Do we also get to judge all atheists by what the worst atheists have done, or is that treatment reserved for religious people only?

@skado This shit is done in the name of their religions, in huge numbers, and they admit this is why they do it. I have never seen anywhere in history where people are tortured and wars are started in the name of atheism. I have no problem with believers, but religions are evil. They are about power and control, not goodness.Are there evil atheists, of course there are. They do their evil individually, because they are bad, not as a group because the group or the leaders of the group said, "Let's kill these folks. Let's torture these folks. Let's burn these women because they are witches". Your argument is weak.

@Sticks48
Rohr is making a distinction between the religion and the institution. He agrees with you about the institution. It’s just a semantics problem. There are philisophical positions within the religion that promote peace, tolerance and love. That’s undeniable. There are institutions who claim to be religious, but who violate those principles. So who deserves to be regarded as Christians - those who exemplify the principles, or those who violate them?

@skado Religions are institutions. Faith is a belief.Religions have leaders, tenants, and rules. Faith is a belief in a higher power or diety. Big difference.

@Sticks48
Thanks for sharing your definitions. I think individuals have every right to their own opinions. You have yours and I have mine.

The reason I know you (like me) have no authoritative source upon which to base that opinion is because no such independent authority exists. Scholars don’t agree. If you say the institution is the authority on what religion is, then you must also accept their authority on whether religions are evil. If you don’t accept their word on that, then you have no standing to assign them authority over what constitutes religion.

Seems to me there are many useful perspectives - not just one, official, accurate one.

All institutions are made of human beings. That includes religions, governments, corporations, charitable organizations, educational institutions, and so on. None of them live up to their stated ideals. None of them are without critics. Religions are not unique in this.

I don’t think it fails to recognize that at all. I think that’s exactly what Rohr is referring to. What it fails to do is accept that the corruptors are the legitimate owners of the faith.

I don’t care what brand name people identify with or disidentify with. All the major religions as well as many secular institutions make some claims to support non-violence and tolerance. I give my moral support to those of all persuasions who try to live to that standard.

@skado “I give my moral support to those of all persuasions who try to live to that standard [of supporting non-violence and tolerance].”

As do I, my friend, as do I.

@p-nullifidian
Please help me understand. Do you mean all persuasions except Christian? Rohr is a Christian. When he defines Christianity as a way of being in the world that is non-violent and loving, you call it tripe, sputum, and joy-juice. Is that what you call moral support?

@skado I simply meant that I agree with you regarding supporting the practice of nonviolence and tolerance, no matter the stripe.

Christianity is arguably the most powerful and most long-lived ideology humans have ever concocted. The people who think they can magically wish it away will be forever disappointed. The two camps that are in contention are the ones who want to interpret the mythology for selfish and hateful purposes, and the ones who want to use it to promote the charitable principles it espouses. There is no literal God or ultimate authority to settle this debate. There is no place to sit this out - it affects the whole planet.

I don’t claim there is one true Christianity. I claim I’d rather live in a world governed by love than in one governed by hate. And there’s at least as much support for that preference in the scriptures as there is anything that could be interpreted as supporting hate. Humans will decide which side of that debate they’d rather support.

“Be better than that” is trying to turn an intellectual discussion into a personal contest. It’s not about you or me “being better”. It’s just a gentlemanly discussion of ideas. No one is evil or wrong. We all have an equal right to a preference, and the freedom to express it. Please stop trying to make it personal. Thanks.

@skado
Dude what?! That was like two days ago. This is yet another example of your dishonesty. This was from "Religion asks too much of people like me." "No, in my view, that’s not right. There is no single 'right' definition of a 'Christian'. There are lots of folks who call themselves Christians, and who are welcomed into the church, but who have very different beliefs." So which is it? No single right definition, or silliness to call oneself a Christian if XYZ?

I'm not trying to turn it into a contest, I'm saying that using logical fallacies is not intellectual or gentlemanly. If those things are really your goal, I suppose it's possible you are somehow unaware you are performing actions in direct contravention of them, though that seems unlikely considering when informed (on multiple occasions) you deflected instead of recognizing your error, apologizing, and offering a correction.

Your other issue here is that even if it's one's intention to invoke Christianity for what [they think] is charitable, they still untimely contribute often in tangible, but definitely in non-tangible ways to Christian organizations or hierarchy (in the form of actual funds, or perpetuating the myth that religion is a force for good, or both). The fact of the matter is that people do good things or bad things independent of their religious affiliation (otherwise we wouldn't see countless children getting raped by clergy or atheists doing charitable things). So to claim there's two camps, and the better one is to support the continuation of "good" religion, while completely ignoring the reality that religion is no longer necessary, simply because you feel/think/believe/hope religion is still necessary, is yet another logical fallacy you attempt to trick people with (false dichotomy).

@ChestRockfield

Dude, this.

"So which is it? No single right definition, or silliness to call oneself a Christian if XYZ?"

This is resolvable without resorting to personal insults. It's really not complicated. All comments are context dependent. Spanky was representing a single, rigid view of both religion and Christianity as the only possible view. That's quite obviously not the case. There are many, well-documented cases of different perspectives, Rohr's being only one example. As I mentioned above, there is no overarching authority to which any of us can appeal to determine the "right" view. If I am mistaken about that, please inform me as to the existence of such authority.

But acknowledging that there is no supreme authority (I don't believe in the fundamentalist's God) does not prevent the various contenders from having their individual perspectives on which version is more true to the original thought, and which is healthier for our species. What do you find dishonest about having a perspective while acknowledging other perspectives exist?

As regards the "other issue," you know... all this "logical fallacy" this, and "logical fallacy" that sounds high minded, but isn't really helpful toward getting at the truth, and neither is the reliance on trying to call into question the other person's character. Surely I don't have to remind you there's a fallacy name for that too. This is not a formal debate. This is a casual discussion of ideas on social media. Not a battle to the death that someone is going to win and the other lose. If we make it a contest, we both lose. If we act as a team, trying to uncover the truth, we both win. We both have opinions, and we both have the opportunity to present our rationale for holding that position, and we both have the freedom to broaden our views as a result, or not.

You take as axiomatic the assumption that religion is no longer necessary, and that any different view could only be motivated by a lingering affection for religion. (If I have misunderstood your position here, please correct me.) It's an easy enough position to assume. I know. I assumed the same thing most of my adult life... until I started reading the science. I have no lingering affection for religion because I never had any to begin with. I've spent my whole life as a non-believer, and remain so today. But I no longer see how anyone could be aware of the relevant evolutionary science and history and think that H.sapiens could discard, like a used kleenex, a behavioral trait that has been, as far as we can tell, a part of its makeup for as long as it has existed. There is no handy smoking gun anyone can point to to "prove" this point to someone who is predisposed to disbelieve it. But if anyone wants to know whether it is true or not, they could study the evidence for themselves, and toward that goal, I'd be happy to recommend sources. Conversely, I'd be very interested in knowing about any scientific sources that support the idea that religion is now optional for H.sapiens. I've looked for it diligently, and haven't found it yet.

@skado

1. You don't need to be in a formal debate to expect others to adhere to logically sound arguments. That you think a formal debate is a prerequisite is rather telling, and sad. Being logically valid, sound, and consistent is something we should all strive for all of the time, and I'd bet my bottom dollar it's a principle that would more likely lead to better society than most things in most religious texts, and it is 100% in the helpful column when trying to determine truth (that's essentially the literal definition of soundness in argumentation).

2. No matter how you try to spin it, you were both making a logically fallacious statement, and I showed with a direct quote from you only a few days before that you were being inconsistent. If there's no authority as to what constitutes a Christian, than on what authority is he claiming (and you by extension with a repost) that it is silliness to claim to be one even though XYZ?

3. It's not the holding of one perspective while recognizing the existence of another I find dishonest, it's espousing contradictory beliefs a few days apart because they happen to fit your narrative for the day or the post that I find dishonest.

4. Check your list of logical fallacies. Calling one's character into question in and of itself does not make a fallacious Ad Hominem. One has to suggest that the character flaw is the reason their argument is wrong, AND the criticism isn't valid. "Consider, for example, former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, who was caught on a wiretap arranging to hire a prostitute for $4,300. Because this behavior ran counter to Spitzer’s anticorruption platform, its unveiling would prevent Spitzer from governing successfully; thus, criticizing this aspect of his character was relevant and fair. In an earlier scandal, in 1987, televangelist Jimmy Swaggart was seen at a motel with a prostitute. Because his behavior undercut his preaching and status as a Christian role model, a character attack based on this incident would have been spot-on."

5. Technically everything is "optional" for humans in relation to evolution. For one, we've been fighting against the evolutionary process and natural selection for quite a while with no end in sight, so doing something that [we think] may not be to the advantage of the species is both something we already do and something we can't predict the outcome of. Not only that, but the health of the species you keep referring to is not the basis for evolutionary progress if Dawkins is to be believed. So at this point you seem to be grasping at any reason to defend religion, all of which have basis in the past alone, none of which can guarantee promise for the future, and in stark contrast to your claim that you have no affection for it. Furthermore, you're the one making the assertive claim that religion is still necessary without proof. Why should I have to prove it's not?

@ChestRockfield
"...it's espousing contradictory beliefs a few days apart because they happen to fit your narrative for the day or the post that I find dishonest."

Please be specific. What two contradictory beliefs do you believe I espoused? Put it in your own words, please. I know what I said. I don't know how you interpreted it. If there is a misunderstanding, please allow me to clarify. I don't see the conflict.

Secondly, please tell me what you think my narrative is. Thanks.

What do you have against simple, non-violent, shared, and loving?

@skado Tiger cubs are cute and cuddly, they grow up to be man eaters. I was raised going to church, regardless of how peaceful they seem they will bear their fangs and develop a taste for blood sooner or later. I'd feel much better hanging out with Buddhist or Sufi.

@Willow_Wisp

That’s kinda the point here. Doesn’t matter what people label themselves. Love is love and hate is hate.

@skado Jaded is jaded and I've been Christ betrayed one too many times.

@Willow_Wisp
Very understandable. It's what you and Rohr have in common. He's speaking out against those betrayers here.