I was shocked to see the latest from the Pentagon. Someone in the military who shares their Christian faith can now be court martialed and possibly imprisoned. I guess this is the new form of the military code, except now it is "Don't talk, don't tell." That said, I am just now finding out some new things about Christianity.
I didn't know that Evangelical Christianity is a form of religious extremism comparable to Hamas, the KKK and Al Quaeda according to training given to Army Reserves in Pennsylvania. http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ExtremismPresentation.pdf For Christians in the military, it gets worse.
“Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces.”
That is a quote from Mikey Weinstein,who is the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. He has also said that Christians who share the gospel in the military are guilty of committing an act of “spiritual rape” as serious a crime as “sexual assault.” I wonder how women and men that have been raped would feel about that comparison. I know it shows me his lack of education on the issue. I was Agnostic for over 20 years and when a Christian talked to me about their beliefs it was nothing like getting molested when I was a youth.
The scary thing is that Mr. Weinstein is sitting down with the Pentagon as a consultant to help them develop new policies on religious tolerance. There does not seem to be too much tolerance coming from Mikey. It is becoming more and more obvious that there may be issues for Christians.
For starters, Christians are held to different standards. While Mr. Weinstein can say whatever he wants about Christians, imagine if Christians spoke the same way about his organization. They would be vilified. If Christians voice opinions about the veracity of the Koran or who Muhammad was they are branded bigots. If Muslims burn Bibles it is considered no big deal.
Take Jason Collins coming out and telling the world he is gay this week. When Tim Tebow prays on the side of the field he is told by the mainstream media, "Keep that to yourself. No one cares." When Jason Collins comes out the media proclaims, "He is a hero." I would argue that both feel that the things they share are a huge part of who they are, so what is the difference?
Then Chris Broussard is asked his opinion about Jason coming out and he is called every name under the sun for giving it. I have a rule, do not ask questions you do not want answers to. That said, it was not like Chris spoke with the kind of malice those posting on his site are displaying.
Christians are facing a day when freedom of speech for them is fading. Christians are told to keep their opinions to themselves and to be tolerant of others. From what I have seen, they are. In fact, they show love and give support in the way of shelter and food to people who live lives that they do not agree with. I believe they say, "Love the sinner hate the sin." Then you have people like Richard Dawkins saying, "Mock them. Ridicule them in public," when speaking about Christians and he is applauded. That does not sound very tolerant.
A quote that I saw attributed to Voltaire said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." Point being, it would seem that as much as the media shouts about the Christian majority, Christians do not seem to be the ones in power. They are the ones told to be tolerant while everyone else picks on them and calls them names.
Thankfully, Christians continue to give millions upon millions of dollars as well as hours of their time to help those who are struggling. I remember working the Joplin tornado doing psychological first aid and seeing tent upon tent staffed and funded by churches as well as Convoy of Hope and Compassion International semis loaded with supplies. Would have been nice to see some secularists putting forth the same unified effort.
I guess none of this should shock me. It was predicted 2,000 years ago by Jesus in John 15:18-19, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
This blog is about my experience with childhood physical, emotional and sexual abuse that led me to addictions and mental health issues and how I found a #BetterLifeInRecovery.I share the tools that have taken me #FromDealingDopeToDealingHope in the hopes you can use them to rebuild your life! Together we are #TransformingLivesBySharingRecovery! #HopeDealer #StigmaKiller
Showing posts with label Richard Dawkins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Dawkins. Show all posts
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 4 - Columbo Step 2: The Burden of Proof
Christians should be able to give reasons for what we believe to be true. For some reason, others feel that Christians have the corner on that market and forget a truth. They need to be able to back up their beliefs, too. In Chapter 4 Greg look at the second step Columbo used, which he calls "reversing the burden of proof." Whoever makes the claim has the responsibility to prove their view. They don't have to prove me wrong, instead they have to prove their point of view to be right.
To illustrate what he is talking about, Greg looks at a caller who disagreed with his "a big bang needs a big banger" line. The caller felt that if you have "a base of nothing and you could say that there was nothing but an infinite, continuous moment, until one tiny, little insignificant thing happened: a point happened in the nothingness. This requires no intelligence, so no intelligent God had to intervene. All we need is a tiny imperfection in the perfect nothingness that expanded and became increasingly complex, and soon you have galaxies and planets."
From here Greg threw down the gauntlet, telling the caller that "It's not my job to disprove your something from nothing fairy tale. It's your job to prove it. You haven't done that, you haven't even tried." Generally when people throw out "stories" to disprove your beliefs, they expect the discussion to end there. That should never be the case. If they have a theory, they need to give an argument.
The first Columbo question that we looked at was, "What do you mean by that?" That question let's you know what a person thinks. The question you will learn today is, "Now, how did you come to that conclusion?" This question allows you to know why a person thinks as they do. They are made to give reasons for their beliefs, and many are not prepared to do this. They may even say, "I don't know why I believe it, I just do." Which allows you to ask, "Why would you believe something when you have no reasons to believe it's true?"
You need to remember that you do not have to counter everything that someone says. What you need to do is steer the burden of proof back onto the shoulders of the person you are having the discussion with. You do not have to defeat their statements, they have to defend them. Further remember that "an alternate explanation is not a refutation." That means just because someone may be able to spin a story to support their view, that is not the same as them explaining why what they believe is true.
Many of the explanations by people like Richard Dawkins that pop up in Darwinian circles are "just so stories" after the Rudyard Kipling's book entitled "Just So Stories." It had chapters called "How the Leopard Got His Spots" and "How the Came Got His Hump." Don't allow people to pass of stories as fact. Instead, ask yourself three questions.
Next you have the "professor's ploy." This is a common move used by people to escape the burden of proof. It happens when someone makes an attempt to poke holes in someone else's beliefs. When this is done, ask them why they feel as they do. "What do you mean by that?" and "So what is your opinion, then?" Make them explain how the evidence convinced them to believe how they do. They may try to return the burden to you, "Why don't you try to prove me wrong." In reply, you can say, "I haven't even said anything about my view. I might even believe as you do. It is irrelevant what I believe. You ideas are relevant and I am just wanting clarification and good reasons for the view that you have." Remember to show others grace and respect.
The minute that you feel outmatched you can switch to fact-finding mode instead of persuasion mode. Just say something like this:
"It appears that you know a lot more about this than me, and you have some interesting ideas that I have not heard before. I wonder, to help me understand you ideas better could you please take a minute to explain them to me as well as why you believe it to be true so that I can have a better understanding of it/"
You have now bought yourself extra time and have also let the other person know that you care about their point of view. You can then end the conversation for the time being with, "Very interesting. Let me think about what you've said and we can talk more about it later." You are off the hook. You have already pleaded ignorance of the subject. You have not resisted, but instead let them have make their case.
Now you can research what they have stated and create a response. You got off of the hot seat and allowed yourself valuable time to gain more knowledge. Once you understand their point of view, it is easier to respond. We have now learned how to get others to tell us what they believe and why they believe it as well as creating a buffer when we are overpowered by a subject we do not know enough about. Join me next week when we look at how to use leading questions in our discussions with others.
To illustrate what he is talking about, Greg looks at a caller who disagreed with his "a big bang needs a big banger" line. The caller felt that if you have "a base of nothing and you could say that there was nothing but an infinite, continuous moment, until one tiny, little insignificant thing happened: a point happened in the nothingness. This requires no intelligence, so no intelligent God had to intervene. All we need is a tiny imperfection in the perfect nothingness that expanded and became increasingly complex, and soon you have galaxies and planets."From here Greg threw down the gauntlet, telling the caller that "It's not my job to disprove your something from nothing fairy tale. It's your job to prove it. You haven't done that, you haven't even tried." Generally when people throw out "stories" to disprove your beliefs, they expect the discussion to end there. That should never be the case. If they have a theory, they need to give an argument.
The first Columbo question that we looked at was, "What do you mean by that?" That question let's you know what a person thinks. The question you will learn today is, "Now, how did you come to that conclusion?" This question allows you to know why a person thinks as they do. They are made to give reasons for their beliefs, and many are not prepared to do this. They may even say, "I don't know why I believe it, I just do." Which allows you to ask, "Why would you believe something when you have no reasons to believe it's true?"
You need to remember that you do not have to counter everything that someone says. What you need to do is steer the burden of proof back onto the shoulders of the person you are having the discussion with. You do not have to defeat their statements, they have to defend them. Further remember that "an alternate explanation is not a refutation." That means just because someone may be able to spin a story to support their view, that is not the same as them explaining why what they believe is true.
Many of the explanations by people like Richard Dawkins that pop up in Darwinian circles are "just so stories" after the Rudyard Kipling's book entitled "Just So Stories." It had chapters called "How the Leopard Got His Spots" and "How the Came Got His Hump." Don't allow people to pass of stories as fact. Instead, ask yourself three questions.
- Is it possible - some stories will seem completely impossible given closer scrutiny
- Is it plausible - given the evidence, it is reasonable to think this is the most likely option
- Is it probable -considering the other options, is this the best one
Next you have the "professor's ploy." This is a common move used by people to escape the burden of proof. It happens when someone makes an attempt to poke holes in someone else's beliefs. When this is done, ask them why they feel as they do. "What do you mean by that?" and "So what is your opinion, then?" Make them explain how the evidence convinced them to believe how they do. They may try to return the burden to you, "Why don't you try to prove me wrong." In reply, you can say, "I haven't even said anything about my view. I might even believe as you do. It is irrelevant what I believe. You ideas are relevant and I am just wanting clarification and good reasons for the view that you have." Remember to show others grace and respect.
The minute that you feel outmatched you can switch to fact-finding mode instead of persuasion mode. Just say something like this:
"It appears that you know a lot more about this than me, and you have some interesting ideas that I have not heard before. I wonder, to help me understand you ideas better could you please take a minute to explain them to me as well as why you believe it to be true so that I can have a better understanding of it/"
You have now bought yourself extra time and have also let the other person know that you care about their point of view. You can then end the conversation for the time being with, "Very interesting. Let me think about what you've said and we can talk more about it later." You are off the hook. You have already pleaded ignorance of the subject. You have not resisted, but instead let them have make their case.
Now you can research what they have stated and create a response. You got off of the hot seat and allowed yourself valuable time to gain more knowledge. Once you understand their point of view, it is easier to respond. We have now learned how to get others to tell us what they believe and why they believe it as well as creating a buffer when we are overpowered by a subject we do not know enough about. Join me next week when we look at how to use leading questions in our discussions with others.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
The Reason Rally: Atheists, Agnostics and Secularists Oh My
I just felt that with the upcoming gathering called the Reason Rally I should put in my .02 worth. After all, they are having it on my birthday. It is amazing that we both have chosen the 24th as the day to have a celebratory gathering. There will be much talking, laughing and music on my birthday. In that the two events will be very similar. That is where the similarities will probably end. We will both be celebrating on the same day, but for a very different reason.
The Reason Rally, on the other hand, is gathering to celebrate several things. If atheist, then by definition they are rallying around lack of belief that there is a God. If agnostic, they are gathering to celebrate lacking the knowledge to prove (or disprove) something exists. If secularist they believe that public education and politics should be without religious influence.
I can actually see the gathering of secularists based on the definition. They have an agenda. I cannot for the life of me understand the gathering of atheists and agnostics, and I was for 25 years of my life an agnostic. I would get together with fellow atheists and agnostics to make ourselves feel intellectually superior and to point out the evils of Christians, but not to celebrate all the good that we did. We never really rallied around our beliefs, but instead used our time together to belittle those of "faith."
Hopefully that's not the reason for Reason Rally. According to their site, it will not be. In fact, on the about page the question is raised, "Are we just going to use this opportunity to trash religion?" With the answer given being, "No. This will be a positive experience, focusing on all non-theists have achieved in the past several years." I wish that were the truth, but I have trouble believing that for several reasons.
For starters, look at the list of speakers they are featuring. Among those speaking are Bill Maher, Paul Provenza and Richard Dawkins. I dare say that they have hate for Christians. That would be based on the vulgarities they use as well as the names they call Christians. How can you have a positive experience focusing on all that non-theists achieve when you have people featured who use their bully pulpit to call Christians idiots and worse?
Secondly, how is one of your sponsors formally inviting Westboro Baptist Church to the Rally fit in to your expressed agenda? You are claiming that you want to have fun and talk about what non-theists have achieved. Those are mutually exclusive goals. That is sensationalism and media seeking at it's very worst.
Imagine my brother in the Army died in combat. I let everyone know the funeral is a celebration of his life and we want to recognize his service to country. Later that day I send an invitation to WBC asking them to join us in showing our respect to the deceased. It would appear that the expressed purpose in inviting everyone to the funeral was dishonest based on the invitation extended to WBC. Just like the expressed reason for the Reason Rally is sullied with the invite to WBC.
I feel this was done so that the Rally can film two segments. First, here are the non-theists. See how we are polite and speak nicely to each other. We are kind, loving people. Now look at the Christians, how they shout hate speech and wish us ill. We are so maligned by Christianity. Poor us, we are so mistreated and the Christians are so mean.
That is sad! Pointing to WBC and saying that is how Christians are is like me pointing at Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Benito Mussolini or Jeffrey Dahmer and saying that is how non-theists are. It would be completely unfair of me to make that blanket accusation. Hope to see those who claim to have reason actually show it at the rally and in the subsequent discussions that they have after it is over.
I truly hope that the Rally helps non-theists figure out ways to improve living conditions around the world. I hope that they discuss all of the humanitarian efforts that they are involved in, and how they can come together for relief efforts and to provide services and basic needs after natural disasters and in areas of high poverty. I would have loved to see tents and semi-trailers from non-theist instituations manned by non-theist volunteers giving out supplies when I was giving psychological first aid in Joplin, but I did not.
Hopefully, that is what Reason Rally is about: helping those less fortunate, struggling with physical and mental illnesses, funding/staffing humanitarian efforts and showing love for their fellow man. Unfortunately, based on the speakers that are there and the invitation to WBC that was made I am led to believe that they have a completely different agenda.
I am having a gathering to celebrate something that I have knowledge of. I know for a fact that the day I exited my mother's womb and took my first breath of fresh air was on March 24th. I have knowledge of what happened. There is no uncertainty or disbelief in my birth or the date that it happened, therefore the gathering of like-minded individuals to celebrate my creation.
The Reason Rally, on the other hand, is gathering to celebrate several things. If atheist, then by definition they are rallying around lack of belief that there is a God. If agnostic, they are gathering to celebrate lacking the knowledge to prove (or disprove) something exists. If secularist they believe that public education and politics should be without religious influence. Hopefully that's not the reason for Reason Rally. According to their site, it will not be. In fact, on the about page the question is raised, "Are we just going to use this opportunity to trash religion?" With the answer given being, "No. This will be a positive experience, focusing on all non-theists have achieved in the past several years." I wish that were the truth, but I have trouble believing that for several reasons.
For starters, look at the list of speakers they are featuring. Among those speaking are Bill Maher, Paul Provenza and Richard Dawkins. I dare say that they have hate for Christians. That would be based on the vulgarities they use as well as the names they call Christians. How can you have a positive experience focusing on all that non-theists achieve when you have people featured who use their bully pulpit to call Christians idiots and worse?
Secondly, how is one of your sponsors formally inviting Westboro Baptist Church to the Rally fit in to your expressed agenda? You are claiming that you want to have fun and talk about what non-theists have achieved. Those are mutually exclusive goals. That is sensationalism and media seeking at it's very worst.
Imagine my brother in the Army died in combat. I let everyone know the funeral is a celebration of his life and we want to recognize his service to country. Later that day I send an invitation to WBC asking them to join us in showing our respect to the deceased. It would appear that the expressed purpose in inviting everyone to the funeral was dishonest based on the invitation extended to WBC. Just like the expressed reason for the Reason Rally is sullied with the invite to WBC.
I feel this was done so that the Rally can film two segments. First, here are the non-theists. See how we are polite and speak nicely to each other. We are kind, loving people. Now look at the Christians, how they shout hate speech and wish us ill. We are so maligned by Christianity. Poor us, we are so mistreated and the Christians are so mean.
That is sad! Pointing to WBC and saying that is how Christians are is like me pointing at Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Benito Mussolini or Jeffrey Dahmer and saying that is how non-theists are. It would be completely unfair of me to make that blanket accusation. Hope to see those who claim to have reason actually show it at the rally and in the subsequent discussions that they have after it is over.
I truly hope that the Rally helps non-theists figure out ways to improve living conditions around the world. I hope that they discuss all of the humanitarian efforts that they are involved in, and how they can come together for relief efforts and to provide services and basic needs after natural disasters and in areas of high poverty. I would have loved to see tents and semi-trailers from non-theist instituations manned by non-theist volunteers giving out supplies when I was giving psychological first aid in Joplin, but I did not.
Hopefully, that is what Reason Rally is about: helping those less fortunate, struggling with physical and mental illnesses, funding/staffing humanitarian efforts and showing love for their fellow man. Unfortunately, based on the speakers that are there and the invitation to WBC that was made I am led to believe that they have a completely different agenda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)