some atheist are starting to piss me off, mostly because they think that all the extremest, like from crosswalk, and the "believe in what we believe of die" make up %100 of the world religion. even if i don't believe in god, i never want to label my self as atheist. there are level headed people who believe in god as well as good people who don't believe in him. don't get me wrong we do need to "clean up" the church, mostly in the south and middle east.
Actually, this is the one area where I absolutely agree with Dawkins (if not his methods of making the point), so I have to give credit where credit is due.
While no one claims all religious people are extremists, on a purely logical level they are effectively equivalent, it's just (most) societies label their conclusions destructive, or at least counter-productive. The moderately religious have no rational ground on which to call the extremists wrong, because they both use the same arguments and the same logic to arrive at their beliefs, it's simply a matter of slightly different starting suppositions.
Hell, on a purely objective level, the fundamentalists are often on solider logical ground than moderates. Both groups take their religious teachings as word of God (or as dictates of a higher power, whatever fits the bill), and once you do that it's the height of arrogance and irrationality to pick and chose which teachings you'll follow and which are to be discarded, so they accept everything considered holy teachings by the religion.
I actually concur with this view, however supporting it has always seemed like it would send moderates towards being fundamentalists, not the other way.
This is actually a topic of conversation between me and my gf right now. She and I are both atheists and we've been discussing how best to engage pubic religion and religious people in our lives without creating a dichotomy between "us" and "them." How does one engage moderates in a non-threatening yet challenging enough way to avoid radicalizing them while still managing to get them to examine their beliefs critically?
It is a tough line to walk. I wonder if others have any ideas/suggestions/stories to share on this?
Btw, I have a strong feeling I'm going to get the ban hammer on crosswalk soon. My restraint began to fail once atheism and evolution were dismissed as irrational, without basis, equatable to religious belief, founded upon the worship of people like Darwin, and various other arguments that drive me nuts.
some atheist are starting to piss me off, mostly because they think that all the extremest, like from crosswalk, and the "believe in what we believe of die" make up %100 of the world religion. even if i don't believe in god, i never want to label my self as atheist. there are level headed people who believe in god as well as good people who don't believe in him. don't get me wrong we do need to "clean up" the church, mostly in the south and middle east.
Actually, this is the one area where I absolutely agree with Dawkins (if not his methods of making the point), so I have to give credit where credit is due.
While no one claims all religious people are extremists, on a purely logical level they are effectively equivalent, it's just (most) societies label their conclusions destructive, or at least counter-productive. The moderately religious have no rational ground on which to call the extremists wrong, because they both use the same arguments and the same logic to arrive at their beliefs, it's simply a matter of slightly different starting suppositions.
Hell, on a purely objective level, the fundamentalists are often on solider logical ground than moderates. Both groups take their religious teachings as word of God (or as dictates of a higher power, whatever fits the bill), and once you do that it's the height of arrogance and irrationality to pick and chose which teachings you'll follow and which are to be discarded, so they accept everything considered holy teachings by the religion.
I actually concur with this view, however supporting it has always seemed like it would send moderates towards being fundamentalists, not the other way.
I somewhat agree as well, but I really wish I could make myself disagree more. The intellectual acrobatics needed to turn most of the major religions away from fundamentalist intolerance are too much for me. If it's possible to pay attention to the whole Bible without taking on beliefs similar to the fundamentalists, it would have to be done through more adult and postmodern reading strategies rather than going with first impressions that see text as a static and complete thing on its own. But poetic and nuanced readings are difficult for the average person who wants transparency. Maybe the Catholics had it right in the old days keeping the Bible in a language no one could read and leaving it to the clergy to interpret and transmit.
TroubledTom on
Wii friend code: 8704 3489 1049 8917
Mario Kart DS: 3320 6595 7026 5000
I think I'm done with the crosswalk forum. There's literally no reason for me to be there other than to torture myself. If people complain about others being closeminded here, multiply that by about a googleplex and then you get what goes on in that forum.
Anyone who calls examples of speciation in modern times a strawman argument to support evolutionary theory needs some serious help. I'm not wasting my time, energy, and sanity arguing with close-minded crazy people.
I think I'm done with the crosswalk forum. There's literally no reason for me to be there other than to torture myself. If people complain about others being closeminded here, multiply that by about a googleplex and then you get what goes on in that forum.
Anyone who calls examples of speciation in modern times a strawman argument to support evolutionary theory needs some serious help. I'm not wasting my time, energy, and sanity arguing with close-minded crazy people.
I just read that thread, expecting it to be hilarious.
I think I'm done with the crosswalk forum. There's literally no reason for me to be there other than to torture myself. If people complain about others being closeminded here, multiply that by about a googleplex and then you get what goes on in that forum.
Anyone who calls examples of speciation in modern times a strawman argument to support evolutionary theory needs some serious help. I'm not wasting my time, energy, and sanity arguing with close-minded crazy people.
Stay out of the origins forum, and just explore the rest. There's much more humor and less frustration to be had.
Vincent Grayson on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
edited December 2006
Does anyone really think that the road to acceptance for atheists is to be maximally strident and insulting and to define ourselves solely in contrast to Christianity? It just strikes me as counterproductive and childish.
Does anyone really think that the road to acceptance for atheists is to be maximally strident and insulting and to define ourselves solely in contrast to Christianity? It just strikes me as counterproductive and childish.
Could you ask that question in a little less loaded fashion?
I think it's fair to people in Western cultures to define their atheism in relation to the most dominant religious culture in the West. I don't think that anyone reasonable defines it soley as such - I think that it's most commonly associated with Christianity because Christianity is the most-discussed and pervasive religious culture we see in the West.
As an atheist, I don't really care about the road to acceptance from a bunch of theists, regardless of their denomination.
Does anyone really think that the road to acceptance for atheists is to be maximally strident and insulting and to define ourselves solely in contrast to Christianity? It just strikes me as counterproductive and childish.
Could you ask that question in a little less loaded fashion?
I think it's fair to people in Western cultures to define their atheism in relation to the most dominant religious culture in the West. I don't think that anyone reasonable defines it soley as such - I think that it's most commonly associated with Christianity because Christianity is the most-discussed and pervasive religious culture we see in the West.
As an atheist, I don't really care about the road to acceptance from a bunch of theists, regardless of their denomination.
I'm not sure if atheists will ever become fully accepted without a significant sea-change in US culture. The "stay silent and hope for the best" approach certainly hasn't worked, so maybe the "stand and fight" approach will work out a little bit better.
Does anyone really think that the road to acceptance for atheists is to be maximally strident and insulting and to define ourselves solely in contrast to Christianity? It just strikes me as counterproductive and childish.
Could you ask that question in a little less loaded fashion?
I think it's fair to people in Western cultures to define their atheism in relation to the most dominant religious culture in the West. I don't think that anyone reasonable defines it soley as such - I think that it's most commonly associated with Christianity because Christianity is the most-discussed and pervasive religious culture we see in the West.
As an atheist, I don't really care about the road to acceptance from a bunch of theists, regardless of their denomination.
I'm not sure if atheists will ever become fully accepted without a significant sea-change in US culture. The "stay silent and hope for the best" approach certainly hasn't worked, so maybe the "stand and fight" approach will work out a little bit better.
Honestly, neither approach is likely to accomplish anything in and of itself. The only thing that's going to make a difference is the progress of time. The best thing the confrontational method has going for it is atheists don't have to act as if they are ashamed of their beliefs.
Does anyone really think that the road to acceptance for atheists is to be maximally strident and insulting and to define ourselves solely in contrast to Christianity? It just strikes me as counterproductive and childish.
Could you ask that question in a little less loaded fashion?
I think it's fair to people in Western cultures to define their atheism in relation to the most dominant religious culture in the West. I don't think that anyone reasonable defines it soley as such - I think that it's most commonly associated with Christianity because Christianity is the most-discussed and pervasive religious culture we see in the West.
As an atheist, I don't really care about the road to acceptance from a bunch of theists, regardless of their denomination.
I'm not sure if atheists will ever become fully accepted without a significant sea-change in US culture. The "stay silent and hope for the best" approach certainly hasn't worked, so maybe the "stand and fight" approach will work out a little bit better.
Honestly, neither approach is likely to accomplish anything in and of itself. The only thing that's going to make a difference is the progress of time. The best thing the confrontational method has going for it is atheists don't have to act as if they are ashamed of their beliefs.
That would be progress in and of itself. I'd settle for that in the short-term.
sanstodo on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
Does anyone really think that the road to acceptance for atheists is to be maximally strident and insulting and to define ourselves solely in contrast to Christianity? It just strikes me as counterproductive and childish.
Could you ask that question in a little less loaded fashion?
I think it's fair to people in Western cultures to define their atheism in relation to the most dominant religious culture in the West. I don't think that anyone reasonable defines it soley as such - I think that it's most commonly associated with Christianity because Christianity is the most-discussed and pervasive religious culture we see in the West.
As an atheist, I don't really care about the road to acceptance from a bunch of theists, regardless of their denomination.
I mean, in which case professions of anti-faith are kind of irrelevant.
Honestly, I don't really think we have the numbers to take the fight to them. I've kind of gone back and forth on this over the years, but it seems to me that I've been most convinced of the potential value of religion by admirable people who lived good lives and were politely religious. I've been least convinced of the potential value of religion by shrill evangelists and public screamers.
I can only assume that this sort of thing works the other way as well. I could be wrong, but it's the best I can figure.
The middle of the "Religious people, stop using solipsism" thread has an exchange centering on the idea that theism, as an initial justification for observed reality, is no more irrational than outright acceptance of the principle of induction as a justification for it. I don't want to become a "religion thread" guy, but it's in the way of Dawkins and I'd like to see what can be done with it:
I think we should be realists about the "sea-change", regardless. We will not sell atheism to the world in our lifetimes, or even in a dozen lifetimes. However, in the past 100 years we haven't done too badly with agreeing on an epistemological reality that allows progress and defends conventional morality. Religious moderates spearhead that charge even as they're decried for not truly representing their faith by fundamentalists.
I'm also not convinced that people would be so disenchanted with spirituality if related dogmatic tenets didn't justify conventionally immoral things like rape within marriage, a la Crosswalk. For individuals, faith can produce confidence and emotional comfort which allow for better logical thought. Heaven knows, I've needed it at times.
Does anyone really think that the road to acceptance for atheists is to be maximally strident and insulting and to define ourselves solely in contrast to Christianity? It just strikes me as counterproductive and childish.
Could you ask that question in a little less loaded fashion?
I think it's fair to people in Western cultures to define their atheism in relation to the most dominant religious culture in the West. I don't think that anyone reasonable defines it soley as such - I think that it's most commonly associated with Christianity because Christianity is the most-discussed and pervasive religious culture we see in the West.
As an atheist, I don't really care about the road to acceptance from a bunch of theists, regardless of their denomination.
I mean, in which case professions of anti-faith are kind of irrelevant.
Honestly, I don't really think we have the numbers to take the fight to them. I've kind of gone back and forth on this over the years, but it seems to me that I've been most convinced of the potential value of religion by admirable people who lived good lives and were politely religious. I've been least convinced of the potential value of religion by shrill evangelists and public screamers.
I can only assume that this sort of thing works the other way as well. I could be wrong, but it's the best I can figure.
This is a frequent line of discussion on a lot of issues, moderates vs. zealouts, etc. The reality of the matter is that some people are attracted to moderation and some are attracted to zealoutry. Just look at the massive followings of bible-thumping televangelists for a little anecdotal evidence. What personally attracted me to a lot of the philosophies that I hold was militance and militants. You're just the opposite, I imagine, but there's no reason to think that your way of thinking is the only correct way to attract new atheists and strive for more acceptance of the masses.
Whiniest Man On Earth on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
This is a frequent line of discussion on a lot of issues, moderates vs. zealouts, etc. The reality of the matter is that some people are attracted to moderation and some are attracted to zealoutry. Just look at the massive followings of bible-thumping televangelists for a little anecdotal evidence. What personally attracted me to a lot of the philosophies that I hold was militance and militants. You're just the opposite, I imagine, but there's no reason to think that your way of thinking is the only correct way to attract new atheists and strive for more acceptance of the masses.
I was probably attracted to it in a similar way that you were - religion didn't make much sense, and Bertrand Russell and Carl Sagan did. And I was a stridant loudmouth regarding my lack of religion for many years. I guess as I've gotten older, I don't really see the point of convincing people of the validity of my view (because it's quite clearly a valid position, especially in contrast to many many religious beliefs) or of winning converts.
I see it more my responsibility to demonstrate that a lack of religion doesn't necessarily correlate with bitterness, hostility or depravity to people who have been brought up to believe that it does. I didn't mean my post to sound snarky or anything - it really is something I've lived, thought about and am kind of curious about.
I've kind of gone back and forth on this over the years, but it seems to me that I've been most convinced of the potential value of religion by admirable people who lived good lives and were politely religious. I've been least convinced of the potential value of religion by shrill evangelists and public screamers.
I can only assume that this sort of thing works the other way as well. I could be wrong, but it's the best I can figure.
It's almost as though people judge the tree by the fruit it bears . . .
Was it Pat Robertson who prayed for supreme court justices to die, or am I confusing him with someone else?
I'm pretty sure that was him. Also can leg press a truck, was told by God we should assassinate the president of venuzuala, and that god sent Katrina to punish all the fags.
Truly a bastion of Christian fortitude in a heathen world.
Fundamentalist Christians like to claim that they take the Bible literally. But press them on it and you will find that they are simply lying to themselves. No Christian, save for members of the Flat Earth Society, takes Genesis 1 literally (in which God creates a solid dome, called Sky, to separate water above it from water below, and then sets the sun and stars in the sky ... below the waters). No Christian believes the earth really rests on pillars (Job 9) or that Joshua stopped the sun and moon in the sky (Josh 10). According to even the most fundamentalist Christians, these are "figures of speech" or "poetic language." But 400, or even 300 years ago, these same passages were considered by a huge number of people as proof against Copernicus' theory.
Few, if any, Christians today believe slavery is moral. Most Christians believe slavery is completely immoral and contrary to the spirit of their religion. 150 years ago, a huge number of Americans believed slavery was not only an economic necessity but a moral right. They pointed to passages such as Leviticus 25:45 and Exodus 21:22, as well as Paul's instructions in the NT for slaves to obey their masters, as proof that God himself ordained the instutition of slavery slavery. 400 years ago, almost everyone in Europe and America believed this about slavery.
So I think we have come a long way. In fact, I would go so far to say that the enlightenment destroyed Biblical Christianity. It's hard to see, because so many people continue to call themselves "Christians." But since Christianity doesn't really exist without the Bible, that thread keeps on growing more and more taught. I believe that, with the Bible out of the picture, the gap between "believer" and "atheist" will be pretty small. And it looks like we're getting there pretty fast.
Hell, on a purely objective level, the fundamentalists are often on solider logical ground than moderates. Both groups take their religious teachings as word of God (or as dictates of a higher power, whatever fits the bill), and once you do that it's the height of arrogance and irrationality to pick and chose which teachings you'll follow and which are to be discarded, so they accept everything considered holy teachings by the religion.
I actually concur with this view, however supporting it has always seemed like it would send moderates towards being fundamentalists, not the other way.
...why? why do you think that? if anything, not addressing the problems of faith and leaving people to their fantasies will only deepen their commitment to them. introducing doubt and contrary arguments would seem antithetical to driving people towards dogmatism.
Hell, on a purely objective level, the fundamentalists are often on solider logical ground than moderates. Both groups take their religious teachings as word of God (or as dictates of a higher power, whatever fits the bill), and once you do that it's the height of arrogance and irrationality to pick and chose which teachings you'll follow and which are to be discarded, so they accept everything considered holy teachings by the religion.
I actually concur with this view, however supporting it has always seemed like it would send moderates towards being fundamentalists, not the other way.
...why? why do you think that? if anything, not addressing the problems of faith and leaving people to their fantasies will only deepen their commitment to them. introducing doubt and contrary arguments would seem antithetical to driving people towards dogmatism.
Maybe moderates aren't just diluted fundamentalists Loren.
And I would submit that if we were to use political ideology as an example, strident and aggressive attacks give rise to a certain blowback of radicalized opposition.
Hell, on a purely objective level, the fundamentalists are often on solider logical ground than moderates. Both groups take their religious teachings as word of God (or as dictates of a higher power, whatever fits the bill), and once you do that it's the height of arrogance and irrationality to pick and chose which teachings you'll follow and which are to be discarded, so they accept everything considered holy teachings by the religion.
I actually concur with this view, however supporting it has always seemed like it would send moderates towards being fundamentalists, not the other way.
...why? why do you think that? if anything, not addressing the problems of faith and leaving people to their fantasies will only deepen their commitment to them. introducing doubt and contrary arguments would seem antithetical to driving people towards dogmatism.
Explicitly pointing it out to moderates and pounding them with the irrefutable logic won't make them give up their irrationality, all it will do is make them more accepting of the fundamentalism we've shown them is equally irrational.
People aren't converted in arguments, they're converted to logic through the slow inevitable press of overwhelming evidence. The way to bring about a change isn't to browbeat those most likely to convert, it's to quietly show them their irrationality and the rational answers and let them come to it themselves. You push people, and they'll fall back on what feels comfortable, not necessarily what's right.
Hell, on a purely objective level, the fundamentalists are often on solider logical ground than moderates. Both groups take their religious teachings as word of God (or as dictates of a higher power, whatever fits the bill), and once you do that it's the height of arrogance and irrationality to pick and chose which teachings you'll follow and which are to be discarded, so they accept everything considered holy teachings by the religion.
I actually concur with this view, however supporting it has always seemed like it would send moderates towards being fundamentalists, not the other way.
...why? why do you think that? if anything, not addressing the problems of faith and leaving people to their fantasies will only deepen their commitment to them. introducing doubt and contrary arguments would seem antithetical to driving people towards dogmatism.
Explicitly pointing it out to moderates and pounding them with the irrefutable logic won't make them give up their irrationality, all it will do is make them more accepting of the fundamentalism we've shown them is equally irrational.
People aren't converted in arguments, they're converted to logic through the slow inevitable press of overwhelming evidence. The way to bring about a change isn't to browbeat those most likely to convert, it's to quietly show them their irrationality and the rational answers and let them come to it themselves. You push people, and they'll fall back on what feels comfortable, not necessarily what's right.
Being disrepectful of religious people is just going to increase their fear and paranoia of atheism. Atheists should stand up for their rights when people try to screw with them, but purposely pissing off all religious people is just foolish. It's going to create a backlash against atheism, not help it. It also gives the impression that atheists disbelieve in the existance of God for shock value.
It's like a biologist burning the book of Genesis instead of explaining why evolution isn't "just a theory" in the same way that your neighbor's hypothesis that aliens steal his radishes is "just a theory."
...why? why do you think that? if anything, not addressing the problems of faith and leaving people to their fantasies will only deepen their commitment to them. introducing doubt and contrary arguments would seem antithetical to driving people towards dogmatism.
Maybe moderates aren't just diluted fundamentalists Loren.
And I would submit that if we were to use political ideology as an example, strident and aggressive attacks give rise to a certain blowback of radicalized opposition.
1) how so?
2) i'm not certain that there is an effective alternative, and i'm not certain that political ideology is a wholly appropriate analogy. i am unsatisfied with the current status of religion, and i'm certainly unsatisfied with the unapproachable perch it has in public discourse. it is a collection of ideas that has become as unassailable as immutable characteristics, like race or gender. that is nonsensical.
what is a radicalized moderate, anyways? they already are almost wholly copesetic with both irrational and rational claims. it's not like someone will be driven to believe in ID because someone tells them that their notions about souls are nonsensical.
Explicitly pointing it out to moderates and pounding them with the irrefutable logic won't make them give up their irrationality, all it will do is make them more accepting of the fundamentalism we've shown them is equally irrational.
People aren't converted in arguments, they're converted to logic through the slow inevitable press of overwhelming evidence. The way to bring about a change isn't to browbeat those most likely to convert, it's to quietly show them their irrationality and the rational answers and let them come to it themselves. You push people, and they'll fall back on what feels comfortable, not necessarily what's right.
1) people keep saying that. i'm unconvinced. is anyone here actually feeling any amount of empathy for pat robertson because their beliefs have been challenged here?
2) people are converted in arguments if they are honest about their beliefs, and if dogmatism is eschewed as an acceptable response.
should people never be pushed? when is it okay to push?
Being disrespectful of religious people is just going to increase their fear and paranoia of atheism.
is it disrespectful to disagree, and to give a laundry list of reasons?
let me be clear here. i'm all for telling people that they're wrong, that they believe in fantasies. sometimes i make analogies that make people cringe. but i don't think religious people are dumb. i don't think they are assholes. i will never tell a person that the source of thei beliefs is their own idiocy. i don't believe that is true, anyways. it's ineffective and unreasonable as a claim, and it doesn't serve as a means of understanding the problem.
1) people keep saying that. i'm unconvinced. is anyone here actually feeling any amount of empathy for pat robertson because their beliefs have been challenged here?
Maybe not, but you know well enough that people are associating Dawkins with Robertson even if their own beliefs haven't been challenged, which isn't much better.
Explicitly pointing it out to moderates and pounding them with the irrefutable logic won't make them give up their irrationality, all it will do is make them more accepting of the fundamentalism we've shown them is equally irrational.
People aren't converted in arguments, they're converted to logic through the slow inevitable press of overwhelming evidence. The way to bring about a change isn't to browbeat those most likely to convert, it's to quietly show them their irrationality and the rational answers and let them come to it themselves. You push people, and they'll fall back on what feels comfortable, not necessarily what's right.
1) people keep saying that. i'm unconvinced. is anyone here actually feeling any amount of empathy for pat robertson because their beliefs have been challenged here?
2) people are converted in arguments if they are honest about their beliefs, and if dogmatism is eschewed as an acceptable response.
should people never be pushed? when is it okay to push?
1) False comparison, since no one here is the target demographic that you'd be arguing with. I don't feel any interest in Pat Robertson, but a moderate Catholic might become increasingly inclined towards a literal interpretation of the Bible the more you told him that a moderate interpretation is less logically sound than a literal one.
2) Come on, I know you know better than that. You can convince someone to change cereal brands (maybe) in an argument, not world views. I've never heard of a first or second (or legitimate third) hand case where a person with any religious conviction was convinced they were wrong in an argument unless they had already done most of the thinking themselves.
The evidence supporting someone's unwillingness to entertain opposing world views is incontrovertible, and isn't a matter intellectual honesty but fundamental brain chemistry and psychology. You quite simply can not hear an argument against a fundamental belief you hold until you yourself are ready to question it. The argument itself can never get you there.
People should be pushed. But pushed doesn't mean attacked. We expand our understanding of reality in rational terms. We continue to improve the quality of life. And every step of the way we stress the rationality of our decisions, and the need for rationality.
While it's nice to be right, and you may want everyone to know just how right you are, foaming at the mouth and being unable to show any restrain isn't the way to do the job.
1) people keep saying that. i'm unconvinced. is anyone here actually feeling any amount of empathy for pat robertson because their beliefs have been challenged here?
Maybe not, but you know well enough that people are associating Dawkins with Robertson even if their own beliefs haven't been challenged, which isn't much better.
i don't expect anyone to roll over and simply accept the wisdom that they should be fed. as long as they aren't actually being pushed in the wrong direction, i don't give a shit what they think of dawkins. at worst, they hate dawkins, are still religious moderates, and the arguments are still out there.
If atheists want to publish or popularize their arguments, that's fine. Everyone has that right, with religious issues and other issues. But when you knowingly insult someone--for example, blaspheming a religion you don't even believe in--they aren't going to listen to your arguments. People have an underlying belief, one that's hard to overcome, that mean people are always wrong. You see it all the time with Godwin's Law, don't you? A thread gets more and more heated and suddenly someone's shouting, "Oh yeah, well HITLER was a vegetarian too!!!!11" See also: "We can't switch to more fuel effecient cars because then the terrorists will win."
If atheists want to publish or popularize their arguments, that's fine. Everyone has that right, with religious issues and other issues. But when you knowingly insult someone--for example, blaspheming a religion you don't even believe in--they aren't going to listen to your arguments. People have an underlying belief, one that's hard to overcome, that mean people are always wrong. You see it all the time with Godwin's Law, don't you? A thread gets more and more heated and suddenly someone's shouting, "Oh yeah, well HITLER was a vegetarian too!!!!11" See also: "We can't switch to more fuel effecient cars because then the terrorists will win."
Are you equating blasphemy to a personal insult to anyone who believes otherwise? You're going to have a hard time with that one, especially defining "blasphemy". I deny the existence of God, for example, which is the highest form of blasphemy, but I fail to see how that's personally insulting to anyone, even if I say it.
I also have "666" tattooed on my right hand - about as blasphemous and heretical as you can get to Christians - but I fail to see how it's a personal insult to anyone. The problem isn't blasphemy, it's the people who are offended by something that they themselves define. I'm a fucking heretic by their definition, and somehow it's okay for them to be offended by that? Get real.
Well, I wouldnt say anything that seems to insult God, being a Muslim, but I sure wonder why the Shiite/Sunni sects get so pissed off over Muhammed cartoons.
But this challenge should be interesting, people should be free to express their opinions, no matter whether I accept them or not.
Well, I wouldnt say anything that seems to insult God, being a Muslim, but I sure wonder why the Shiite/Sunni sects get so pissed off over Muhammed cartoons.
But this challenge should be interesting, people should be free to express their opinions, no matter whether I accept them or not.
Generally speaking, extremist groups tend to believe that the world should conform to their beliefs, even if they don't believe in them themselves.
Hence anti-abortion, anti-Pagan, anti-Wiccan, anti-Atheist, anti-Feminism, and all the other "You you can think what you want on your way to hell but you can't DO anything unless we okay it first" mentalities.
Religious organizations of a certain side are essentially GOVERNMENTS.
A government tends to want to enforce its laws on those within its reach, even if someone has not elected to be part of that government's system (for instance, people born in America who disagree with some of its laws don't get a choice whether or not the cops will imprison them for violating the government's beliefs).
A strong religion is a nation, and a nation craves sovereignty.
A government tends to want to enforce its laws on those within its reach, even if someone has not elected to be part of that government's system (for instance, people born in America who disagree with some of its laws don't get a choice whether or not the cops will imprison them for violating the government's beliefs).
This is pretty tangential, but I can't agree this part is right. You agree to live under the government's authority when you live on territory claimed by it and enjoy the benefits of its existence (police, military, social programs, schools, what have you). If you don't agree to live under the government's authority, the only valid action you have is to leave the country, not try and remove part of it from the government's authorities.
The only people that MIGHT be able to make this claim are minors who don't have a say and don't agree to the idea their parent's have the legal right to decide for them, but that delves into a deep tangent and ultimately ends up being a case of "sit down and shut up till you can live on your own" anyway, so it's not particularly relevant.
The whole reason there's a need for religious freedom is exactly because people of non-mainstream religions in no way accept the authority of said religions, and shouldn't have to.
A government tends to want to enforce its laws on those within its reach, even if someone has not elected to be part of that government's system (for instance, people born in America who disagree with some of its laws don't get a choice whether or not the cops will imprison them for violating the government's beliefs).
This is pretty tangential, but I can't agree this part is right. You agree to live under the government's authority when you live on territory claimed by it and enjoy the benefits of its existence (police, military, social programs, schools, what have you). If you don't agree to live under the government's authority, the only valid action you have is to leave the country, not try and remove part of it from the government's authorities.
The only people that MIGHT be able to make this claim are minors who don't have a say and don't agree to the idea their parent's have the legal right to decide for them, but that delves into a deep tangent and ultimately ends up being a case of "sit down and shut up till you can live on your own" anyway, so it's not particularly relevant.
The whole reason there's a need for religious freedom is exactly because people of non-mainstream religions in no way accept the authority of said religions, and shouldn't have to.
Age Restrictions on Freedoms+Finances+No "Free Zone"=Not so much choice.
A government tends to want to enforce its laws on those within its reach, even if someone has not elected to be part of that government's system (for instance, people born in America who disagree with some of its laws don't get a choice whether or not the cops will imprison them for violating the government's beliefs).
This is pretty tangential, but I can't agree this part is right. You agree to live under the government's authority when you live on territory claimed by it and enjoy the benefits of its existence (police, military, social programs, schools, what have you). If you don't agree to live under the government's authority, the only valid action you have is to leave the country, not try and remove part of it from the government's authorities.
The only people that MIGHT be able to make this claim are minors who don't have a say and don't agree to the idea their parent's have the legal right to decide for them, but that delves into a deep tangent and ultimately ends up being a case of "sit down and shut up till you can live on your own" anyway, so it's not particularly relevant.
The whole reason there's a need for religious freedom is exactly because people of non-mainstream religions in no way accept the authority of said religions, and shouldn't have to.
Age Restrictions on Freedoms+Finances+No "Free Zone"=Not so much choice.
Depends on your philosophical beliefs. There's a school of thought that the parent assumes responsibility and makes choices for their kids until they are able to for their own benefit.
Child emancipation is a whole convoluted subject that is really pretty deeply tangential, and I'm not sure I know enough to have a detailed discussion about the nuances
A government tends to want to enforce its laws on those within its reach, even if someone has not elected to be part of that government's system (for instance, people born in America who disagree with some of its laws don't get a choice whether or not the cops will imprison them for violating the government's beliefs).
This is pretty tangential, but I can't agree this part is right. You agree to live under the government's authority when you live on territory claimed by it and enjoy the benefits of its existence (police, military, social programs, schools, what have you). If you don't agree to live under the government's authority, the only valid action you have is to leave the country, not try and remove part of it from the government's authorities.
The only people that MIGHT be able to make this claim are minors who don't have a say and don't agree to the idea their parent's have the legal right to decide for them, but that delves into a deep tangent and ultimately ends up being a case of "sit down and shut up till you can live on your own" anyway, so it's not particularly relevant.
The whole reason there's a need for religious freedom is exactly because people of non-mainstream religions in no way accept the authority of said religions, and shouldn't have to.
Age Restrictions on Freedoms+Finances+No "Free Zone"=Not so much choice.
Depends on your philosophical beliefs. There's a school of thought that the parent assumes responsibility and makes choices for their kids until they are able to for their own benefit.
Child emancipation is a whole convoluted subject that is really pretty deeply tangential, and I'm not sure I know enough to have a detailed discussion about the nuances
I knew a girl in college whose mom considered moving before her birthday so she could have legal possession for an extra year (apparently some state gives you rights over your children up to -19-?).
Posts
This is actually a topic of conversation between me and my gf right now. She and I are both atheists and we've been discussing how best to engage pubic religion and religious people in our lives without creating a dichotomy between "us" and "them." How does one engage moderates in a non-threatening yet challenging enough way to avoid radicalizing them while still managing to get them to examine their beliefs critically?
It is a tough line to walk. I wonder if others have any ideas/suggestions/stories to share on this?
Btw, I have a strong feeling I'm going to get the ban hammer on crosswalk soon. My restraint began to fail once atheism and evolution were dismissed as irrational, without basis, equatable to religious belief, founded upon the worship of people like Darwin, and various other arguments that drive me nuts.
I somewhat agree as well, but I really wish I could make myself disagree more. The intellectual acrobatics needed to turn most of the major religions away from fundamentalist intolerance are too much for me. If it's possible to pay attention to the whole Bible without taking on beliefs similar to the fundamentalists, it would have to be done through more adult and postmodern reading strategies rather than going with first impressions that see text as a static and complete thing on its own. But poetic and nuanced readings are difficult for the average person who wants transparency. Maybe the Catholics had it right in the old days keeping the Bible in a language no one could read and leaving it to the clergy to interpret and transmit.
Mario Kart DS: 3320 6595 7026 5000
Anyone who calls examples of speciation in modern times a strawman argument to support evolutionary theory needs some serious help. I'm not wasting my time, energy, and sanity arguing with close-minded crazy people.
It's not even that. It's just sad.
Stay out of the origins forum, and just explore the rest. There's much more humor and less frustration to be had.
Could you ask that question in a little less loaded fashion?
I think it's fair to people in Western cultures to define their atheism in relation to the most dominant religious culture in the West. I don't think that anyone reasonable defines it soley as such - I think that it's most commonly associated with Christianity because Christianity is the most-discussed and pervasive religious culture we see in the West.
As an atheist, I don't really care about the road to acceptance from a bunch of theists, regardless of their denomination.
I'm not sure if atheists will ever become fully accepted without a significant sea-change in US culture. The "stay silent and hope for the best" approach certainly hasn't worked, so maybe the "stand and fight" approach will work out a little bit better.
Honestly, neither approach is likely to accomplish anything in and of itself. The only thing that's going to make a difference is the progress of time. The best thing the confrontational method has going for it is atheists don't have to act as if they are ashamed of their beliefs.
That would be progress in and of itself. I'd settle for that in the short-term.
I mean, in which case professions of anti-faith are kind of irrelevant.
Honestly, I don't really think we have the numbers to take the fight to them. I've kind of gone back and forth on this over the years, but it seems to me that I've been most convinced of the potential value of religion by admirable people who lived good lives and were politely religious. I've been least convinced of the potential value of religion by shrill evangelists and public screamers.
I can only assume that this sort of thing works the other way as well. I could be wrong, but it's the best I can figure.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1073842147&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=150
I think we should be realists about the "sea-change", regardless. We will not sell atheism to the world in our lifetimes, or even in a dozen lifetimes. However, in the past 100 years we haven't done too badly with agreeing on an epistemological reality that allows progress and defends conventional morality. Religious moderates spearhead that charge even as they're decried for not truly representing their faith by fundamentalists.
I'm also not convinced that people would be so disenchanted with spirituality if related dogmatic tenets didn't justify conventionally immoral things like rape within marriage, a la Crosswalk. For individuals, faith can produce confidence and emotional comfort which allow for better logical thought. Heaven knows, I've needed it at times.
This is a frequent line of discussion on a lot of issues, moderates vs. zealouts, etc. The reality of the matter is that some people are attracted to moderation and some are attracted to zealoutry. Just look at the massive followings of bible-thumping televangelists for a little anecdotal evidence. What personally attracted me to a lot of the philosophies that I hold was militance and militants. You're just the opposite, I imagine, but there's no reason to think that your way of thinking is the only correct way to attract new atheists and strive for more acceptance of the masses.
I see it more my responsibility to demonstrate that a lack of religion doesn't necessarily correlate with bitterness, hostility or depravity to people who have been brought up to believe that it does. I didn't mean my post to sound snarky or anything - it really is something I've lived, thought about and am kind of curious about.
It's almost as though people judge the tree by the fruit it bears . . .
Or something about don't trust bears in trees.
I can't remember.
I'm pretty sure that was him. Also can leg press a truck, was told by God we should assassinate the president of venuzuala, and that god sent Katrina to punish all the fags.
Truly a bastion of Christian fortitude in a heathen world.
Fundamentalist Christians like to claim that they take the Bible literally. But press them on it and you will find that they are simply lying to themselves. No Christian, save for members of the Flat Earth Society, takes Genesis 1 literally (in which God creates a solid dome, called Sky, to separate water above it from water below, and then sets the sun and stars in the sky ... below the waters). No Christian believes the earth really rests on pillars (Job 9) or that Joshua stopped the sun and moon in the sky (Josh 10). According to even the most fundamentalist Christians, these are "figures of speech" or "poetic language." But 400, or even 300 years ago, these same passages were considered by a huge number of people as proof against Copernicus' theory.
Few, if any, Christians today believe slavery is moral. Most Christians believe slavery is completely immoral and contrary to the spirit of their religion. 150 years ago, a huge number of Americans believed slavery was not only an economic necessity but a moral right. They pointed to passages such as Leviticus 25:45 and Exodus 21:22, as well as Paul's instructions in the NT for slaves to obey their masters, as proof that God himself ordained the instutition of slavery slavery. 400 years ago, almost everyone in Europe and America believed this about slavery.
So I think we have come a long way. In fact, I would go so far to say that the enlightenment destroyed Biblical Christianity. It's hard to see, because so many people continue to call themselves "Christians." But since Christianity doesn't really exist without the Bible, that thread keeps on growing more and more taught. I believe that, with the Bible out of the picture, the gap between "believer" and "atheist" will be pretty small. And it looks like we're getting there pretty fast.
...why? why do you think that? if anything, not addressing the problems of faith and leaving people to their fantasies will only deepen their commitment to them. introducing doubt and contrary arguments would seem antithetical to driving people towards dogmatism.
Maybe moderates aren't just diluted fundamentalists Loren.
And I would submit that if we were to use political ideology as an example, strident and aggressive attacks give rise to a certain blowback of radicalized opposition.
Explicitly pointing it out to moderates and pounding them with the irrefutable logic won't make them give up their irrationality, all it will do is make them more accepting of the fundamentalism we've shown them is equally irrational.
People aren't converted in arguments, they're converted to logic through the slow inevitable press of overwhelming evidence. The way to bring about a change isn't to browbeat those most likely to convert, it's to quietly show them their irrationality and the rational answers and let them come to it themselves. You push people, and they'll fall back on what feels comfortable, not necessarily what's right.
It's like a biologist burning the book of Genesis instead of explaining why evolution isn't "just a theory" in the same way that your neighbor's hypothesis that aliens steal his radishes is "just a theory."
1) how so?
2) i'm not certain that there is an effective alternative, and i'm not certain that political ideology is a wholly appropriate analogy. i am unsatisfied with the current status of religion, and i'm certainly unsatisfied with the unapproachable perch it has in public discourse. it is a collection of ideas that has become as unassailable as immutable characteristics, like race or gender. that is nonsensical.
what is a radicalized moderate, anyways? they already are almost wholly copesetic with both irrational and rational claims. it's not like someone will be driven to believe in ID because someone tells them that their notions about souls are nonsensical.
1) people keep saying that. i'm unconvinced. is anyone here actually feeling any amount of empathy for pat robertson because their beliefs have been challenged here?
2) people are converted in arguments if they are honest about their beliefs, and if dogmatism is eschewed as an acceptable response.
should people never be pushed? when is it okay to push?
is it disrespectful to disagree, and to give a laundry list of reasons?
let me be clear here. i'm all for telling people that they're wrong, that they believe in fantasies. sometimes i make analogies that make people cringe. but i don't think religious people are dumb. i don't think they are assholes. i will never tell a person that the source of thei beliefs is their own idiocy. i don't believe that is true, anyways. it's ineffective and unreasonable as a claim, and it doesn't serve as a means of understanding the problem.
1) False comparison, since no one here is the target demographic that you'd be arguing with. I don't feel any interest in Pat Robertson, but a moderate Catholic might become increasingly inclined towards a literal interpretation of the Bible the more you told him that a moderate interpretation is less logically sound than a literal one.
2) Come on, I know you know better than that. You can convince someone to change cereal brands (maybe) in an argument, not world views. I've never heard of a first or second (or legitimate third) hand case where a person with any religious conviction was convinced they were wrong in an argument unless they had already done most of the thinking themselves.
The evidence supporting someone's unwillingness to entertain opposing world views is incontrovertible, and isn't a matter intellectual honesty but fundamental brain chemistry and psychology. You quite simply can not hear an argument against a fundamental belief you hold until you yourself are ready to question it. The argument itself can never get you there.
People should be pushed. But pushed doesn't mean attacked. We expand our understanding of reality in rational terms. We continue to improve the quality of life. And every step of the way we stress the rationality of our decisions, and the need for rationality.
While it's nice to be right, and you may want everyone to know just how right you are, foaming at the mouth and being unable to show any restrain isn't the way to do the job.
i don't expect anyone to roll over and simply accept the wisdom that they should be fed. as long as they aren't actually being pushed in the wrong direction, i don't give a shit what they think of dawkins. at worst, they hate dawkins, are still religious moderates, and the arguments are still out there.
Are you equating blasphemy to a personal insult to anyone who believes otherwise? You're going to have a hard time with that one, especially defining "blasphemy". I deny the existence of God, for example, which is the highest form of blasphemy, but I fail to see how that's personally insulting to anyone, even if I say it.
I also have "666" tattooed on my right hand - about as blasphemous and heretical as you can get to Christians - but I fail to see how it's a personal insult to anyone. The problem isn't blasphemy, it's the people who are offended by something that they themselves define. I'm a fucking heretic by their definition, and somehow it's okay for them to be offended by that? Get real.
Has this actually been said? And if so, where?
But this challenge should be interesting, people should be free to express their opinions, no matter whether I accept them or not.
My digital art! http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=8168
My pen and paper art! http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=7462
Generally speaking, extremist groups tend to believe that the world should conform to their beliefs, even if they don't believe in them themselves.
Hence anti-abortion, anti-Pagan, anti-Wiccan, anti-Atheist, anti-Feminism, and all the other "You you can think what you want on your way to hell but you can't DO anything unless we okay it first" mentalities.
Religious organizations of a certain side are essentially GOVERNMENTS.
A government tends to want to enforce its laws on those within its reach, even if someone has not elected to be part of that government's system (for instance, people born in America who disagree with some of its laws don't get a choice whether or not the cops will imprison them for violating the government's beliefs).
A strong religion is a nation, and a nation craves sovereignty.
This is pretty tangential, but I can't agree this part is right. You agree to live under the government's authority when you live on territory claimed by it and enjoy the benefits of its existence (police, military, social programs, schools, what have you). If you don't agree to live under the government's authority, the only valid action you have is to leave the country, not try and remove part of it from the government's authorities.
The only people that MIGHT be able to make this claim are minors who don't have a say and don't agree to the idea their parent's have the legal right to decide for them, but that delves into a deep tangent and ultimately ends up being a case of "sit down and shut up till you can live on your own" anyway, so it's not particularly relevant.
The whole reason there's a need for religious freedom is exactly because people of non-mainstream religions in no way accept the authority of said religions, and shouldn't have to.
Age Restrictions on Freedoms+Finances+No "Free Zone"=Not so much choice.
Depends on your philosophical beliefs. There's a school of thought that the parent assumes responsibility and makes choices for their kids until they are able to for their own benefit.
Child emancipation is a whole convoluted subject that is really pretty deeply tangential, and I'm not sure I know enough to have a detailed discussion about the nuances
I knew a girl in college whose mom considered moving before her birthday so she could have legal possession for an extra year (apparently some state gives you rights over your children up to -19-?).
It's a pretty damned messed up issue as a whole.