atheism of Stalin.
Plus I have no use for traditional Catholic Confessional States over secular democracies founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
Carl Sagan wasn't an atheist, and thought that atheism could be rather stupid.
Anon,
The definition of Atheist is rather fluid around here. One minute it is "lack of god belief" which would include Agnostics and or skeptical naturalists like Carl. Another it is "lack of belief in any god"(we just believe in one less god blash blah) or it is the positive assertion there are no gods or there likely are no gods.
Thus Stalin can be "religious" and Theists are somehow tarred with him.
Brievik calls himself a "cultural Christian" & says his beliefs are Agnostic and is counted as a Christian yet Richard Dawkins also calls himself a "cultural Christian" and is yet still an Atheist but somehow is exempt from the collective blame the usual suspects wish to pin on Theists for the actions of Brievick?
It's all bullshit.
Ben,
Your last posting is spot on! The goalposts keep getting moved in this discussion.
Thank you Bob.
But then again all arguments from special pleading and double standards are irrational.
Like trying to defend 2+2=5.
BenYachov said...
No I am just pointing out Stalin killing those who opposed him who happened to be Atheists didn't make him neutral or benign toward religion or not Pro-Atheist.
On the other hand, if you want to use atheism as a motivation, you'll need to use more than Stalin's being an atheist.
Besides if you where an Atheist but didn't oppose Stalin he left you alone. OTOH if you tried to Promote Religion in Stalin's Russia Uncle Joe went after you harshly.
Did you really think you could slip in the diference between "didn't oppose" and "promote" unnoticed? If you were a religious person who didn't oppose Stalin and didn't promote your religion, Stalin still left you alone. If you were an atheist who promoted any view not adopted by Stalin (such as evolutionary theory), away you went.
Those is just the brute facts.
Havily colored by selective interpretations.
BenYachov said...
What is it with you and ambiguity? ... A meaningless question without an agreed on definition of what constitutes a Christian or whose definition you are going to use.
I find your continued insistence on me being responsible for defining the terms brought into the discussion by other people highly amusing. I suggest you direct your request for a better definition to Anonymous @ July 29, 2011 10:06 AM, the source of the position.
BenYachov said...
The definition of Atheist is rather fluid around here.
Much like the defniiton of Christain can be fluid. There are over 1,000 different demonimaitons that call themselves Christian, united by a handful of basic beliefs. Similarly, there are probably at least a dozen distinct worldviews that are atheistic, of which you listed a few. "Atheist" no more describes a single viewpoint than "Christian" does.
Thus Stalin can be "religious" and Theists are somehow tarred with him.
Stalin was devoted to a worldview with a religious zeal, which is certainly possible for an atheist. However, that is an indictment of zealotry, not theism.
B. Prokop said...
Your last posting is spot on! The goalposts keep getting moved in this discussion.
The problem is insisting that different teams play on the same side, making the original field too small to contain the action.
"One Brow" writes: "If you were a religious person who didn't oppose Stalin and didn't promote your religion, Stalin still left you alone."
Not true... not true at all. In fact, it's the opposite of truth.
Stalin's League of the Godless (there really was such a thing! Look it up.) posted "sentries" outside places of worship, and took down the names of everyone who went in. These names were then posted outside places of work, etc., and the people so identified were subjected to endless harassment (right up to arrest).
Stalin's goons would arrange to have street thugs break up Orthodox funerals (funerals, for God's sake!), dumping excrement on coffins, breaking up icons, and hurling abuse at mourners. These things happened!
Possession of religious literature was often grounds for arrest. Educating your own children in your faith was a crime against the state. (I note with great interest that noted New Atheists such as Sam Harris want to see religious education classed as "child abuse". Shades of Stalinism.) But I guess that educating your own children would count in your eyes as "promoting your religion".
I could go on, but libraries have been written on the ruthless suppression of religion under Stalin (with the sole exception of his cynical exploitation of the church to rally the faithful after Hitler's invasion of Russia).
What horrors await us all if atheists ever gain the upper hand in this country!!!
B. Prokop said...
Not true... not true at all.
You're right, and I apologize and acknowledge me error. I'm not sure what I was thinking.
What horrors await us all if atheists ever gain the upper hand in this country!!!
Tell us, what horrors await? What do th US atheists propose?
What horrors might be planned? I'll give just one example.
Sam Harris, bright light of the New Atheists, is on record as wanting to see giving a child a religious upbringing classed as criminal child abuse, on a par with incest.
Now let's think about this for a moment. To put this remarkable idea into practice, we will need to create a country-wide network of surveillance and informants, reaching into everyone's home. We would require children to testify against their parents. (Might I recommend googling "Pavlik Morozov", if you've got the stomach for it.) It would introduce into law in this country the concept of thought crime. It would make criminals of families attending church together on Sunday mornings. A mother could be accused (and convicted!) of child abuse for hanging a religious image on a nursery wall.
Paranoid fantasy, you say? Not in the slightest! I have, after all, only a few examples of officially atheist governments to draw on to see what such a thing is like, and they are uniformly horrific: the Soviet Union and its satellites, North Korea, China under Mao Tse Tung, Revolutionary France during the period 1793-95. (I may have missed one or two insignificant others.) I won't include Nazi Germany in this list, because I don't think its unique insanity is classifiable. But even without that ultimate evil, the list is grim reading indeed. For the life of me I can't think of a single formally atheist state that hasn't been an absolute chamber of horrors (And please don't respond with the name of a "secular" government. Secular and atheist are not the same thing!).
Theocracies are scarcely any better, but only the worst of them ever aspired to such unrelieved awfulness as the regimes named above (e.g., the Taliban in Afghanistan, Oliver Cromwell in England, Salem Massachusetts in 1688-93).
B. Prokop said...
Sam Harris, bright light of the New Atheists, is on record as wanting to see giving a child a religious upbringing classed as criminal child abuse, on a par with incest.
What does "classed as mean? What are the legal remification for this classification? Are there any? So far, this is a scare tactic on your part, not a serious attempt to verify a danger.
Now let's think about this for a moment. To put this remarkable idea into practice, we will need to create a country-wide network of surveillance and informants, reaching into everyone's home.
So that we can classify every individual? What an pointless wastre of money.
It would introduce into law in this country the concept of thought crime.
Did Sam harris recommend this as a matter of law? I'll need to see a quote and a citation for that, if you don't mind. I flatly disbelieve it.
Paranoid fantasy, you say?
No. Flat out untruth, I say, based on fears of persecution.
Not in the slightest! I have, after all, only a few examples of officially atheist governments to draw on to see what such a thing is like,
You mean like the United States?
and they are uniformly horrific:
I think much more highly of the USA than you.
the Soviet Union and its satellites, North Korea, China under Mao Tse Tung,
China today, for that matter.
Revolutionary France during the period 1793-95. (I may have missed one or two insignificant others.)
You mean, like Canada, Mexico, Sweden, Modern-day Germany, modern-day France, Japan, etc. Atheistic states (that is, those that support no religious preference) appear on all continents.
(And please don't respond with the name of a "secular" government. Secular and atheist are not the same thing!).
Then, you have evidence Sam Harris supports forced atheism, right? Otherwise, you'll look like some ignorant blowhard.
Theocracies are scarcely any better,
I agree that having any official state religion is bad. No, wheres yor evidence that if atheists ever gain the upper hand, they'll impose a state religion?
"One Brow",
Did you even read my post? It certainly doesn't appear so. At least, judging by your incoherent response, that would be the most charitable explanation.
I specifically said to not confuse secular governments with atheistic states, and you respond with the USA!?!?! (And by the way, I think it supremely unlikely that you think more highly of the USA than I do. Did you devote 34 years of your life to its service? Judging by your profile, I think not.)
And yes, I myself heard Sam Harris on live TV in Britain clearly telling a questioner from the audience that he would like to see giving one's own child a religious upbringing criminalized, and he quite explicitly compared doing so to sexual abuse of children. In fact, he said it was worse! (And this comment was met with applause.)
As for your last question, I can only repeat myself (which leads me to believe you never read my original post, or at least failed to understand it). What evidence? The USSR, North Korea, Maoist China, Revolutionary France, etc., etc., etc.
B. Prokop said...
Did you even read my post? It certainly doesn't appear so.
If I had not read it, I could not have laughed at it.
At least, judging by your incoherent response, that would be the most charitable explanation.
I take your determination of coherency with all the merit your judgment has earned.
I specifically said to not confuse secular governments with atheistic states, and you respond with the USA!?!?!
You feel free to conflate not having a state religion with having a state-mandated religious viewpoint for Harris, but not for historical countries. I am just pointing that out.
And yes, I myself heard Sam Harris on live TV in Britain clearly telling a questioner from the audience that he would like to see giving one's own child a religious upbringing criminalized, and he quite explicitly compared doing so to sexual abuse of children.
Program and date, please. I flatly disbelieve you.
What evidence?
That's my question to you. What evidence do you have about Harris wishing to enforce state atheism?
ITV 4, sometime between 2000-2003 (probably close to the end of that period), which is when I lived in the UK.
B.Prokop,
Did you even try a google search for a link? If you did, you would have found out that the child abuse claim came from Dawkins, that it was in print, and that there was never an intent to criinalize religion attached to it.
When you get basics like this wrong, how serious should I take your claims that some atheist state is being imagined?
So all you've shown me is that both of them have proposed it at different times. Shows how widespread the desire to criminalize religious child care is among the New Atheists.
B. Prokop said...
So all you've shown me is that both of them have proposed it at different times.
There is no google reference to Sam Harris mentioning it at all.
And Google can somehow find everything that's ever occurred? There is no Google reference to my interviewing Ray Bradbury in 1970, or to my 1991 meeting with Buzz Aldrin (2nd man on the moon), but both things happened. You won't find via Google the fact that my father served on the USS Dallas in WWII, but he did. So what's your point?
And Google can somehow find everything that's ever occurred?
No.
But Sam Harris is relatively high-profile, and the statement you ascribe to him is inflammatory. You wold expect such things to be found by Google.
I'm through here. I thought I was just dealing with a fool, but I now see that I have been attempting to converse with a jerk.
I've been called a lot of things on this website (deluded, ignorant, fanatic, etc.). That's not exactly OK, but to me it's water off a duck's back. It's what you unfortunately have to expect on the sewer that the internet has become. But you're calling me a liar, and that is completely over the line. At this point, the only proper response to you is silence. Goodbye. This is my last posting on this thread. And don't bother making any more yourself - I won't be reading them.
B. Prokop said...
But you're calling me a liar, and that is completely over the line.
Actually, my thought was that you were misremembering, but you were accurately portraying what you remembered. If you look at all into the study of human memory, you'd see that does not make you different from any other human, and certainly not from me. I misremember things regularly.
If I weregoing to insult you, it would be for the level of arrogance shown in dismissing the thought you might have remembered something incorrectly, not by calling you a liar.
And don't bother making any more yourself - I won't be reading them.
As you wish.
So One Brow you still believe it's everybody else who has the problem understanding you?
It's not you at all right?
BenYachov said...
So One Brow you still believe it's everybody else who has the problem understanding you?
It's not you at all right?
Do you see any passage where I called B. Prokop a liar? If you can point it out, I'll apologize.
Outside of that, misunderstadings are a part of human existence.
I find it typical that you chose this thread to post your comment, and not the other thread where grodrigues, StoneTop, and I are are engaging in a quite conversation where we understand each other quite well.
So I take it that is a "Yes it's not me it is in fact everybody else"?
Am I correct?
BenYachov said...
So I take it that is a "Yes it's not me it is in fact everybody else"?
Am I correct?
It's not everybody else. It's not BlueDevilKnight or grodriguez, for example.
>It's not everybody else.
Then it is you who has the problem making yourself understood?
Glad to see you own up to it.
BenYachov said...
Then it is you who has the problem making yourself understood?
Again, I have little problem making myself understood to many posters. YOu have a problem understanding me because you seem to have a problem.
>It's not everybody else. It's not BlueDevilKnight or grodriguez,
grodriguez is debating djindra & seems to be ignoring you.
BDK praised your effort & Tme in writing a critique of TLS but said he didn't read it & doesn't know enough about Aristotle to comment on it.
The problem is clearly you.
BenYachov said...
grodriguez is debating djindra & seems to be ignoring you.
That explains why grodriguez had three comments directly responding to mine -- he was ignoring me. IN the world of Ben Yachov, it probably takes 30 to pass the threashold of "ignoring".
BDK praised your effort & Tme in writing a critique of TLS but said he didn't read it & doesn't know enough about Aristotle to comment on it.
So, you're saying because he did not do this, he doesn't understand what I post? What a curious inference to draw.
The problem is clearly you.
Thank you for the chuckle.
Did you really write this One Brow?
>So, you're saying because he[BDK] did not do this[i.e. read your critique of TLS], he doesn't understand what I post? What a curious inference to draw.
How is it evidence he does? See what I mean you can't be understood.
I think it's you whose at fault.
Because One Brow without evidence anyone understands you I flatly disbelieve it & you.
BenYachov said...
Did you really write this One Brow?
Yes.
>So, you're saying because he[BDK] did not do this[i.e. read your critique of TLS], he doesn't understand what I post? What a curious inference to draw.
How is it evidence he does?
It wasn't. Pointing out your evidence is faulty is not a claim that said evidence is reliable for the opposite point of view. Again, this is a very curious inference.
See what I mean you can't be understood.
I fully acknowledge that if you insist that every piece of evidence be considered to support one side or the other, you will find it unintelligible when I point out that a piece ofeivdence supports neither. I don't see that as an example of my inability to be understood.
I think it's you whose at fault.
I am aware that this is your opinion.
BenYachov said...
Because One Brow without evidence anyone understands you I flatly disbelieve it & you.
Since you have (unintentionally) pointed out such a conversation (between me and grodriguez), your disbelief is apparently not founded on evidence. I have no problem with that. I see no further use in continuing what has become bickering. Feel free to get in the last word, or two, of ten, or however many posts yo need to add.
>It wasn't. Pointing out your evidence is faulty is not a claim that said evidence is reliable for the opposite point of view. Again, this is a very curious inference.
But I didn't offer evidence. I challenged you too offer some and as per usual you did a bait and switch.
Typical.
Post a Comment