Options

Atheists: Please be quiet

13468926

Posts

  • Options
    mynameisguidomynameisguido Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    The problem with attempting to normalize atheism is that the word itself is loaded down with insinuations that make the word sting. Many attempts have been made to find a word that doesn't come with such cultural baggage and every time it has failed.

    Even without this cultural baggage, do you simply think that polite discourse and changing individual minds is going to make atheism normal? There was plenty of campaigning by the gay community at large that would probably be considered by most people to be somewhat obnoxious, yet it seemed to work eventually.

    One huge problem is that simply by being an atheist you are offending some people and no amount of politeness or rational discource is going to change such deeply held beliefs.

    mynameisguido on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    YodaTunaYodaTuna Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    Atheists do not have a comparable struggle. What atheists struggle with (in the US more than anything else) is cultural discrimination. Atheists have a PR problem, they have a bad reputation especially in the United States and they are seen as one of the many opponents of the angry, zealous Christian Right

    and that does suck ass, for sure, but it's very hard to galvanize people on that point

    especially when the people who hate atheists the most also hate a bunch of other people and atheists are just one part of the grab-bag of their hatred

    This is true. That's why you're seeing more forceful demonstrations of atheism. It's the exact same tactic that homosexuality used. Normalize it. Have people realize they probably talk to atheists every day. Telling atheists to shut up per the OP is actually counterproductive. You won't normalize an idea unless it is talked about.

    Homosexuality didn't normalize through having the most stereotypically effeminate homosexuals running around making a scene. It normalized through having otherwise normal and adjusted individuals come out, thereby showing that there was nothing different about homosexuals.



    What the OP is talking about is similar. Atheists shouldn't go in to hiding, but anti-religious atheists are hurting the cause for all others every time they open their mouths.

    Ok so atheists don't go into hiding. What should we do to normalize the idea if we are not allowed to debate the legitmancy of the idea over other ideas?

    I've bolded the word that is the issue with your point.

    I have heard homosexuals in the past argue that homosexuality is superior to heterosexuality (there is a list of reasons, including overpopulation, etc.)

    THOSE particular homosexuals are EXACTLY what the far right put up when they talk about the "gay agenda"

    If you want to be treated as equals, you need to introduce yourself AS an equal, not as a superior.

    Except homosexuality, in and of itself, is not an idea. It's a genetic variation, just like race and eye color. Theism is an idea, atheism is a rejection of that idea.

    YodaTuna on
  • Options
    JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    edited December 2010
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    Personally, I don't think you can be against so-called "state-sponsored displays of religion" like a nativity scene on the grass of the State Senate house or something

    and also

    at the same time

    be in favor of state sponsorship of the arts.

    You can't see the slight difference between those two things?

    "The state shouldn't display religious materials or symbolism, because it is offensive to non-religious people"

    "Artists, funded by the state, have the right to display their art even if it is offensive to some people"

    wh-what

    Wrong. State sponsored religious displays aren't offensive. No one goes to court and bases their argument on offensiveness. It is a violation of the 1st amendment and against the law. Coincidently, offensive art is protected by the 1st amendment. It's the swiss army knife of amendments.


    but

    It's only religious in nature if you take it that way.

    otherwise, it's just a piece, or pieces, of art. I'm not christian, but there are some very beautiful Nativity sets and scenes that I have seen. I almost bought one at one point, simply because the artistry of the pieces was so pretty and well done.

    It's just art. That some people put religious significance to.

    The Rose Window in Notre Dame is gorgeous. it's technically religious artwork, but it's still artwork.

    It's religious in nature no matter how you take it. The religious significance is very important.

    That said, the government still has an interest in preserving religious art because the historical and cultural aspects of it are more important. But, and this is important, the government shouldn't be sponsoring current religious art.

    Julius on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    How does one act flamboyantly atheist any way? Cos play as Darwin and speak with an English accent about how the universe does not require a creator to function?
    Evolution is fully compatible with a creator, so I dunno about that.

    Not really.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    ShanadeusShanadeus Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    I agree with you OP.
    Religion itself is irrelevant.

    Shanadeus on
  • Options
    YodaTunaYodaTuna Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    How does one act flamboyantly atheist any way? Cos play as Darwin and speak with an English accent about how the universe does not require a creator to function?
    Evolution is fully compatible with a creator, so I dunno about that.

    Not really.

    Watch it, you might derail the thread!

    YodaTuna on
  • Options
    StericaSterica Yes Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited December 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    Atheists do not have a comparable struggle. What atheists struggle with (in the US more than anything else) is cultural discrimination. Atheists have a PR problem, they have a bad reputation especially in the United States and they are seen as one of the many opponents of the angry, zealous Christian Right

    and that does suck ass, for sure, but it's very hard to galvanize people on that point

    especially when the people who hate atheists the most also hate a bunch of other people and atheists are just one part of the grab-bag of their hatred

    This is true. That's why you're seeing more forceful demonstrations of atheism. It's the exact same tactic that homosexuality used. Normalize it. Have people realize they probably talk to atheists every day. Telling atheists to shut up per the OP is actually counterproductive. You won't normalize an idea unless it is talked about.

    Homosexuality didn't normalize through having the most stereotypically effeminate homosexuals running around making a scene. It normalized through having otherwise normal and adjusted individuals come out, thereby showing that there was nothing different about homosexuals.



    What the OP is talking about is similar. Atheists shouldn't go in to hiding, but anti-religious atheists are hurting the cause for all others every time they open their mouths.

    Ok so atheists don't go into hiding. What should we do to normalize the idea if we are not allowed to debate the legitmancy of the idea over other ideas?

    I've bolded the word that is the issue with your point.

    I have heard homosexuals in the past argue that homosexuality is superior to heterosexuality (there is a list of reasons, including overpopulation, etc.)

    THOSE particular homosexuals are EXACTLY what the far right put up when they talk about the "gay agenda"



    If you want to be treated as equals, you need to introduce yourself AS an equal, not as a superior.
    You seem to be confusing people with ideas.

    We treat people as equals. We respect their right to an opinion. To speak out on it. That doesn't necessarily apply to their ideas. They have to actually to defend that, as do we.

    You can have society treat you as equals or you can have society treat you as enemies.

    The choice is yours, but you can't sit there and yell "I DEMAND BOTH!" If your intention is to attack their way of life, they are not going to welcome you with open arms.
    The expectation is tolerance, which doesn't mean everyone has to like each other. Just respect their rights to hold an opinion and express it when appropriate.

    Sterica on
    YL9WnCY.png
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    The Ender wrote: »
    creationism implies sameness more than evolution does

    Err. The idea that everything was created individually implies sameness more than a theory that proposes that everything is connected by ancestry?

    I mean, you'd have to have a very, very strange perception of evolution & natural selection to think that the most recent organisms are 'superior' organisms & to miss out on the underlying (poetic, IMHO) fact that everything, from birch trees to homo sapiens, are part of the same family.

    I know I should ignore the misplaced defensiveness, but I get very annoyed when people mistake evolution for being something more than what it is.

    Evolution doesn't exist. It is a name given to the effect that can be observed from the combination of multiple sources, the chief among which are random mutation and natural selection.

    Now, random mutation can occur any which way it prefers, but natural selection is very environmentally based. Therefore, within the context of "evolution", the argument can be made that a creature evolving under certain environmental factors is, in fact, superior to a creature evolving elsewhere, because whatever the environment was for the former, it shaped a "better" creature. Whereas, in the Genesis view of things, we are all the sons of Adam, and there is no reason for any two men to be superior or inferior to each other.



    Now, of course, I fall strictly in favor of evolution, and ALSO do not believe that any one "type" of person is inherently superior to another. I was merely pointing out that racism (in the form, most chiefly, of Eugenics) actually meshes better with evolution, rather than creation, so to see a racist atheist really doesn't seem like such a contradiction as it was made out to be.



    PLEASE NOT: I am NOT implying that atheists are racist, so there is no need to jump in to some sort of "defense mode". It really is getting quite silly.

    Evander on
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    How does one act flamboyantly atheist any way? Cos play as Darwin and speak with an English accent about how the universe does not require a creator to function?

    Well, many people feel that (just to use the two most prominent examples) Hitchens & Harris both go too far when they argue that the hijackers who flew the planes into the WTC complex & Pentagon (and wherever the 3rd plane's intended destination was before the passengers intervened) were motivated almost entirely by religion.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    StericaSterica Yes Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited December 2010
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    How does one act flamboyantly atheist any way? Cos play as Darwin and speak with an English accent about how the universe does not require a creator to function?
    Evolution is fully compatible with a creator, so I dunno about that.
    Not really.
    Watch it, you might derail the thread!
    I swear to God I'll take this thread off the tracks!

    Sterica on
    YL9WnCY.png
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    Atheists do not have a comparable struggle. What atheists struggle with (in the US more than anything else) is cultural discrimination. Atheists have a PR problem, they have a bad reputation especially in the United States and they are seen as one of the many opponents of the angry, zealous Christian Right

    and that does suck ass, for sure, but it's very hard to galvanize people on that point

    especially when the people who hate atheists the most also hate a bunch of other people and atheists are just one part of the grab-bag of their hatred

    This is true. That's why you're seeing more forceful demonstrations of atheism. It's the exact same tactic that homosexuality used. Normalize it. Have people realize they probably talk to atheists every day. Telling atheists to shut up per the OP is actually counterproductive. You won't normalize an idea unless it is talked about.

    Homosexuality didn't normalize through having the most stereotypically effeminate homosexuals running around making a scene. It normalized through having otherwise normal and adjusted individuals come out, thereby showing that there was nothing different about homosexuals.



    What the OP is talking about is similar. Atheists shouldn't go in to hiding, but anti-religious atheists are hurting the cause for all others every time they open their mouths.

    Ok so atheists don't go into hiding. What should we do to normalize the idea if we are not allowed to debate the legitmancy of the idea over other ideas?

    I've bolded the word that is the issue with your point.

    I have heard homosexuals in the past argue that homosexuality is superior to heterosexuality (there is a list of reasons, including overpopulation, etc.)

    THOSE particular homosexuals are EXACTLY what the far right put up when they talk about the "gay agenda"



    If you want to be treated as equals, you need to introduce yourself AS an equal, not as a superior.
    You seem to be confusing people with ideas.

    We treat people as equals. We respect their right to an opinion. To speak out on it. That doesn't necessarily apply to their ideas. They have to actually to defend that, as do we.

    You can have society treat you as equals or you can have society treat you as enemies.

    The choice is yours, but you can't sit there and yell "I DEMAND BOTH!" If your intention is to attack their way of life, they are not going to welcome you with open arms.
    The expectation is tolerance, which doesn't mean everyone has to like each other. Just respect their rights to hold an opinion and express it when appropriate.

    It is hard to request tolerance when you introduce yourself as thinking you are superior (which was the implication of the word "over" in YodaTuna's post which I am responding to.)

    To show up at a neighbor's door and say "hey, I think something different than you, but we both like football, so let's watch the game" would be a great way to go about things. To show up and say "hey, I think something different than you, and my way of life is better", that's not so much.



    How much do you tolerate proselytizers of OTHER belief systems?

    Evander on
  • Options
    L|amaL|ama Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    I pretty much agree with most of what the OP says, and especially find people like Ross blaming religion for everything to be incredibly intellectually dishonest or lazy. Do the tiniest bit of research into history and you'll realise things like the crusades are barely based on religion, it's mostly just that back then the church was heavily involved in politics at every level.

    Pony wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    I'm sure there's a ton of issues that a group of atheists can agree upon, though in a place where atheism is the norm it obviously wouldn't make much sense.

    I just want to point out that I knew a white supremcist atheist. It was odd.

    it makes MORE sense to me, honestly

    creationism implies sameness more than evolution does. Superiority is a more likely byproduct of evolution. I mean, Eugenics was built on pseudoscience, not pseudoreligion.

    it's true!

    i mean, there's actually very little foundation in most religions to form a foundation for saying one race of people is intrinsically superior (except Judaism, i guess!)

    pretty much all white supremacy movements have been founded on flimsy pseudoscience about the evolutionary superiority of white people

    most of the extreme racism and white supremacy I come across is from black metal fans who are virulently anti-theistic
    Pony wrote: »
    FroThulhu wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    FroThulhu wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    FroThulhu wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Fuck, you can believe everything that science has taught us about how the world works and still believe in God. We have figured out the history of this universe back to something like 1 billionth of a second after the Big Bang, but we're drawing a blank before that. Stick God in there and you've got religion and all of science in harmony.

    And everything would be great if people just did that, I would still giggle at it but whatever.


    However, obviously people fucking don't do that. They have to fill entire books with bullshit about their god and what is good behaviour and what is not and shit.

    Define "people"

    Because plenty of folks DO do that

    Just because there are some loud idiots doesn't invalidate the rest

    I am, in fact, one of the people who do that. Because, sometimes, when the theory of relativity just ain't getting me through the day, I have to turn somewhere else. I also happen to be one of those people who doesn't give a fuck about the afterlife, because, ya know... you're dead, and there ain't a damned thing you can do about it.

    And, as to the bolded: why giggle? Because, I mean, an exploding ball of super-compressed whatnot works... except for the part where it apparently came from fucknowhere. That's pretty lul-worthy, really. Almost, almost as lul-worthy as a giant bearded man in the sky.

    I mean, I'm just sayin'

    So giggle at each other, then.

    Me, I'm an agnostic who would LOVE to believe in God, but can't do so without rational backing for it. I could go either way on the explanations. I'll giggle at both of you for jumping to conclusions.



    But hey, we can all get along perfectly well while giggling, no?

    What I'm saying is that I don't bother with the giggling. Right before the concept of the super-compressed matter that came from nowhere bounces off my funny bone, it's intercepted by a mesh net of "huh... well, time for lunch." Not putting the bearded guy in there is all well and good, but condescending to those who do is basically a dick move. Because, honestly, at that point there's no decent explanation and it really does creep into the land of utter strangeness.

    What's your aversion to giggling? Me, I think of "There Will Be Blood" as a comedy.



    People find humor in the absurd. Both of you find each other's explanations to be absurd. As long as you don't judge each other ON those explanations, there is no harm in those findings.

    That's the real key of it all. Not judging.

    But I don't find the big bang to be absurd. Because it seems like a good enough explanation, based on scientific evidence. What I find absurd is deriding people for believing something happened before that, something that isn't covered by science because, really, the big bang is the farthest back science can go with any degree of certainty.

    duder you know that the so-called "big bang" isn't even the scientific model that the majority of physicists even utilize anymore and hasn't been for decades

    right

    'big bang' is an very nebulously defined term in cosmology, it can mean anything from the original theory of Lemaitre (who was a priest, just bring things back to the OP) to just the thing that we know happened about 13.7 billion years ago.

    L|ama on
  • Options
    StericaSterica Yes Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited December 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    Atheists do not have a comparable struggle. What atheists struggle with (in the US more than anything else) is cultural discrimination. Atheists have a PR problem, they have a bad reputation especially in the United States and they are seen as one of the many opponents of the angry, zealous Christian Right

    and that does suck ass, for sure, but it's very hard to galvanize people on that point

    especially when the people who hate atheists the most also hate a bunch of other people and atheists are just one part of the grab-bag of their hatred

    This is true. That's why you're seeing more forceful demonstrations of atheism. It's the exact same tactic that homosexuality used. Normalize it. Have people realize they probably talk to atheists every day. Telling atheists to shut up per the OP is actually counterproductive. You won't normalize an idea unless it is talked about.

    Homosexuality didn't normalize through having the most stereotypically effeminate homosexuals running around making a scene. It normalized through having otherwise normal and adjusted individuals come out, thereby showing that there was nothing different about homosexuals.



    What the OP is talking about is similar. Atheists shouldn't go in to hiding, but anti-religious atheists are hurting the cause for all others every time they open their mouths.

    Ok so atheists don't go into hiding. What should we do to normalize the idea if we are not allowed to debate the legitmancy of the idea over other ideas?

    I've bolded the word that is the issue with your point.

    I have heard homosexuals in the past argue that homosexuality is superior to heterosexuality (there is a list of reasons, including overpopulation, etc.)

    THOSE particular homosexuals are EXACTLY what the far right put up when they talk about the "gay agenda"



    If you want to be treated as equals, you need to introduce yourself AS an equal, not as a superior.
    You seem to be confusing people with ideas.

    We treat people as equals. We respect their right to an opinion. To speak out on it. That doesn't necessarily apply to their ideas. They have to actually to defend that, as do we.

    You can have society treat you as equals or you can have society treat you as enemies.

    The choice is yours, but you can't sit there and yell "I DEMAND BOTH!" If your intention is to attack their way of life, they are not going to welcome you with open arms.
    The expectation is tolerance, which doesn't mean everyone has to like each other. Just respect their rights to hold an opinion and express it when appropriate.
    It is hard to request tolerance when you introduce yourself as thinking you are superior (which was the implication of the word "over" in YodaTuna's post which I am responding to.)

    To show up at a neighbor's door and say "hey, I think something different than you, but we both like football, so let's watch the game" would be a great way to go about things. To show up and say "hey, I think something different than you, and my way of life is better", that's not so much.

    How much do you tolerate proselytizers of OTHER belief systems?
    Because this isn't about running up to random people and attacking them. You just said "anti-religious" people, not proselytizers. That would be what I'd consider inappropriate. I can still attack religion when brought up in discussion. I shouldn't be forced to keep my mouth shut about it. And no, I don't mean "any time religion is brought." Context is key, and it's obviously a sensitive topic.

    Sterica on
    YL9WnCY.png
  • Options
    TheOrangeTheOrange Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    The Ender wrote: »
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    How does one act flamboyantly atheist any way? Cos play as Darwin and speak with an English accent about how the universe does not require a creator to function?

    Well, many people feel that (just to use the two most prominent examples) Hitchens & Harris both go too far when they argue that the hijackers who flew the planes into the WTC complex & Pentagon (and wherever the 3rd plane's intended destination was before the passengers intervened) were motivated almost entirely by religion.

    Most grips the Islamic fundamentalists have with the US are political, of course.

    But Religion gave them courage, its easier to kill yourself when you know that you'd go to heaven afterward.

    TheOrange on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2010
    I never fail to be surprised and disappointed at the ability of progressives to self-sabotage. Thanks, OP. What's your next thread?

    "Feminists: God, why are they so grumpy?"
    "Disabled people: They sure do whine about steps a lot"
    "Brown folk: Look, you don't know why the cop pulled you over."

    sigh.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    What the OP is talking about is similar. Atheists shouldn't go in to hiding, but anti-religious atheists are hurting the cause for all others every time they open their mouths.

    ...Data?

    I don't agree with Harris or Hitchens on their most controversial arguments, but to say that them merely making the arguments is harmful to debate is nonsense. If they're outright wrong, that's fine - do the intellectually honest thing and argue against them. Make your case.

    Saying, "Just shut up. What you're saying is making me uncomfortable," is a great way to never learn anything.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Evolution doesn't exist.

    Yes it does.

    Evolution is an observed historical fact that is explained by the theory of evolution by natural selection (or more accurately the neo-darwinian synthesis)...
    the argument can be made that a creature evolving under certain environmental factors is, in fact, superior to a creature evolving elsewhere,

    Only if one thinks evolutionary fitness equals superiority, which is a huge leap that 99% of people don't make if they know what it entails.

    surrealitycheck on
    obF2Wuw.png
  • Options
    JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    edited December 2010
    The Ender wrote: »
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    How does one act flamboyantly atheist any way? Cos play as Darwin and speak with an English accent about how the universe does not require a creator to function?

    Well, many people feel that (just to use the two most prominent examples) Hitchens & Harris both go too far when they argue that the hijackers who flew the planes into the WTC complex & Pentagon (and wherever the 3rd plane's intended destination was before the passengers intervened) were motivated almost entirely by religion.

    THEY DID IT BECAUSE OF GEOPOLITICS!


    I think that's actually a very interesting point that Hitchens brought up, for some weird reason the agnostic/atheist defenders of religion always seem to doubt that people can sincerely BELIEF in their faith. It actually strikes me as far more condescending towards those of faith to claim that their actions are primarily motivated by factors other than faith (be they poverty or culture or whatever).

    Julius on
  • Options
    TheOrangeTheOrange Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    I never fail to be surprised and disappointed at the ability of progressives to self-sabotage. Thanks, OP. What's your next thread?

    "Feminists: God, why are they so grumpy?"
    "Disabled people: They sure do whine about steps a lot"
    "Brown folk: Look, you don't know why the cop pulled you over."

    sigh.

    In a fairly progressive environment, such as this forum (its my impression at least), the OP seems very reasonable; he has concerns about the group he self-identify with and he is airing them here, not on some national talk show.

    There is no sabotage, the cause isn't being hurt.

    TheOrange on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    Atheists do not have a comparable struggle. What atheists struggle with (in the US more than anything else) is cultural discrimination. Atheists have a PR problem, they have a bad reputation especially in the United States and they are seen as one of the many opponents of the angry, zealous Christian Right

    and that does suck ass, for sure, but it's very hard to galvanize people on that point

    especially when the people who hate atheists the most also hate a bunch of other people and atheists are just one part of the grab-bag of their hatred

    This is true. That's why you're seeing more forceful demonstrations of atheism. It's the exact same tactic that homosexuality used. Normalize it. Have people realize they probably talk to atheists every day. Telling atheists to shut up per the OP is actually counterproductive. You won't normalize an idea unless it is talked about.

    Homosexuality didn't normalize through having the most stereotypically effeminate homosexuals running around making a scene. It normalized through having otherwise normal and adjusted individuals come out, thereby showing that there was nothing different about homosexuals.



    What the OP is talking about is similar. Atheists shouldn't go in to hiding, but anti-religious atheists are hurting the cause for all others every time they open their mouths.

    Ok so atheists don't go into hiding. What should we do to normalize the idea if we are not allowed to debate the legitmancy of the idea over other ideas?

    I've bolded the word that is the issue with your point.

    I have heard homosexuals in the past argue that homosexuality is superior to heterosexuality (there is a list of reasons, including overpopulation, etc.)

    THOSE particular homosexuals are EXACTLY what the far right put up when they talk about the "gay agenda"



    If you want to be treated as equals, you need to introduce yourself AS an equal, not as a superior.
    You seem to be confusing people with ideas.

    We treat people as equals. We respect their right to an opinion. To speak out on it. That doesn't necessarily apply to their ideas. They have to actually to defend that, as do we.

    You can have society treat you as equals or you can have society treat you as enemies.

    The choice is yours, but you can't sit there and yell "I DEMAND BOTH!" If your intention is to attack their way of life, they are not going to welcome you with open arms.
    The expectation is tolerance, which doesn't mean everyone has to like each other. Just respect their rights to hold an opinion and express it when appropriate.
    It is hard to request tolerance when you introduce yourself as thinking you are superior (which was the implication of the word "over" in YodaTuna's post which I am responding to.)

    To show up at a neighbor's door and say "hey, I think something different than you, but we both like football, so let's watch the game" would be a great way to go about things. To show up and say "hey, I think something different than you, and my way of life is better", that's not so much.

    How much do you tolerate proselytizers of OTHER belief systems?
    Because this isn't about running up to random people and attacking them. You just said "anti-religious" people, not proselytizers. That would be what I'd consider inappropriate. I can still attack religion when brought up in discussion. I shouldn't be forced to keep my mouth shut about it. And no, I don't mean "any time religion is brought." Context is key, and it's obviously a sensitive topic.

    Context IS key, and you seem to be ignoring it.
    YodaTuna wrote:
    Ok so atheists don't go into hiding. What should we do to normalize the idea if we are not allowed to debate the legitmancy of the idea over other ideas?

    Again, the bolded emphasis is mine.

    You normalize by showing that you are the same. You don't normalize by arguing that you are better.



    Please trust me on this; I am a Jew. Do you know how long the phrase "chosen people' has haunted my ancestors for? Even now, I occasionally have people asking why I think I'm better than them. Never mind that the context of "chosen people" is actually about having an added burden, and not actually about being superior in any way. The slightest hint that you might think you are better than some one else triggers base emotions in human beings. Personally, I think it has to do with our tribalistic roots, same as racism and sports-fandom.

    Evander on
  • Options
    YodaTunaYodaTuna Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    It is hard to request tolerance when you introduce yourself as thinking you are superior (which was the implication of the word "over" in YodaTuna's post which I am responding to.)

    To show up at a neighbor's door and say "hey, I think something different than you, but we both like football, so let's watch the game" would be a great way to go about things. To show up and say "hey, I think something different than you, and my way of life is better", that's not so much.

    How much do you tolerate proselytizers of OTHER belief systems?

    When was the last time an atheist knocked on your door to tell you the good news?

    I think part of the problem is the equating of theism and atheism. This is a frequent myth you will find as well where theists will say that atheism requires faith as well. This is false. Again theism is an idea, atheism is a rejection of that idea. Logically, the atheist is in the advantageous position, he doesn't have to prove anything, but for some reason, due to the way religion is treated that's now how it works. Atheism is the defensive position? Why? It makes no sense. I think that is why people fret so much about people like Dawkins and Hitchens (contrary to what someone mentioned earlier, neither of these guys care if someone old lady says God Bless You too them).

    YodaTuna on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Evolution doesn't exist.

    Yes it does.

    Evolution is an observed historical fact that is explained by the theory of evolution by natural selection (or more accurately the neo-darwinian synthesis)...

    You know, the sun doesn't actually set or rise either, right?

    Evander on
  • Options
    mynameisguidomynameisguido Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Here's the problem though. You don't have to be aggressive about your atheism for it to be offensive to them.

    For most people who are religious, it's very little about the ideas of the particular sect winning them over----religion is very much tied into family, into culture, into personal identity. No matter how polite of an atheist you are, your mere existence is an affront to the very core of their person.

    mynameisguido on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    YodaTunaYodaTuna Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    YodaTuna wrote:
    Ok so atheists don't go into hiding. What should we do to normalize the idea if we are not allowed to debate the legitmancy of the idea over other ideas?

    Again, the bolded emphasis is mine.

    You normalize by showing that you are the same. You don't normalize by arguing that you are better.

    Do you disagree that one idea can be more valid than a competing idea?

    YodaTuna on
  • Options
    LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    I never fail to be surprised and disappointed at the ability of progressives to self-sabotage. Thanks, OP. What's your next thread?

    "Feminists: God, why are they so grumpy?"
    "Disabled people: They sure do whine about steps a lot"
    "Brown folk: Look, you don't know why the cop pulled you over."

    sigh.

    Distancing oneself from intellectual frauds like Christopher Hitchens would be one of the most positive things any "progressive" could possibly do.

    Lawndart on
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    I know I should ignore the misplaced defensiveness, but I get very annoyed when people mistake evolution for being something more than what it is.

    Evolution doesn't exist. It is a name given to the effect that can be observed from the combination of multiple sources, the chief among which are random mutation and natural selection.

    Now, random mutation can occur any which way it prefers, but natural selection is very environmentally based. Therefore, within the context of "evolution", the argument can be made that a creature evolving under certain environmental factors is, in fact, superior to a creature evolving elsewhere, because whatever the environment was for the former, it shaped a "better" creature. Whereas, in the Genesis view of things, we are all the sons of Adam, and there is no reason for any two men to be superior or inferior to each other.



    Now, of course, I fall strictly in favor of evolution, and ALSO do not believe that any one "type" of person is inherently superior to another. I was merely pointing out that racism (in the form, most chiefly, of Eugenics) actually meshes better with evolution, rather than creation, so to see a racist atheist really doesn't seem like such a contradiction as it was made out to be.



    PLEASE NOT: I am NOT implying that atheists are racist, so there is no need to jump in to some sort of "defense mode". It really is getting quite silly.

    ...I'm sorry?

    Yes, 'evolution' really is the name given to the theory of descent with modification. It really does exist as a term in the academic literature.

    Random mutation doesn't actually play as big a role as you imply, either.

    The bolded part, though, is what I have the biggest gripe with. Natural selection is about the survival & proliferation of the population with the largest reproductive advantage - but that doesn't mean the selected population is 'better', it strictly means they had some sort of reproductive advantage.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    StericaSterica Yes Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited December 2010
    We are not the same. That is the point. And not that we are better, but that there is a fundamental difference between the two groups. BOTH sides think they have the superior viewpoint, and both should be able to go at it when appropriate.

    This is not advocacy for an "Atheists are better." campaign. You seem to conflate "We believe our opinion to be right and yours wrong." with "We are better people than you." when atheism is just one part of what makes me who I am.

    Do you think I am wrong? Should I assume you think you are better than me now because of that?

    Sterica on
    YL9WnCY.png
  • Options
    mynameisguidomynameisguido Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Does anyone here honestly think that the average person who doesn't like atheists is well aware of people like Hitchens and Dawkins? I would argue that it has far more to do with a sheer unwillingness to accept beliefs other than your own than it has to do with the the most prominent atheistic public figures.

    mynameisguido on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    Well, have you seen how Atheists are described?

    http://conservapedia.com/Athiest

    I've seen people nearly run away when there's an atheist in the house. There's such a huge irrational fear towards atheists that it's amusing. But, this picture sums it all up:
    atheist-cartoon.gif&t=1

    where the fuck do you live that this sort of shit happens?

    don't just say "The Bible Belt" either because i've learned that term is meaningless bullshit, every American atheist thinks they live in the Bible Belt

    Well, I spent two years of high school living in very rural Oklahoma and then very rural Texas.

    When I told the average person in either high school that I was an atheist, they asked one or more of the following questions:

    So you're gay? So you're a Satanist? So you do drugs?

    So yeah, that kind of stuff does happen. It's hardly a justification for "all religion is stupid" evangelical atheism, but it's not like declaring yourself to be an atheist is without a social stigma in a lot of places.
    Pretty much. Most other religions like Judaism get passes. I've seen more religious people willing to give a social stigma to atheism than to Islam.

    21j7neh.gif

    I don't see the point of complaining about another person arguing for his religious opinions. The complaints almost always boil down to complaining about the person acting like a jackass, but those complaints apply to pretty much every goddamn person since the beginning of mankind.

    Edit: Or the complaint involves arguing at all. Most of the complaints about Dawkins involve that.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    YodaTunaYodaTuna Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Lawndart wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    I never fail to be surprised and disappointed at the ability of progressives to self-sabotage. Thanks, OP. What's your next thread?

    "Feminists: God, why are they so grumpy?"
    "Disabled people: They sure do whine about steps a lot"
    "Brown folk: Look, you don't know why the cop pulled you over."

    sigh.

    Distancing oneself from intellectual frauds like Christopher Hitchens would be one of the most positive things any "progressive" could possibly do.

    I've grown to enjoy Hitchens over the last couple years. He's an interesting guy. He's been offbase a few times, but at least he can admit it.

    YodaTuna on
  • Options
    L|amaL|ama Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Julius wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    How does one act flamboyantly atheist any way? Cos play as Darwin and speak with an English accent about how the universe does not require a creator to function?

    Well, many people feel that (just to use the two most prominent examples) Hitchens & Harris both go too far when they argue that the hijackers who flew the planes into the WTC complex & Pentagon (and wherever the 3rd plane's intended destination was before the passengers intervened) were motivated almost entirely by religion.

    THEY DID IT BECAUSE OF GEOPOLITICS!


    I think that's actually a very interesting point that Hitchens brought up, for some weird reason the agnostic/atheist defenders of religion always seem to doubt that people can sincerely BELIEF in their faith. It actually strikes me as far more condescending towards those of faith to claim that their actions are primarily motivated by factors other than faith (be they poverty or culture or whatever).

    But they very rarely are primarily motivated by faith. Al-Qaeda and their ilk are motivated by opposition to american intervention in the middle east (mostly), religion is just a tool they use to get their work done.

    L|ama on
  • Options
    ChillyWillyChillyWilly Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Julius wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Fuck, you can believe everything that science has taught us about how the world works and still believe in God. We have figured out the history of this universe back to something like 1 billionth of a second after the Big Bang, but we're drawing a blank before that. Stick God in there and you've got religion and all of science in harmony.

    And everything would be great if people just did that, I would still giggle at it but whatever.


    However, obviously people fucking don't do that. They have to fill entire books with bullshit about their god and what is good behaviour and what is not and shit.

    Oh, no! Opinions about what constitutes moral and immoral behavior. We certainly can't have that kind of stuff floating around! Think of the children!

    Am I to understand that religious folk shouldn't get to write books about their beliefs or talk about them ever? Is that was you're saying? Or is it just people who think differently than you? I'm genuinely trying to understand what you're talking about here.

    ChillyWilly on
    PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
  • Options
    mynameisguidomynameisguido Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Atheism is probably the only thing of such a personal nature that you can mock in the public sphere without many repercussions.

    Asking for us to be the sensitive ones when there's often open season on our point of view is pretty ridiculous.

    mynameisguido on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    edited December 2010
    TheOrange wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    How does one act flamboyantly atheist any way? Cos play as Darwin and speak with an English accent about how the universe does not require a creator to function?

    Well, many people feel that (just to use the two most prominent examples) Hitchens & Harris both go too far when they argue that the hijackers who flew the planes into the WTC complex & Pentagon (and wherever the 3rd plane's intended destination was before the passengers intervened) were motivated almost entirely by religion.

    Most grips the Islamic fundamentalists have with the US are political, of course.

    But Religion gave them courage, its easier to kill yourself when you know that you'd go to heaven afterward.

    Right, this is the silly shit I was talking about. Acting like "the real issue" is political and not the crazy fundies. While obviously the reason Islamic fundamentalism is popular is because of socio-economic factors it is utterly bizarre to claim that those who are in it are not fundamentalist wackjobs utterly convinced about their religion.

    Religion is their motivating factor.
    It may not have been their motivating factor at the start but it sure as fuck is when they go out bombing.

    Julius on
  • Options
    Fallout2manFallout2man Vault Dweller Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    It is hard to request tolerance when you introduce yourself as thinking you are superior (which was the implication of the word "over" in YodaTuna's post which I am responding to.)

    To show up at a neighbor's door and say "hey, I think something different than you, but we both like football, so let's watch the game" would be a great way to go about things. To show up and say "hey, I think something different than you, and my way of life is better", that's not so much.



    How much do you tolerate proselytizers of OTHER belief systems?

    It's even harder to request tolerance when the person you're speaking to firmly believes that it's intollerant of you to request tolerance. As your secularism is now obviously destroying their lives in very big and important ways. How dare you, right?

    Fallout2man on
    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • Options
    L|amaL|ama Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Julius wrote: »
    TheOrange wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    How does one act flamboyantly atheist any way? Cos play as Darwin and speak with an English accent about how the universe does not require a creator to function?

    Well, many people feel that (just to use the two most prominent examples) Hitchens & Harris both go too far when they argue that the hijackers who flew the planes into the WTC complex & Pentagon (and wherever the 3rd plane's intended destination was before the passengers intervened) were motivated almost entirely by religion.

    Most grips the Islamic fundamentalists have with the US are political, of course.

    But Religion gave them courage, its easier to kill yourself when you know that you'd go to heaven afterward.

    Right, this is the silly shit I was talking about. Acting like "the real issue" is political and not the crazy fundies. While obviously the reason Islamic fundamentalism is popular is because of socio-economic factors it is utterly bizarre to claim that those who are in it are not fundamentalist wackjobs utterly convinced about their religion.

    Religion is their motivating factor.
    It may not have been their motivating factor at the start but it sure as fuck is when they go out bombing.

    Where in the Koran does it say 'strap some RDX to yourself and go blow up the americans?'

    L|ama on
  • Options
    MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    Do you think I am wrong? Should I assume you think you are better than me now because of that?

    ding ding ding we have a winner.

    You have figured out that Evander's appeal to thin skin is essentially a ban on any and all disagreement, a position which in addition to its complete sillyness also exhibits inherent self-contradiction, given that it in fact manifests itself in Evander's very vocal proclivity towards disagreement.

    MrMister on
  • Options
    YodaTunaYodaTuna Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Julius wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Fuck, you can believe everything that science has taught us about how the world works and still believe in God. We have figured out the history of this universe back to something like 1 billionth of a second after the Big Bang, but we're drawing a blank before that. Stick God in there and you've got religion and all of science in harmony.

    And everything would be great if people just did that, I would still giggle at it but whatever.


    However, obviously people fucking don't do that. They have to fill entire books with bullshit about their god and what is good behaviour and what is not and shit.

    Oh, no! Opinions about what constitutes moral and immoral behavior. We certainly can't have that kind of stuff floating around! Think of the children!

    Do you honestly think that religious texts should be a primary source of moral behavior?

    YodaTuna on
  • Options
    YodaTunaYodaTuna Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    L|ama wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    TheOrange wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    How does one act flamboyantly atheist any way? Cos play as Darwin and speak with an English accent about how the universe does not require a creator to function?

    Well, many people feel that (just to use the two most prominent examples) Hitchens & Harris both go too far when they argue that the hijackers who flew the planes into the WTC complex & Pentagon (and wherever the 3rd plane's intended destination was before the passengers intervened) were motivated almost entirely by religion.

    Most grips the Islamic fundamentalists have with the US are political, of course.

    But Religion gave them courage, its easier to kill yourself when you know that you'd go to heaven afterward.

    Right, this is the silly shit I was talking about. Acting like "the real issue" is political and not the crazy fundies. While obviously the reason Islamic fundamentalism is popular is because of socio-economic factors it is utterly bizarre to claim that those who are in it are not fundamentalist wackjobs utterly convinced about their religion.

    Religion is their motivating factor.
    It may not have been their motivating factor at the start but it sure as fuck is when they go out bombing.

    Where in the Koran does it say 'strap some RDX to yourself and go blow up the americans?'

    Killing infidels and non-believers is in there.

    Edit: Oh and martyrdom is big when performing the above tasks, which is why suicide bombing is so prevelant.

    YodaTuna on
  • Options
    JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    edited December 2010
    L|ama wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    How does one act flamboyantly atheist any way? Cos play as Darwin and speak with an English accent about how the universe does not require a creator to function?

    Well, many people feel that (just to use the two most prominent examples) Hitchens & Harris both go too far when they argue that the hijackers who flew the planes into the WTC complex & Pentagon (and wherever the 3rd plane's intended destination was before the passengers intervened) were motivated almost entirely by religion.

    THEY DID IT BECAUSE OF GEOPOLITICS!


    I think that's actually a very interesting point that Hitchens brought up, for some weird reason the agnostic/atheist defenders of religion always seem to doubt that people can sincerely BELIEF in their faith. It actually strikes me as far more condescending towards those of faith to claim that their actions are primarily motivated by factors other than faith (be they poverty or culture or whatever).

    But they very rarely are primarily motivated by faith. Al-Qaeda and their ilk are motivated by opposition to american intervention in the middle east (mostly), religion is just a tool they use to get their work done.

    No.

    If we take theist's assertions that their faith is VERY important to them at face value (and why wouldn't we?) then the idea that these people aren't doing it because of their faith is ridiculous. The idea of the religion just being a tool is actually fucking offensive to people who firmly believe.

    You're making it sound like people can't really believe in religion.

    Julius on
This discussion has been closed.