The Myth of Good Christians

[LovePrevails]

A week or two this video came up as suggested on youtube somehow!

 

 

I'm just wondering to what extent Stefan's views have changed, if at all, on this issue

[Brainwright]

Honestly, I'm not inclined to probe Stefan too much on his old opinions. Especially ones worded like those in this video.

 

Like he said, one's irrational impulses are hard to justify, and I find the argument, "These people don't do enough good, so they must be bad," to be so contrary to the majority of his work, that I can't call it rational.

 

He's provided good arguments for the morality of Christians even with their irrational beliefs. I take that as the due restitution to restore good faith.

[dsayers]

Being "good" and Christian are not mutually exclusive. Except in the parent-child relationship where the parent has voluntarily created the obligation to nurture and protect the child until such a time as they can survive without their parents. In this paradigm, inflicting a belief as factual is antithetical to this obligation. I am biased as I was a severely abused child by way of Christianity being inflicted upon me by my "caregivers."

[Tyler H]

I have the same bias, so my opinion may be colored by that, but I don't think his views have changed.  I think the most pressing issue right now is the threat of Islam and those who wish to spread it through violence; alliances are deemed necessary.

[thebeardslastcall]

From what I've heard Stefan isn't any more accepting of the religious aspects of Christianity. Christianity and other religions have a shitton of cultural and morality baked into their madness, which makes them quite effective in many ways and is how they've lasted this long and are so prominent in our lives. Not all of religions is madness, as they've built up lots of useful knowledge over the generations to keep themselves useful and relevant and offer some useful cohesion as well. Lots of atheists basically tossed the baby out with the bathwater when they left religion, which is why they're having trouble. They tossed out useful things they didn't yet know how or want to replace which are relevant for survival and sometimes take up foolishly contrarian positions, leading to low birth rates and other issues. Acknowledging the host doesn't invalidate criticisms of the parasite on the host.

 

Basically he's acknowledging the irrational elements of many atheists and the rational elements of many Christians, is what it comes down to.

[Troubador]

I for one would take it as an ominous and bad sign if a philosopher never changed their minds about anything. Philosophy is about a constant and lifelong refinement of ideas and thought. Having delved into one or two of these earlier videos that are critical of religion despite being religious I think a large number of those criticisms are valid today.

 

To pick up on dsayers point about his bias, I think he's right. Inflicting a religion on a child as fact does both the child and the religion a disservice. Religions and faith based beliefs, are not in the same category as facts. It is factual to say penguins exist, it's a statement of faith to say some sort of divinity exists. A parents job is to teach their child how to think, not to teach them what to think.

 

I feel personally embarrassed to see threads on here where religious people like myself conflate empirical observable facts with asserting faith based beliefs. They occupy different categories which I would of thought was self-evident, but seems to be beyond the grasp of many people.

 

I'm also a bit mystified by the comments on this thread. Stefan hasn't come out and said Christianity is right and God exists after all. All he's done is observed a lot of Christians are nice to him and personable and observed that at points in human history Christianity has contributed to western civilisation, and thought. Note this doesn't wipe away any negative influences (of which there are many, and leads to the natural conclusion of separation of church and state). However I've not seen Stefan advance any argument that Christianity is off the hook there. All he's done is expanded the conversation.

 

His criticisms of atheism have nothing to do with the truth value of "God doesn't exist". He has again simply observed, and I agree with him is that a lot of atheists end up frequently leaning to the left, and that a belief in the state replaces the belief in God, which lead to some of the same batshit crazy evils people do one another in the name of God.

 

What we all need to unite against is any sort of blind faith, wether that is religious doctrine or a political ideology. Which at present the two most prominent examples are Islamic Fundementalism, and Socialism. If we manage to tackle those if Stefan returns to a more aggressive critique of Christianity then fair enough. At no point in his earlier presentations has he advocated anything close to violence against people like me, all he would advocate is to ostracise me and warn anyone off marrying me. I really don't think either is the end of the world.

 

I also think it's a bit disingenuous to imply he's chasing a certain demographic, all his old videos seem to be up there. You can follow the development of his thinking over time it's right there with no obsfucation.

[Tyler H]

I listened to this podcast today (I'm catching up on my 1 year hiatus of new content) and I think the answer to the question at 1:32:00 really speaks to the ceasefire on the right, let me know what you guys think.  

 

 

 

If only there were countless videos of Stefan discussing his perspective on this issue... but the "demographic" speculation certainly is a delightful touch. Five stars.

 

I am curious, why do you so often choose to employ sarcasm in your posts?  Personally I have a negative reaction to it, but it may be that the reason will assuage that feeling or help me understand why it arises at all.  

 

[shirgall]

I am curious, why do you so often choose to employ sarcasm in your posts?  Personally I have a negative reaction to it, but it may be that the reason will assuage that feeling or help me understand why it arises at all.  

 

For the same reason he said there were no rational arguments on the forums on this topic when Stef asked many months ago. He's trying to get you to come up with a better argument, or he's going to ignore you if you can't.

 

Negative reactions aren't an argument. Good arguments with a spirited call are revenue because those kinds of calls are interesting. This is why I never call in, because I don't think it would be interesting to anyone else and MMD has never offered a counterargument to that.

[EclecticIdealist]

For the same reason he said there were no rational arguments on the forums on this topic when Stef asked many months ago. He's trying to get you to come up with a better argument, or he's going to ignore you if you can't.

 

Negative reactions aren't an argument. Good arguments with a spirited call are revenue because those kinds of calls are interesting. This is why I never call in, because I don't think it would be interesting to anyone else and MMD has never offered a counterargument to that.

So Mike's negative reactions (use of sarcasm) are not an argument; however, his reasons for using sarcasm are the same reasons why he said there were no rational arguments on the forums on this topic when Stef asked many months ago (which is not an answer to the question).

 

In short, you seem to be suggesting that Mike is being sarcastic because there aren't any good (by his judgment, and perhaps yours) arguments and therefore, he either A) Seeks to inspire good arguments with his negative sarcasm, or B) Seeks only to express his disdain for the lack of good arguments.

[shirgall]

So Mike's negative reactions (use of sarcasm) are not an argument; however, his reasons for using sarcasm are the same reasons why he said there were no rational arguments on the forums on this topic when Stef asked many months ago (which is not an answer to the question).

 

In short, you seem to be suggesting that Mike is being sarcastic because there aren't any good (by his judgment, and perhaps yours) arguments and therefore, he either A) Seeks to inspire good arguments with his negative sarcasm, or B) Seeks only to express his disdain for the lack of good arguments.

 

Indeed, I think it's a gatekeeper tactic to "sharpen the saw" and create good calls. Based on past threads that led to calls this sometimes works. My own experience with it is negative.

[Tyler H]

For the same reason he said there were no rational arguments on the forums on this topic when Stef asked many months ago. He's trying to get you to come up with a better argument, or he's going to ignore you if you can't.

 

Negative reactions aren't an argument. Good arguments with a spirited call are revenue because those kinds of calls are interesting. This is why I never call in, because I don't think it would be interesting to anyone else and MMD has never offered a counterargument to that.

Maybe I misinterpreted your post, but what about my post implied I was making an argument? I would like to avoid that language as it was not my intent.

 

I am aware emotions and feelings and reactions are not arguments, but they are quite important in the realm of self-knowledge and connection. I was going for an "RTR" type dialogue and maybe should have expressed the specific feelings (annoyance, frustration) that I felt instead of the oh-so-vague "negative reactions"; my mistake.

[shirgall]

Maybe I misinterpreted your post, but what about my post implied I was making an argument? I would like to avoid that language as it was not my intent.

 

I am aware emotions and feelings and reactions are not arguments, but they are quite important in the realm of self-knowledge and connection. I was going for an "RTR" type dialogue and maybe should have expressed the specific feelings (annoyance, frustration) that I felt instead of the oh-so-vague "negative reactions"; my mistake.

 

I responded to your question about MMD's sarcasm, so the observation about arguments was related to his comment, not yours.

[Tyler H]

I responded to your question about MMD's sarcasm, so the observation about arguments was related to his comment, not yours.

 

 

Ah, I understand, thank you for clarifying.

[Tyler H]

It's pretty simple.

 

If somebody makes insulting speculations/insinuations about motives despite lots of available evidence - I treat like with like.

 

 

I don't understand the rest of the speculation or what is even being argued.

 

 

I certainly understand the offense.  The underlying accusation in the statement (as I see it) is that you guys are purposefully being dishonest and manipulative in order to grow the show.  I have had to deal with these thoughts arising within myself as well, wrestling with them to a surprising degree.  I have consumed an enormous amount of material from the show and should have no doubt about Stef's level of integrity, yet I find myself experiencing various "wtf?" moments.  I do not think the aforementioned accusation is true, but allow to me to explore the thoughts and feelings that I, and I think more than a few others in the community as well, am having and the possible causes.

 

For the vast majority of the show Stef has argued, with logic and good reason, why the state and religion are pernicious and evil.  Arguments were made that those who support the state indeed support the initiation of force against us.  The initiation of force is evil so those who continue to support it after the arguments have been advanced are therefore evil, and we should not continue to associate with these people.  The courage and strength it took to accept these arguments that flew in the face of the lies we'd been told by society our whole lives pale in comparison to the courage and strength it took to bring these arguments to bear in our personal lives knowing very well the most likely outcome.

 

The arguments were made that the Christian Bible is replete with moral atrocities including atheists be murdered.  Arguments were made that teaching religion to children is child abuse, the most important evil to fight in order to extinguish all the others.  Christianity, like all religion, is a superstitious cult based on manipulation and control and those who, after hearing the arguments, would choose an imaginary relationship with an immoral deity over a tangible and valuable relationship with us are not worthy of our time and attention.  Again, courage and strength were required to accept these arguments.

 

Great pains were endured to align ourselves with virtue and truth, so when we hear podcasts that appear to pull punches in order to court favor with Christians and conservatives, at least for me, feelings arise of frustration, confusion, and maybe even a bit of betrayal.  I'm not saying this is what is happening (courting favors), but it is the message being perceived by some.  People who have hollowed out their lives on the basis of these arguments are perplexed and disheartened to see Stef praise Trump, defend cops, shoot the shit with a minarchist, and prefer a religious society to a statist one (which I don't think is a valid choice since they are both a symptom of the same disease); especially if they are still in the process of finding virtuous people to fill the space in their lives they've cleared out.  

 

The podcast I posted above alludes to the idea that presenting the "against me" argument and the voluntary family have been ill-received; bringing a barrage a vitriol and scorn and accusations of the most malevolent order, and that there is a very delicate balance between attracting new people to grow the show, giving viewers what they ask for, and staying true to the principles.  Am I correct in this interpretation?  If not, please let me know.  

 

These thoughts were extremely difficult for me to articulate (and I may have still failed at that) and it took me all evening, so I hope it is helpful.  If it is not then at least I got some of the thoughts that have been rattling around in my head down for others to view and offer insight.  If I have caused any offense please let me know I will apologize profusely, and if I have misrepresented or misunderstood anything I welcome correction.  

[thebeardslastcall]

Are you afraid he's giving aid and quarter to "the enemy"? I kind of see it as recognizing that they're not enemies, but allies, in many ways, and acknowledging a lot of the more dangerous elements of the non-theist religions (statism). I also kind of see it as him trying to keep himself humble and to keep exploring and acknowledging the good elements of groups who have some irrationality. In this way he's not being overly labeling of people into groups since he's allowing himself to parse out the good and bad elements of all groups and keeping himself honest to each groups benefits as to not discard them when pointing out their issues. In many ways it isn't really about promoting Christianity as a religion at all, but Christianity as a culture and the good community and honest elements within the culture, which happen to be tied to the religion. He's never changed or softened his position that God might be possible I don't think (and if you have a clip you think says otherwise, please share). Most people aren't very adept or at all good at parsing out these elements of groups and keep everything as an "us and them" type mentality for groups and this isn't a healthy or rational way to view groups when you're trying to achieve truth and rationality. That strategy works when you're in a violent war and you're just trying to survive, but when you're trying to promote rationality you need to break things up some to get to the truths and lies within. In that way I'm glad he's doing what he's doing, because it's beginning to show people how to parse things up more in ways that are foreign to most. He also intentionally brings on people from time to time he is fairly certain he disagrees with, just to keep himself and check and to show how to debunk them should they fail to change his mind as I'd guess he sometimes expects, so he kind of wins regardless of which direction the conversation goes.

[sweathog1]

This may help ! No one remains static forever.   "Stages of Spiritual Growth"  by M Scott Peck MD    please note  atheists and agnostics are stage 3

 

STAGE III:

Skeptic, Individual, questioner, including atheists, agnostics and those scientifically minded who demand a measurable, well researched and logical explanation. Although frequently "nonbelievers," people in Stage III are generally more spiritually developed than many content to remain in Stage II. Although individualistic, they are not the least bit antisocial. To the contrary, they are often deeply involved in and committed to social causes. They make up their own minds about things and are no more likely to believe everything they read in the papers than to believe it is necessary for someone to acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Savior (as opposed to Buddha or Mao or Socrates) in order to be saved. They make loving, intensely dedicated parents. As skeptics they are often scientists, and as such they are again highly submitted to principle. Indeed, what we call the scientific method is a collection of conventions and procedures that have been designed to combat our extraordinary capacity to deceive ourselves in the interest of submission to something higher than our own immediate emotional or intellectual comfort--namely truth. Advanced Stage III men and women are active truth seekers.

Despite being scientifically minded, in many cases even atheists, they are on a higher spiritual level than Stage II, being a required stage of growth to enter into Stage IV. The churches age old dilemma: how to bring people from Stage II to Stage IV, without allowing them to enter Stage III.

 

For reading on the other stages and expansion of concepts

 

http://factnet.org/stages-spiritual-growth-m-scott-peck-abridged-richard-schwartz  

Just one further thought about Truth. The genuine Satanists know about the one sin which God cannot forgive and that is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. (even murder can be forgiven)

[LovePrevails]

Are you afraid he's giving aid and quarter to "the enemy"? 

 

No, I don't mind, because I don't prefer divisive approaches at the best of times. I think you have to find equal footing with people to change their minds in the first place most of the time. So I actually think it's often a good thing. I am not against Christians or people with any faith or any people without faith, I can even find common cause with the left on foreign policy and civil liberties and I find if I have a starting point of talking about how government makes things worse for the poor and free markets make things better for the poor I can begin to shift their position to something closer to mine. However, I can't really get around Stef's original arguments about indoctrinating children though.