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.
what does this blasphemy constitute? if i think that you're wrong, and i say that you're wrong and that god doesn't exist, is that blasphemy?
also, i was typing this earlier, but had to abandon it before i could get to editing it down. i later lost interest in it, but it's a response to something that i haven't answered yet:
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?
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.
uh, many people here are the target demographic that i'm arguing with. there are moderate catholics and moderate... other things. there's also a fair number of "i'm an atheist too, but..."-type of people who i feel are somewhat problematic as well, though certainly less so than others. people who are apathetic towards religion and people who feel that it's vital or benign on the whole hold views that i feel should be addressed.
also, my claim is that all theology is as logically sound as any other. it's all nonsense. gay catholics make as much sense as any other. the fact that they pick and choose to ignore certain biblical passages and edicts from the pope means they're wrong in a different way than the catholics who don't. it's just as illogical to view a text as literally as possible as it is to assume that you can go cafeteria-style on god's divine plan and still believe in god's divine plan while still... etc, etc.
1) if you actually read that scripture in context, I'm pretty sure what they are doing doesn't count as blasphemy against the holy spirit in the sense that will make you unforgivable.
2) this sounds like something the bad guys in a Left Behind novel would do.
3) you guys just make the wittiest little comments that I could possibly imagine anyone ever making, ever.
Maybe moderates aren't just diluted fundamentalists Loren.
1) how so?
The metaphor of dilution is inapt because it's suggestive of two substances, "fundamentalism" and "rationality", which being mixed in different proportions produce different beliefs. But beliefs aren't like that; you don't take a certain amount of one thing and a certain amount of another and swirl them together in a cup to produce a set of beliefs. Every person's beliefs consist of a structure... made of assumptions, propositions, connections, perceptions, emotions, memories, associations, guesses, arguments...
I'd say the metaphor of a house is a much better fit. If you want to understand a house, you don't describe it as being "30% wood, 46% brick, 12% fabric..." and so on. You look at - well, mainly I'd think you'd look at the structure of it and at how it works in practice.
Short version: beliefs are not a linear scale; they differ from each other along more than one dimension.
Maybe moderates aren't just diluted fundamentalists Loren.
1) how so?
The metaphor of dilution is inapt because it's suggestive of two substances, "fundamentalism" and "rationality", which being mixed in different proportions produce different beliefs. But beliefs aren't like that; you don't take a certain amount of one thing and a certain amount of another and swirl them together in a cup to produce a set of beliefs. Every person's beliefs consist of a structure... made of assumptions, propositions, connections, perceptions, emotions, memories, associations, guesses, arguments...
I'd say the metaphor of a house is a much better fit. If you want to understand a house, you don't describe it as being "30% wood, 46% brick, 12% fabric..." and so on. You look at - well, mainly I'd think you'd look at the structure of it and at how it works in practice.
Short version: beliefs are not a linear scale; they differ from each other along more than one dimension.
but the same problems in fundamentalists exist in moderates, simply (generally) less so. they still feel compelled to give credence to nonsense, they still feel that religion is a valuable institution. a moderate makes the same mistakes of logic, has the same problem of not being intellectually honest about his beliefs as a fundamentalist (though certainly less so). they typically hold a mishmash of theology-driven morality interspersed with modern moral notions. they have confronted modernity where the fundamentalist has not.
i grant you though, moderates are certainly more likely to manifest other "moderate" style beliefs, like the refusal to conflate beliefs with action, the tendency to view one religion as being as good as, or no different than any other, and to blame problems manifested because of religious belief on anything but religious belief ("assholes and idiots" are popular scapegoats, as are nationalism, economics, poor education and the like). also, religious tolerance. they tend to have that in spades.
i grant you though, moderates are certainly more likely to manifest other "moderate" style beliefs, like the refusal to conflate beliefs with action, the tendency to view one religion as being as good as, or no different than any other, and to blame problems manifested because of religious belief on anything but religious belief ("assholes and idiots" are popular scapegoats, as are nationalism, economics, poor education and the like). also, religious tolerance. they tend to have that in spades.
Ahh, scapegoating economics. I almost forgot that retarded Sam Harris shit you linked to. Maybe it has less to do with being moderate, and more to do with having a fucking clue.
never said economics wasn't a problem. the conundrum is that it's one of a slew of problems listed in the "anything but religion" mantra of religion not being a problem. i'm fairly certain that every manifestation of someone doing insane shit is a veritable cocktail of some combination of economics, tribalism, religion, and education. but religious violence and politicking is frequently uniquely excused as simply being the manifestation of something else.
Only a person that believed in god originally, could utter blasphemy.
Religious people by and large complied our volcaburary, so it is common practice for those of us irreligious people that waste time talking about superstition, to be trapped using incorrect terms for things.
Say I wished to explain my position on "God". I am basically forced by our language into a mistaken representation of myself. "Atheist" means without god, it is a religious insult-term, not an accurate discription of my world view. I seriously know ( and here religious people will insist I can't KNOW, but thats ok, I think you guys are doing well just to get your pants on one leg at a time, so there. ) there is no such thing as god, god is just a superstition figure people are prone to, so how can I be described as "Without a thing that doesn't exisit outside of someone ELSES superstition".
"Speaking Blasphemy" is a similar semantically derived error. I have accidentally offended the belief system of perfectly harmless aquaintances on occasion, by using one of my societies expletives *drops hammer carelessly onto finger* 'Jesus H Christ on a unicycle'
This ISN'T blasphemy. I don't believe in god, OR his ability to concieve magic rugrats, so how can I blasphemy against someone elses' delusions?. It is needlessly upsetting to some poor deluded religo though, so I try not to do it, any more than you would snatch the tinfoil hat off some old jezza in the park.
To me, the world is full of dangerous moral cowards that refuse to take responsibility for themselves, and fundmentalists are all exactly the same to me, I am just as nervous around evangelistic christians as I am their islam brethern.
Seriphus on
It had hitherto been the peculiar felicity to the Romans, and in the worst of times their consolation, that the virtue of the emperors was active and their vice indolent.
You have to keep in mind that many many many Christians INSIST that atheists and other non-believers stridently believe that EVERYONE "knows" that god exists, but that non-believers are in protest or in denial.
Only a person that believed in god originally, could utter blasphemy.
Religious people by and large complied our volcaburary, so it is common practice for those of us irreligious people that waste time talking about superstition, to be trapped using incorrect terms for things.
Say I wished to explain my position on "God". I am basically forced by our language into a mistaken representation of myself. "Atheist" means without god, it is a religious insult-term, not an accurate discription of my world view. I seriously know ( and here religious people will insist I can't KNOW, but thats ok, I think you guys are doing well just to get your pants on one leg at a time, so there. ) there is no such thing as god, god is just a superstition figure people are prone to, so how can I be described as "Without a thing that doesn't exisit outside of someone ELSES superstition".
"Speaking Blasphemy" is a similar semantically derived error. I have accidentally offended the belief system of perfectly harmless aquaintances on occasion, by using one of my societies expletives *drops hammer carelessly onto finger* 'Jesus H Christ on a unicycle'
This ISN'T blasphemy. I don't believe in god, OR his ability to concieve magic rugrats, so how can I blasphemy against someone elses' delusions?. It is needlessly upsetting to some poor deluded religo though, so I try not to do it, any more than you would snatch the tinfoil hat off some old jezza in the park.
To me, the world is full of dangerous moral cowards that refuse to take responsibility for themselves, and fundmentalists are all exactly the same to me, I am just as nervous around evangelistic christians as I am their islam brethern.
Out of curiosity, then, what is your definition of blasphemy?
Well there really IS such a thing. Blasphemy is when a BELIEVER, and only a believer, commits the sin of denying god, or belittling gods majesty.
See, for them, god actually exisits, they believe. If they actually do NOT believe, say they wake up one morning and just realise what a deluded fool they have been, and that that when they were tiny children, their whole world-view was perverted before they could think for themselves, by lies their parents taught them . . . . . well, they can no more blaspheme at THAT point, than I can praise the lord. Once they truely do NOT believe in a superstition, how can they transgress against one of its internal rules?.
It is like that favourite little ploy of religious people "There are no athiests in a fox-hole". They smugly ignore you saying "If I was ever in a foxhole, there would INDEED be one athiest in a foxhole" and sneer and say "Oh no, you would soon be praying". To THEM, this is patently obvious, because again, they only see the world through the semantic lens of religion.
And their words for everything ( And words are the functional basis of our consciousness as you are no doubt aware ) are drawn from a pool tainted to overflow with RELIGIOUS words. They can not BE, without religious terms, if they fear, they "Fear god", if they "LOVE", it bears the mental tag "Gods Love", their mental software contains the inate inability to imagine the world WITHOUT reference to god.
As they were taught to talk, they were taught to believe.
I , however, (and a large number of my fellow Anzac brothers with me, from about the last thirty to fourty years,) never heard the term god until I was about 10 years old. Oh, maybe I heard Robin Hood or King Richard on a movie say "Come on men, For England, St George, And God", then asked someone "Whats a St George? A god?". I would get a sketchy rundown on other peoples beliefs. Just exactly the same as I would, when faced with a Fakir sending his apprentice up the Rope Trick, or laying on his beds of nails. "Whats a Fakir?". Or for that matter, if I hadn't worked it out for myself "Whats a ghost?" "Whats a Superman?" "Whats a Nazi?" "whats sex?". I was told a little ABOUT other peoples beliefs in this sort of thing, not told TO believe it myself, quite the opposite, I was stopped from following up any interest in these dangerous concepts. No more allowed to read the horror of religion than I was to read the horror of the Nationalist Socialist party. My mum and Dad simply said "You are too young to think about these things yet, when you get older you can decide for yourself".
Because we were not indoctrinated, our world view is free of compulsion. If I was in a foxhole, and here is the killer answer to the ploy, I would be no morelikely to pray to jahaw then to budda, OR to superman. It would be equally nonsensical to me to say "Oh god, I promise to obey you if you will just let me live" as it would be say Oh superman, I promise to obey you if you will just let me live".
Which god is the god of foxholes, anyway? Why, the god you are indoctrinated in as an innocent , ignorant child. A Buddist wouldn't suddenly start praying to Jehova, UNLESS he had been exposed to taht brand of indoctrination somehow, as a child.
Similarly, a Buddist can't blaspheme against Jesus, nor a Christian against Budda.
Seriphus on
It had hitherto been the peculiar felicity to the Romans, and in the worst of times their consolation, that the virtue of the emperors was active and their vice indolent.
i grant you though, moderates are certainly more likely to manifest other "moderate" style beliefs, like the refusal to conflate beliefs with action, the tendency to view one religion as being as good as, or no different than any other, and to blame problems manifested because of religious belief on anything but religious belief ("assholes and idiots" are popular scapegoats, as are nationalism, economics, poor education and the like). also, religious tolerance. they tend to have that in spades.
Some people believe that freedom of religious belief is an important aspect of our society, and are reluctant to impinge on that freedom, or criticise other's exercise of it.
What you do, Loren, is the equivalent of someone saying "Gay people are disease-spreaders, and I will work to stop gay people the world over." If someone calls you out on your bullshit you say "Oh, but I'm not trying to ban gayness, I'm just trying to convince people not to do it." Sure, passing judgement over someone's exercise of freedom isn't exactly the same as outright impinging on it, but how can you not see that it has the same zero-sum effect? No, religious people are not entitled to have their beliefs protected from criticism - but there is a very fine line between criticism and persecution. Constant criticism can effectively impinge on rights. To continue the homosexual idea - gay relationships are no longer illegal in the bible belt of the US, but "criticism" impinges on their freedoms to live in a relationship in those states, so they tend not to. No, they're not persecuted against by the letter of the law, but they are effectively banned because of prejudice.
(I know you're going to attack that whole paragraph by pulling out your favourite - sexual preference=not a choice/religion=choice point - but from a social standpoint, that's a fallacy. It doesn't make any difference if someone is being persecuted for skin colour or political affiliation - the fact that someone can change affiliation does not excuse their persecution.)
You're very big on heavy-handed moralising. You blame "moderates" (you sound exactly like an evangelical, by the way) for scapegoating, but you fail to recognize that's exactly what you're doing when you attack religion. You have some good points when you attack specific, intellectual aspects of religion (ie, holding back science), but the vast majority of people don't agree with your implied position that belief in something can somehow strip a person of his powers of reason, or turn him into something he's naturally not. I know that I certainly believe it's not scapegoating to blame "assholes and idiots", because I believe in personal responsibility for one's own actions. By blaming religion, you're tacitly absolving religious people of moral/intellectual responsibility for the things they say and do. If Bob nods along thoughtfully to a "burn all gays" speech, you'd be inclined to blame the system, whereas I'd be inclined to say that Bob should think for himself and make his own decisions. The law is on my side, so I think my position is more tenable from a social standpoint.
Furthermore, as I've said before, it's impossible to know with absolute certainty what someone's beliefs are, so from a philosophical standpoint, it's problematic to judge people based on what they claim to believe. In the real world, you, I, and everybody else are forced to judge people by quantifiable external factors - what they say and do. We're free to criticise beliefs themselves until we're blue in the face, but we cannot apply those same criticisms to individuals and retain our intellectual integrity. Because of that, it's hardly a weak position to seek to judge individuals ("assholes and idiots") rather than beliefs when attempting to speak out against intolerance from within the religious community.
Finally Loren, you pride yourself on hardcore atheism, but in many ways you tend to lend more credence to religious doctrine than I do. By saying that prejudice against gays is in the bible & therefore Christianity is inherently flawed, you’re acknowledging the authority of the bible and reinforcing religious doctrine. Personally, I don’t believe any literal interpretation of the bible, or any holy text, and I think it’s a logically untenable position for me to take to argue scripture. As I’ve noted, I believe in personal responsibility, so for me to argue the book is a hypocrisy. In that respect, I think your accusations labelling me (and others) as a moderate/weak atheist (an “atheist, but…â€) are way off the mark. (And besides, I’m not competing for an atheist of the month merit badge, like you are). If atheism is measured by how much you bitch about Christianity, well done – you’re a great atheist. Silly me for thinking that atheism was only someone’s absence of belief in God. Apparently there’s a whole atheist political agenda that I have to stick with, or else I’m just an imposter.
By saying that religion is important, you're giving it more importance than I believe it's due.
Zsetrek there is a lot in what you say, especially in that people ought to take personal responsibility for the effects of their acts and statements. Ideally Religious AND irreligious people alike, ought to say and do only things that are not hurtful to others.
However, thats easier for irreligious people, isn't it?. No one is telling us what to do, but GOD, lord of hosts, is telling religious people how far they can transgress on the feelings of others. So they go so far as to let someone else tell them what is moral.
In the extreme case, they will go down to the riverbank, and waylay strangers and ask them to pronounce "Shibboleth", and then murder those that have an accent. And to them, this is UTTERLY moral, because God is the source of all morality.
So really, any casual study of history would suggest that it might be overly hopeful that we can expect religious people to take personal responsibility for their own actions. Better that we have strict laws FORCING them to do so, and then root out all judges that have religious beliefs of any extreme nature.
Never yet heard of a case of an IRRELIGIOUS judge getting worked up and rightous and punishing a believer.
Seriphus on
It had hitherto been the peculiar felicity to the Romans, and in the worst of times their consolation, that the virtue of the emperors was active and their vice indolent.
but the same problems in fundamentalists exist in moderates, simply (generally) less so. they still feel compelled to give credence to nonsense, they still feel that religion is a valuable institution. a moderate makes the same mistakes of logic, has the same problem of not being intellectually honest about his beliefs as a fundamentalist (though certainly less so). they typically hold a mishmash of theology-driven morality interspersed with modern moral notions. they have confronted modernity where the fundamentalist has not.
The trouble with the kinds of generalisations you're making here is that, as blanket statements they're obviously wrong, although there may be examples of specific cases where they do apply.
"Moderates feel compelled to give credence to nonsense" - well, this is really an insult rather than an argument. But it's exemplary of your position because it doesn't say which moderates you're talking about, or what beliefs they hold that are nonsensical, or why exactly or by what they are "compelled" to give credence to it. Unless we know the specific moderates you're talking about, and the specific nonsense they're giving credence to, I have no idea whether or not the people you're talking about are actually "moderates" in the sense that I recognise the term, or if I'd agree that the beliefs are nonsense, and so on.
"...they still feel that religion is a valuable institution". This is a point that can be argued, of course, but I hardly think that seeing value in the insitutions of religion automatically disqualifies one from being party to rational discourse. Many non-religious people see value in elements of religion, although of course, they generally have the necessary discrimination to see that there's a difference between nuns feeding the homeless and suicide bombings. You're still doing this thing of talking about "religion" as though it were a single monolithic institution.
"...a moderate makes the same mistakes of logic". Again, which moderates, which mistakes? Are they actual mistakes of logic (like broken syllogisms) or are they just arguments that you don't agree with?
"...have the same problem of not being intellectually honest". This one is just baffling to me. Presumably the accusation of intellectual dishonesty comes from the idea that you think these "moderates" actually believe the same things you do, but that somehow they're kidding themselves because they don't want to face the cold, hard truths which only tough guys like you dare to see with clear eyes? I can easily draw up a list of "moderates" who do not fit this description. But how can you, if you're intellectually honest, casually throw insults like this around if you haven't taken the trouble to investigate what "moderate" religious people are actually like, or what they actually believe?
First, and foremost, I would like to state that being an atheist, that is, believing that there is absolutely no way that there is a god, believing against god, as it were, is just as much a belief, just as much a leap of faith, as believing in god is in th first place.
I am agnositic, which is to say that I do not believe in god, nor do I disbelieve in god. There may or may not be a god, I do not know what the answer is, and I don't think I could know with the information available to me.
That aside, I think that disbelievers in god going out to public ridicule belief in god is just as idiotic and offensive as, well, believers ridiculing disbelievers. It would be kind of like if Pro-choice people went out and blew up a church, in response to a bombing at an abortion clinic. There is no honor in lowering yourself to the level of your opposition.
"Moderates feel compelled to give credence to nonsense" - well, this is really an insult rather than an argument. But it's exemplary of your position because it doesn't say which moderates you're talking about, or what beliefs they hold that are nonsensical, or why exactly or by what they are "compelled" to give credence to it.
First, and foremost, I would like to state that being an atheist, that is, believing that there is absolutely no way that there is a god, believing against god, as it were, is just as much a belief, just as much a leap of faith, as believing in god is in th first place.
I am agnositic, which is to say that I do not believe in god, nor do I disbelieve in god. There may or may not be a god, I do not know what the answer is, and I don't think I could know with the information available to me.
That aside, I think that disbelievers in god going out to public ridicule belief in god is just as idiotic and offensive as, well, believers ridiculing disbelievers. It would be kind of like if Pro-choice people went out and blew up a church, in response to a bombing at an abortion clinic. There is no honor in lowering yourself to the level of your opposition.
Please, look up the difference between strong and weak atheism. Wikipedia will help sort out some of the problems in the first part of your post, as weak atheism is not based on a leap of faith and is not equatable to religious belief at all.
@Zsetrek: I see where you're coming from. I do believe that you are a moderate at heart and that you do not support extremism in any form (theism or atheism in this case). While I agree with some parts of your statement like personal responsibility, I do not agree with the following:
Re: Criticism of religion nearing impingment on rights. The problem with your current argument is that any rigorous questioning of religion now is seen as an impingment of rights. At least in the US, one can intensely argue about politics, art, child-rearing techniques, etc in private and/or public and it is seen as ok (within certain boundaries, of course). However, the same level of questioning of another's religion or faith is not permissible (lack of religion is not given such protection in my experience). I do not believe that Loren is suggesting that religious people should be harassed unduly simply for their beliefs. Rather, Loren is arguing that religion should be opened to the same level of questioning and criticism as any other topic, no more and no less. I agree with this standpoint since it does not impinge upon anyone's rights. Rather, it allows for people of all faiths or lack thereof to have their ideas have equal protection while currently, there is a bias in favor of the religious and against the irreligious.
Re: Criticism of religious beliefs by irrationality, immorality, and/or contradictory nations of beliefs reinforcing religious doctrine. It seems like you'd rather that atheists keep quiet and if they criticize religion, then they should do it in defense of certain areas, such as science, from meddling from the religious. I may be wrong, but by choosing not to engage religious belief at its base (the texts themselves in most cases), then you cannot remove the "But the Bible/Koran/etc. says so!" argument. The texts themselves must be discredited to prevent reference to them as a legitimate argument; as long as people can refer to a higher authority that supposedly gives them the only way to gain salvation or live a righteous life, they effectively immunize themselves from criticism by stating their devotion to that higher power. It may be abdicating personal responsibility to some extent but many say that they are taking care of their personal responsibility simply by following doctrine. In this way, religious doctrine is already seen as a legitimate basis for many public policies and personal beliefs, largely in the absence of any effective criticism by atheists and/or secular moderates.
Silence by atheists and tolerance by moderates has done nothing to prevent the rise of evangelical christianity and radical islam (I view them as equally virulent and destructive, like any extremist ideology, with the added wrinkle of their followers believing wholeheartedly that they are doing the will of God). Religion need not be given more importance than it is due; it is already one of the major forces affecting the course of human history right now. Silence is not a solution in this situation. It is time for moderates to stand up and defend the moderate stance against extremists on both sides. You may not like the fact that Loren is more radical than you are but I have not yet seen the religious moderates in the US do anything to effectively stem the tide of evangelism that has infiltrated our government. If moderates will not stand up and fight, then moderates have little ground to criticize those who do, misguided as they may be.
You may not like the fact that Loren is more radical than you are but I have not yet seen the religious moderates in the US do anything to effectively stem the tide of evangelism that has infiltrated our government.
Some people believe that freedom of religious belief is an important aspect of our society, and are reluctant to impinge on that freedom, or criticise other's exercise of it.
What you do, Loren, is the equivalent of someone saying "Gay people are disease-spreaders, and I will work to stop gay people the world over." If someone calls you out on your bullshit you say "Oh, but I'm not trying to ban gayness, I'm just trying to convince people not to do it." Sure, passing judgement over someone's exercise of freedom isn't exactly the same as outright impinging on it, but how can you not see that it has the same zero-sum effect? No, religious people are not entitled to have their beliefs protected from criticism - but there is a very fine line between criticism and persecution. Constant criticism can effectively impinge on rights. To continue the homosexual idea - gay relationships are no longer illegal in the bible belt of the US, but "criticism" impinges on their freedoms to live in a relationship in those states, so they tend not to. No, they're not persecuted against by the letter of the law, but they are effectively banned because of prejudice.
(I know you're going to attack that whole paragraph by pulling out your favourite - sexual preference=not a choice/religion=choice point - but from a social standpoint, that's a fallacy. It doesn't make any difference if someone is being persecuted for skin colour or political affiliation - the fact that someone can change affiliation does not excuse their persecution.)
You're very big on heavy-handed moralising. You blame "moderates" (you sound exactly like an evangelical, by the way) for scapegoating, but you fail to recognize that's exactly what you're doing when you attack religion. You have some good points when you attack specific, intellectual aspects of religion (ie, holding back science), but the vast majority of people don't agree with your implied position that belief in something can somehow strip a person of his powers of reason, or turn him into something he's naturally not. I know that I certainly believe it's not scapegoating to blame "assholes and idiots", because I believe in personal responsibility for one's own actions. By blaming religion, you're tacitly absolving religious people of moral/intellectual responsibility for the things they say and do. If Bob nods along thoughtfully to a "burn all gays" speech, you'd be inclined to blame the system, whereas I'd be inclined to say that Bob should think for himself and make his own decisions. The law is on my side, so I think my position is more tenable from a social standpoint.
Finally Loren, you pride yourself on hardcore atheism, but in many ways you tend to lend more credence to religious doctrine than I do. By saying that prejudice against gays is in the bible & therefore Christianity is inherently flawed, you’re acknowledging the authority of the bible and reinforcing religious doctrine. Personally, I don’t believe any literal interpretation of the bible, or any holy text, and I think it’s a logically untenable position for me to take to argue scripture. As I’ve noted, I believe in personal responsibility, so for me to argue the book is a hypocrisy. In that respect, I think your accusations labeling me (and others) as a moderate/weak atheist (an “atheist, but…â€) are way off the mark. (And besides, I’m not competing for an atheist of the month merit badge, like you are). If atheism is measured by how much you bitch about Christianity, well done – you’re a great atheist. Silly me for thinking that atheism was only someone’s absence of belief in God. Apparently there’s a whole atheist political agenda that I have to stick with, or else I’m just an impostor.
By saying that religion is important, you're giving it more importance than I believe it's due.
1) i'm not interested in removing anyone's political freedoms. you've thrown this at me in the past. stop it.
2) yes, i'm interested in the ending of religion as a viable, respected, and legitimate institution. i'm interested in the abolition of religion.
3) gay people are not analogous to religious people. people who believe that the world was created six thousand years ago are also not analogous to black people. your analogy sucks.
4) is racism a political affiliation? are some political beliefs harmful to society? should we discourage holocaust deniers based on their ideology, or should we support their existence and the promulgation of their beliefs in society? should we stand by and let them operate unopposed?
5) i don't think faith strips a person of their ability to reason. many religious people are very smart, and very logical. there is nothing logical about their religious beliefs, however. this is what i mean by not being intellectually honest about their beliefs, and where their beliefs in religion interact with reality, there is a problem of logic. see: morality, science.
6) i'm inclined to blame the environment that conditions society to believe in nonsense, like homophobia. individuals are responsible for their actions of course, but they are the product of their society. as long as a culture exists that promotes dogmatic homophobia, homophobes will continue to be created.
7) i don't argue scripture. the contents of canon are a problem if people refer to it as a moral guide in some capacity, so i'm not sure what you're talking about. i also wasn't referring to "weak atheists", so i'm sorry if i misled you.
eight) religion is already massively important in society. that's one of the problems. it needs to go away. it's a cultural artifact in the vein of tribalism and astrology, and it needs to go away.
The trouble with the kinds of generalisations you're making here is that, as blanket statements they're obviously wrong, although there may be examples of specific cases where they do apply.
"Moderates feel compelled to give credence to nonsense" - well, this is really an insult rather than an argument. But it's exemplary of your position because it doesn't say which moderates you're talking about, or what beliefs they hold that are nonsensical, or why exactly or by what they are "compelled" to give credence to it. Unless we know the specific moderates you're talking about, and the specific nonsense they're giving credence to, I have no idea whether or not the people you're talking about are actually "moderates" in the sense that I recognise the term, or if I'd agree that the beliefs are nonsense, and so on.
"...they still feel that religion is a valuable institution". This is a point that can be argued, of course, but I hardly think that seeing value in the insitutions of religion automatically disqualifies one from being party to rational discourse. Many non-religious people see value in elements of religion, although of course, they generally have the necessary discrimination to see that there's a difference between nuns feeding the homeless and suicide bombings. You're still doing this thing of talking about "religion" as though it were a single monolithic institution.
"...a moderate makes the same mistakes of logic". Again, which moderates, which mistakes? Are they actual mistakes of logic (like broken syllogisms) or are they just arguments that you don't agree with?
"...have the same problem of not being intellectually honest". This one is just baffling to me. Presumably the accusation of intellectual dishonesty comes from the idea that you think these "moderates" actually believe the same things you do, but that somehow they're kidding themselves because they don't want to face the cold, hard truths which only tough guys like you dare to see with clear eyes? I can easily draw up a list of "moderates" who do not fit this description. But how can you, if you're intellectually honest, casually throw insults like this around if you haven't taken the trouble to investigate what "moderate" religious people are actually like, or what they actually believe?
1) you're incorrect about them being "obviously wrong", though i could have added some qualifiers such as "typically" and "in many cases".
2) "Moderates feel compelled to give credence to religious beliefs and interpretations of reality". fixed a little. this is broad enough that i don't feel that it needs such a qualifier. without some amount of religiosity, they aren't religious in any capacity that i care to address.
3) "...they still feel that religion is a valuable institution" i don't deny that there are positive aspects to religion, and religious institutions. i feel that their overall value is outweighed by their baggage of problems. i've been over this in the past, repeatedly.
4) they hold separate standards for evidence for nonreligious propositions and religious propositions. "faith" is still considered a valid avenue for understanding and/or acquiring truth. this is also what i mean by intellectual intellectual dishonesty. i feel that they actually do believe what they say they do, though perhaps not as fervently as some.
as an aside, i feel that this less stringent version of faith leaves many moderates at a loss to understand or explain religious intolerance and violence. they may be unable to understand people who truly believe in paradise with little (if any) doubt, peopole who are truly in the grip of religious dogma, which is moderates so frequently understand problems as being the result anything but religion.
All good points, however I'm not sure the question of faith/science is an argument that can be won by either side. Personally, discrediting sources seems like a waste of time - as I see it, people can believe whatever they want (and will, and I have no way of knowing), so long as they act within the bounds of what is legal/acceptable.
The argument that radicalism/extremism is at the root of all evil has always struck me as particularly hollow. Radical religion is a response to socio-economic pressures - that's apparent in the Middle East more than anywhere, but you can see it in the US, too. Attacking religion/illogic is a noble goal in many ways, but it's a very myopic way of approaching complicated, real-world problems that stem from poverty, isolation, etc, etc.
As I accused Loren in the other thread - attacking religion itself is a) pointless, and b) a quick answer to a complicated problem.
People believe what they want. No amount of crusading will change that. Hell, I doubt that even Loren's non-belief has a logical base (I know he came from a religious background). People are creatures of emotion, imagination and habit, and no amount of intellectual attack/goading will change that.
In the extreme case, they will go down to the riverbank, and waylay strangers and ask them to pronounce "Shibboleth", and then murder those that have an accent. And to them, this is UTTERLY moral, because God is the source of all morality.
That's all well and good, but as an atheist, I reserve the right to tell them that they're wrong, and that moral authority does not stem from God.
Never yet heard of a case of an IRRELIGIOUS judge getting worked up and rightous and punishing a believer.
Then you have a very narrow exposure to the law, and a poor imagination.
as I see it, people can believe whatever they want (and will, and I have no way of knowing), so long as they act within the bounds of what is legal/acceptable.
Radical religion is a response to socio-economic pressures - that's apparent in the Middle East more than anywhere, but you can see it in the US, too.
As I accused Loren in the other thread - attacking religion itself is b) a quick answer to a complicated problem.
People believe what they want. No amount of crusading will change that. Hell, I doubt that even Loren's non-belief has a logical base (I know he came from a religious background).
1)i believe that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want. but i think we should discourage people from believing certain things. i imagine you already agree with me with regards to racism and homophobia. people should be allowed to believe in either, or both, but we certainly shouldn't encourage it, and should address them as the societal ills that they are. we are intolerant of both, as i feel that we should be towards faith and religious dogmas.
2) this belies the fact that a broad spectrum of people adhere to a wide variety of faiths to a variety of degrees. certainly, certain religious expressions (like suicide bombing) are a response to nonreligious external pressures, but these aren't an explanation of theology. the belief that life begins at conception and that this is somehow important is not a reaction to economics, nor is misogyny or treatment of apostates and adulterers.
3) attacking religion is attacking a facet that is not being addressed. religion is not the only problem, and i have never claimed that it is.
4) uh, crusading has helped quite a bit. racism, for example is a shadow of its former self.
my parents used to be unitarian universalists. i never really was.
Quite the contrary, Zestrek, I have had many years direct exposure to the courts, and have a vivid imagination.
And as I said, I have never heard of an irreligious judge getting worked up and punishing a believer, though I guess you have missed my point here. Religious judges in NEW ZEALAND, and ours is far far far less religious country than your own, you understand, have been known to wax wroth and land heavily apon the defendants, and their sentences have been cut on appeal because the judge has allowed his religious "morality" to carry him away.
I have not the least doubt, that in a country where judges are political appointees :roll: this is far more of a problem. And I have never heard of the converse case, that of a judge punishing a religious person and their behaviour offends the NON-religious judges' sense of ethics.
Now, I guess you are easily able to show me such a case, if you're so convinced I have lead too sheltered a life.
Sanstodo, I think you have made some very good points there. Especially
"
Re: Criticism of religion nearing impingment on rights. The problem with your current argument is that any rigorous questioning of religion now is seen as an impingment of rights. At least in the US, one can intensely argue about politics, art, child-rearing techniques, etc in private and/or public and it is seen as ok (within certain boundaries, of course). However, the same level of questioning of another's religion or faith is not permissible (lack of religion is not given such protection in my experience). "
It seems to me, that religious people, when arguing against scientific theories, are allowed to say ANY outragous thing they can think of. And yet they scream hard if in the course of a discussion about Jesus, someone points out he is simply the most famous of the Grain Kings, or a architype preceeded by Balder and Dyonisis.
And mostly it is just an attempt by the religious to exempt their beliefs from public debate.
Seriphus on
It had hitherto been the peculiar felicity to the Romans, and in the worst of times their consolation, that the virtue of the emperors was active and their vice indolent.
All good points, however I'm not sure the question of faith/science is an argument that can be won by either side. Personally, discrediting sources seems like a waste of time - as I see it, people can believe whatever they want (and will, and I have no way of knowing), so long as they act within the bounds of what is legal/acceptable.
The argument that radicalism/extremism is at the root of all evil has always struck me as particularly hollow. Radical religion is a response to socio-economic pressures - that's apparent in the Middle East more than anywhere, but you can see it in the US, too. Attacking religion/illogic is a noble goal in many ways, but it's a very myopic way of approaching complicated, real-world problems that stem from poverty, isolation, etc, etc.
As I accused Loren in the other thread - attacking religion itself is a) pointless, and b) a quick answer to a complicated problem.
People believe what they want. No amount of crusading will change that. Hell, I doubt that even Loren's non-belief has a logical base (I know he came from a religious background). People are creatures of emotion, imagination and habit, and no amount of intellectual attack/goading will change that.
In the extreme case, they will go down to the riverbank, and waylay strangers and ask them to pronounce "Shibboleth", and then murder those that have an accent. And to them, this is UTTERLY moral, because God is the source of all morality.
That's all well and good, but as an atheist, I reserve the right to tell them that they're wrong, and that moral authority does not stem from God.
Never yet heard of a case of an IRRELIGIOUS judge getting worked up and rightous and punishing a believer.
Then you have a very narrow exposure to the law, and a poor imagination.
Although socio-economic pressures help create the soil in which radical ideologies emerge, they are not the full answer. Many of the leaders and funders of violent religious groups are educated, wealthy, and influential. How people like Osama bin Laden, who was hugely wealthy and powerful even before the rise of al Qaeda, turn into radicals is not nearly as easy to explain with socio-economic factors as the poor suicide bombers in Palestine. To take your example of the Middle East: There are far too many members of violent Islamic groups who come from middle-class and upper class families to blame radicalism in the region solely upon socio-economic factors. Something more complicated is going on and some part of it, no matter how small, may be an inherent flaw in religious belief itself, or how religious belief has thus far been formulated.
I completely agree that problems in the real world are multi-faceted and complicated. However, I disagree in one simple fact: I still believe that religion itself may be one of the contributing factors. Thus, attacking religion can be useful as part of a larger effort to solve certain problems our world faces. Like you, though, I understand that it is hardly a magic bullet.
However, I disagree in one simple fact: I still believe that religion itself may be one of the contributing factors. Thus, attacking religion can be useful as part of a larger effort to solve certain problems our world faces. Like you, though, I understand that it is hardly a magic bullet.
this is a great distillation of my point. religion is the contributing factor that always goes unaddressed. problems are multifaceted, and religion is the facet that gets ignored and overlooked.
Fundamentalism is very easy to explain. People fear change. They especially fear rapid change, and nowadays the world is changing very, very rapidly. So they hold on to old beliefs - or they practice what they (often mistakenly) think the old beliefs were, in an effort to slow things down, to exert some control over their universe.
It requires, from my point of view, a distinct lack of empathy to not understand fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims believe that western society is decadent and materialistic, lacking in any substantive spirituality. And when you look around - and it's not hard; turn on Real Housewives of Orange County or My Super Sweet Sixteen - you realize that, at least to some degree, they're right. We are decadent. Public spirituality is scorned, usually, even in the Bible Belt. There is a vast industry dedicated to chronicling the every move of actors and athletes, none of which fucking matters. While people starve, there's a story at least once a week about the obesity epidemic in the United States. Family is often taken for granted. Our fastest growing industry is lawyers; everyone is desperately concerned with covering their ass and getting theirs. As a general rule, most Americans and Australians and Canadians and western Europeans do not know, and will never know, true hardship.
Is it that difficult to see where they're coming from?
Look, I don't think that believing and following Christ or Allah, or anyone else, really, will end those problems, and I don't think the fundamentalists are going about fixing these issues the right way. God helps those who help themselves, and the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. But I understand them, and their reasons, and I know that, in truth, most of them are not bad people. They are just trying to cut a different path. Many would say that they are free to live their lives as they wish, but they cannot do so, not without going completely off the grid. Their views are incompatible with the rest of society, and so they fight. Compromise is not an option for either side, and so here we stand, each side believing the other to be completely and utterly without merit.
But I understand them, and their reasons, and I know that, in truth, most of them are not bad people. They are just trying to cut a different path. Many would say that they are free to live their lives as they wish, but they cannot do so, not without going completely off the grid. Their views are incompatible with the rest of society, and so they fight. Compromise is not an option for either side, and so here we stand, each side believing the other to be completely and utterly without merit.
i think your explanation of fundamentalism as being purely reactionary is overly simplistic (i agree that it plays a part, of course), but i agree with the above bit. fundamentalists are not bad people. they are not "idiots and assholes" (though some of them certainly are, the same can be said of people from all across the religious and political spectrum).
at the end though, after the "here we stand" in your post, it has to be said that this conflict does not exist in a vacuum. what is true and right does not lie somewhere in between, and though one can see fundamentalists as being humans, and good ones, it still must be said that they are (in many ways) wrong, and are doing harm, and must be dealt with.
at the end though, after the "here we stand" in your post, it has to be said that this conflict does not exist in a vacuum. what is true and right does not lie somewhere in between, and though one can see fundamentalists as being humans, and good ones, it still must be said that they are (in many ways) wrong, and are doing harm, and must be dealt with.
By being total assholes?
As someone who believes in a God but isn't a fundamentalist, all I can say is good luck trying to change the world by trying to insult the other side as much as possible. That always works.
As someone who believes in a God but isn't a fundamentalist, all I can say is good luck trying to change the world by trying to insult the other side as much as possible. That always works.
this is a great example of the way religious folk (of all stripes and all parts of the spectrum) make religion an unapproachable topic. of course criticism is insulting. and how dare i insult your faith by criticizing it?
As someone who believes in a God but isn't a fundamentalist, all I can say is good luck trying to change the world by trying to insult the other side as much as possible. That always works.
this is a great example of the way religious folk (of all stripes and all parts of the spectrum) make religion an unapproachable topic. of course criticism is insulting. and how dare i insult your faith by criticizing it?
I was mainly referring to what was linked to in the first post.
There's criticisim and then there's just being a jerk.
First, and foremost, I would like to state that being an atheist, that is, believing that there is absolutely no way that there is a god, believing against god, as it were, is just as much a belief, just as much a leap of faith, as believing in god is in th first place.
I am agnositic, which is to say that I do not believe in god, nor do I disbelieve in god. There may or may not be a god, I do not know what the answer is, and I don't think I could know with the information available to me.
That aside, I think that disbelievers in god going out to public ridicule belief in god is just as idiotic and offensive as, well, believers ridiculing disbelievers. It would be kind of like if Pro-choice people went out and blew up a church, in response to a bombing at an abortion clinic. There is no honor in lowering yourself to the level of your opposition.
Please, look up the difference between strong and weak atheism. Wikipedia will help sort out some of the problems in the first part of your post, as weak atheism is not based on a leap of faith and is not equatable to religious belief at all.
wikipedia isn't an infalible source of information.
and, to be fair, anyone who is a "weak atheist" would not be out denouncing belief in god, so it's really irrellevant. weak atheism is really some one who is unaware of the concept of a god, and therefor does not believe in one by default.
As someone who believes in a God but isn't a fundamentalist, all I can say is good luck trying to change the world by trying to insult the other side as much as possible. That always works.
this is a great example of the way religious folk (of all stripes and all parts of the spectrum) make religion an unapproachable topic. of course criticism is insulting. and how dare i insult your faith by criticizing it?
I was mainly referring to what was linked to in the first post.
There's criticism and then there's just being a jerk.
1) don't quote if you're not responding to what you quote.
2) even in the context of the people denying the holy spirit, how the hell is that insulting? they're saying they deny the existence of the holy spirit. if you're insulted by someone else publicly renouncing their belief, my previous response to you applies. atheism is by definition an insulting concept, according to that logic.
Also, a note to the atheists in this thread that are trying to lump all of "religion" together.
Not all religions are christianity, and not all of christianity even ignores science, etc.
There are plenty of religious people who ALSO recognize science, or are pro-choice, or in avor of gay marriage.
These are religious people who recognize that it is not their place to impose their religion on others. They are the majority, it is just that, unfortunately, they are often a silent majority, overshadowed by a vocal minority.
Claiming that all religious people believe that the world is only 6000 years old, or disagree with evolution, or the like, is absolutely rediculous. That'd be like saying that all atheists secretly worship the devil.
and, to be fair, anyone who is a "weak atheist" would not be out denouncing belief in god
Wait, what? You can simultaneously claim that while you don't believe in a god that it's still possible for one to be out there and attack irrational beliefs as irrational at the same time.
1)i believe that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want. but i think we should discourage people from believing certain things.
These are not compatible. You cannot say "people should be allowed to believe whatever they want" and then say "but we should discourage them from [belief X]"
Since, you know, then you're saying that "people should only believe what I think they should believe in."
As someone who believes in a God but isn't a fundamentalist, all I can say is good luck trying to change the world by trying to insult the other side as much as possible. That always works.
this is a great example of the way religious folk (of all stripes and all parts of the spectrum) make religion an unapproachable topic. of course criticism is insulting. and how dare i insult your faith by criticizing it?
I was mainly referring to what was linked to in the first post.
There's criticism and then there's just being a jerk.
1) don't quote if you're not responding to what you quote.
2) even in the context of the people denying the holy spirit, how the hell is that insulting? they're saying they deny the existence of the holy spirit. if you're insulted by someone else publicly renouncing their belief, my previous response to you applies. atheism is by definition an insulting concept, according to that logic.
the aspect of "insult" come in with the purpose of the declaration.
We live in a progressive world where your religious beliefs aren't generally an issue, at least in america. The one time that I would say that they ARE, Christmas time, is the one time of year when Atheists suddenly forget who they are, nd go and celebrate a religious holiday (I wonder how many of the people making these declarations still scelebrate christmas, "just because").
I would accuse these people of making this statement to make a point to others, and not just for themselves. And they are making this point by blaspheming god.
Remember, this isn't just saying "I don't believe", but going out and blaspheming, which is, by its own nature, and attack on god.
and, to be fair, anyone who is a "weak atheist" would not be out denouncing belief in god
Wait, what? You can simultaneously claim that while you don't believe in a god that it's still possible for one to be out there and attack irrational beliefs as irrational at the same time.
yes, I can. it is idiotic to attack irrational beliefs when you also hold irrational beliefs.
I'm pretending that you aren't trying to attack religion specifically in the above post, but rather, are stating anything that requires a leap of faith is irrational.
Posts
what does this blasphemy constitute? if i think that you're wrong, and i say that you're wrong and that god doesn't exist, is that blasphemy?
also, i was typing this earlier, but had to abandon it before i could get to editing it down. i later lost interest in it, but it's a response to something that i haven't answered yet:
uh, many people here are the target demographic that i'm arguing with. there are moderate catholics and moderate... other things. there's also a fair number of "i'm an atheist too, but..."-type of people who i feel are somewhat problematic as well, though certainly less so than others. people who are apathetic towards religion and people who feel that it's vital or benign on the whole hold views that i feel should be addressed.
also, my claim is that all theology is as logically sound as any other. it's all nonsense. gay catholics make as much sense as any other. the fact that they pick and choose to ignore certain biblical passages and edicts from the pope means they're wrong in a different way than the catholics who don't. it's just as illogical to view a text as literally as possible as it is to assume that you can go cafeteria-style on god's divine plan and still believe in god's divine plan while still... etc, etc.
1) if you actually read that scripture in context, I'm pretty sure what they are doing doesn't count as blasphemy against the holy spirit in the sense that will make you unforgivable.
2) this sounds like something the bad guys in a Left Behind novel would do.
3) you guys just make the wittiest little comments that I could possibly imagine anyone ever making, ever.
The metaphor of dilution is inapt because it's suggestive of two substances, "fundamentalism" and "rationality", which being mixed in different proportions produce different beliefs. But beliefs aren't like that; you don't take a certain amount of one thing and a certain amount of another and swirl them together in a cup to produce a set of beliefs. Every person's beliefs consist of a structure... made of assumptions, propositions, connections, perceptions, emotions, memories, associations, guesses, arguments...
I'd say the metaphor of a house is a much better fit. If you want to understand a house, you don't describe it as being "30% wood, 46% brick, 12% fabric..." and so on. You look at - well, mainly I'd think you'd look at the structure of it and at how it works in practice.
Short version: beliefs are not a linear scale; they differ from each other along more than one dimension.
but the same problems in fundamentalists exist in moderates, simply (generally) less so. they still feel compelled to give credence to nonsense, they still feel that religion is a valuable institution. a moderate makes the same mistakes of logic, has the same problem of not being intellectually honest about his beliefs as a fundamentalist (though certainly less so). they typically hold a mishmash of theology-driven morality interspersed with modern moral notions. they have confronted modernity where the fundamentalist has not.
i grant you though, moderates are certainly more likely to manifest other "moderate" style beliefs, like the refusal to conflate beliefs with action, the tendency to view one religion as being as good as, or no different than any other, and to blame problems manifested because of religious belief on anything but religious belief ("assholes and idiots" are popular scapegoats, as are nationalism, economics, poor education and the like). also, religious tolerance. they tend to have that in spades.
Religious people by and large complied our volcaburary, so it is common practice for those of us irreligious people that waste time talking about superstition, to be trapped using incorrect terms for things.
Say I wished to explain my position on "God". I am basically forced by our language into a mistaken representation of myself. "Atheist" means without god, it is a religious insult-term, not an accurate discription of my world view. I seriously know ( and here religious people will insist I can't KNOW, but thats ok, I think you guys are doing well just to get your pants on one leg at a time,
"Speaking Blasphemy" is a similar semantically derived error. I have accidentally offended the belief system of perfectly harmless aquaintances on occasion, by using one of my societies expletives *drops hammer carelessly onto finger* 'Jesus H Christ on a unicycle'
This ISN'T blasphemy. I don't believe in god, OR his ability to concieve magic rugrats, so how can I blasphemy against someone elses' delusions?. It is needlessly upsetting to some poor deluded religo though, so I try not to do it, any more than you would snatch the tinfoil hat off some old jezza in the park.
To me, the world is full of dangerous moral cowards that refuse to take responsibility for themselves, and fundmentalists are all exactly the same to me, I am just as nervous around evangelistic christians as I am their islam brethern.
Gibbon.
Out of curiosity, then, what is your definition of blasphemy?
See, for them, god actually exisits, they believe. If they actually do NOT believe, say they wake up one morning and just realise what a deluded fool they have been, and that that when they were tiny children, their whole world-view was perverted before they could think for themselves, by lies their parents taught them . . . . . well, they can no more blaspheme at THAT point, than I can praise the lord. Once they truely do NOT believe in a superstition, how can they transgress against one of its internal rules?.
It is like that favourite little ploy of religious people "There are no athiests in a fox-hole". They smugly ignore you saying "If I was ever in a foxhole, there would INDEED be one athiest in a foxhole" and sneer and say "Oh no, you would soon be praying". To THEM, this is patently obvious, because again, they only see the world through the semantic lens of religion.
And their words for everything ( And words are the functional basis of our consciousness as you are no doubt aware ) are drawn from a pool tainted to overflow with RELIGIOUS words. They can not BE, without religious terms, if they fear, they "Fear god", if they "LOVE", it bears the mental tag "Gods Love", their mental software contains the inate inability to imagine the world WITHOUT reference to god.
As they were taught to talk, they were taught to believe.
I , however, (and a large number of my fellow Anzac brothers with me, from about the last thirty to fourty years,) never heard the term god until I was about 10 years old. Oh, maybe I heard Robin Hood or King Richard on a movie say "Come on men, For England, St George, And God", then asked someone "Whats a St George? A god?". I would get a sketchy rundown on other peoples beliefs. Just exactly the same as I would, when faced with a Fakir sending his apprentice up the Rope Trick, or laying on his beds of nails. "Whats a Fakir?". Or for that matter, if I hadn't worked it out for myself "Whats a ghost?" "Whats a Superman?" "Whats a Nazi?" "whats sex?". I was told a little ABOUT other peoples beliefs in this sort of thing, not told TO believe it myself, quite the opposite, I was stopped from following up any interest in these dangerous concepts. No more allowed to read the horror of religion than I was to read the horror of the Nationalist Socialist party. My mum and Dad simply said "You are too young to think about these things yet, when you get older you can decide for yourself".
Because we were not indoctrinated, our world view is free of compulsion. If I was in a foxhole, and here is the killer answer to the ploy, I would be no morelikely to pray to jahaw then to budda, OR to superman. It would be equally nonsensical to me to say "Oh god, I promise to obey you if you will just let me live" as it would be say Oh superman, I promise to obey you if you will just let me live".
Which god is the god of foxholes, anyway? Why, the god you are indoctrinated in as an innocent , ignorant child. A Buddist wouldn't suddenly start praying to Jehova, UNLESS he had been exposed to taht brand of indoctrination somehow, as a child.
Similarly, a Buddist can't blaspheme against Jesus, nor a Christian against Budda.
Gibbon.
Some people believe that freedom of religious belief is an important aspect of our society, and are reluctant to impinge on that freedom, or criticise other's exercise of it.
What you do, Loren, is the equivalent of someone saying "Gay people are disease-spreaders, and I will work to stop gay people the world over." If someone calls you out on your bullshit you say "Oh, but I'm not trying to ban gayness, I'm just trying to convince people not to do it." Sure, passing judgement over someone's exercise of freedom isn't exactly the same as outright impinging on it, but how can you not see that it has the same zero-sum effect? No, religious people are not entitled to have their beliefs protected from criticism - but there is a very fine line between criticism and persecution. Constant criticism can effectively impinge on rights. To continue the homosexual idea - gay relationships are no longer illegal in the bible belt of the US, but "criticism" impinges on their freedoms to live in a relationship in those states, so they tend not to. No, they're not persecuted against by the letter of the law, but they are effectively banned because of prejudice.
(I know you're going to attack that whole paragraph by pulling out your favourite - sexual preference=not a choice/religion=choice point - but from a social standpoint, that's a fallacy. It doesn't make any difference if someone is being persecuted for skin colour or political affiliation - the fact that someone can change affiliation does not excuse their persecution.)
You're very big on heavy-handed moralising. You blame "moderates" (you sound exactly like an evangelical, by the way) for scapegoating, but you fail to recognize that's exactly what you're doing when you attack religion. You have some good points when you attack specific, intellectual aspects of religion (ie, holding back science), but the vast majority of people don't agree with your implied position that belief in something can somehow strip a person of his powers of reason, or turn him into something he's naturally not. I know that I certainly believe it's not scapegoating to blame "assholes and idiots", because I believe in personal responsibility for one's own actions. By blaming religion, you're tacitly absolving religious people of moral/intellectual responsibility for the things they say and do. If Bob nods along thoughtfully to a "burn all gays" speech, you'd be inclined to blame the system, whereas I'd be inclined to say that Bob should think for himself and make his own decisions. The law is on my side, so I think my position is more tenable from a social standpoint.
Furthermore, as I've said before, it's impossible to know with absolute certainty what someone's beliefs are, so from a philosophical standpoint, it's problematic to judge people based on what they claim to believe. In the real world, you, I, and everybody else are forced to judge people by quantifiable external factors - what they say and do. We're free to criticise beliefs themselves until we're blue in the face, but we cannot apply those same criticisms to individuals and retain our intellectual integrity. Because of that, it's hardly a weak position to seek to judge individuals ("assholes and idiots") rather than beliefs when attempting to speak out against intolerance from within the religious community.
Finally Loren, you pride yourself on hardcore atheism, but in many ways you tend to lend more credence to religious doctrine than I do. By saying that prejudice against gays is in the bible & therefore Christianity is inherently flawed, you’re acknowledging the authority of the bible and reinforcing religious doctrine. Personally, I don’t believe any literal interpretation of the bible, or any holy text, and I think it’s a logically untenable position for me to take to argue scripture. As I’ve noted, I believe in personal responsibility, so for me to argue the book is a hypocrisy. In that respect, I think your accusations labelling me (and others) as a moderate/weak atheist (an “atheist, but…â€) are way off the mark. (And besides, I’m not competing for an atheist of the month merit badge, like you are). If atheism is measured by how much you bitch about Christianity, well done – you’re a great atheist. Silly me for thinking that atheism was only someone’s absence of belief in God. Apparently there’s a whole atheist political agenda that I have to stick with, or else I’m just an imposter.
By saying that religion is important, you're giving it more importance than I believe it's due.
However, thats easier for irreligious people, isn't it?. No one is telling us what to do, but GOD, lord of hosts, is telling religious people how far they can transgress on the feelings of others. So they go so far as to let someone else tell them what is moral.
In the extreme case, they will go down to the riverbank, and waylay strangers and ask them to pronounce "Shibboleth", and then murder those that have an accent. And to them, this is UTTERLY moral, because God is the source of all morality.
So really, any casual study of history would suggest that it might be overly hopeful that we can expect religious people to take personal responsibility for their own actions. Better that we have strict laws FORCING them to do so, and then root out all judges that have religious beliefs of any extreme nature.
Gibbon.
The trouble with the kinds of generalisations you're making here is that, as blanket statements they're obviously wrong, although there may be examples of specific cases where they do apply.
"Moderates feel compelled to give credence to nonsense" - well, this is really an insult rather than an argument. But it's exemplary of your position because it doesn't say which moderates you're talking about, or what beliefs they hold that are nonsensical, or why exactly or by what they are "compelled" to give credence to it. Unless we know the specific moderates you're talking about, and the specific nonsense they're giving credence to, I have no idea whether or not the people you're talking about are actually "moderates" in the sense that I recognise the term, or if I'd agree that the beliefs are nonsense, and so on.
"...they still feel that religion is a valuable institution". This is a point that can be argued, of course, but I hardly think that seeing value in the insitutions of religion automatically disqualifies one from being party to rational discourse. Many non-religious people see value in elements of religion, although of course, they generally have the necessary discrimination to see that there's a difference between nuns feeding the homeless and suicide bombings. You're still doing this thing of talking about "religion" as though it were a single monolithic institution.
"...a moderate makes the same mistakes of logic". Again, which moderates, which mistakes? Are they actual mistakes of logic (like broken syllogisms) or are they just arguments that you don't agree with?
"...have the same problem of not being intellectually honest". This one is just baffling to me. Presumably the accusation of intellectual dishonesty comes from the idea that you think these "moderates" actually believe the same things you do, but that somehow they're kidding themselves because they don't want to face the cold, hard truths which only tough guys like you dare to see with clear eyes? I can easily draw up a list of "moderates" who do not fit this description. But how can you, if you're intellectually honest, casually throw insults like this around if you haven't taken the trouble to investigate what "moderate" religious people are actually like, or what they actually believe?
I am agnositic, which is to say that I do not believe in god, nor do I disbelieve in god. There may or may not be a god, I do not know what the answer is, and I don't think I could know with the information available to me.
That aside, I think that disbelievers in god going out to public ridicule belief in god is just as idiotic and offensive as, well, believers ridiculing disbelievers. It would be kind of like if Pro-choice people went out and blew up a church, in response to a bombing at an abortion clinic. There is no honor in lowering yourself to the level of your opposition.
Please, look up the difference between strong and weak atheism. Wikipedia will help sort out some of the problems in the first part of your post, as weak atheism is not based on a leap of faith and is not equatable to religious belief at all.
Re: Criticism of religion nearing impingment on rights. The problem with your current argument is that any rigorous questioning of religion now is seen as an impingment of rights. At least in the US, one can intensely argue about politics, art, child-rearing techniques, etc in private and/or public and it is seen as ok (within certain boundaries, of course). However, the same level of questioning of another's religion or faith is not permissible (lack of religion is not given such protection in my experience). I do not believe that Loren is suggesting that religious people should be harassed unduly simply for their beliefs. Rather, Loren is arguing that religion should be opened to the same level of questioning and criticism as any other topic, no more and no less. I agree with this standpoint since it does not impinge upon anyone's rights. Rather, it allows for people of all faiths or lack thereof to have their ideas have equal protection while currently, there is a bias in favor of the religious and against the irreligious.
Re: Criticism of religious beliefs by irrationality, immorality, and/or contradictory nations of beliefs reinforcing religious doctrine. It seems like you'd rather that atheists keep quiet and if they criticize religion, then they should do it in defense of certain areas, such as science, from meddling from the religious. I may be wrong, but by choosing not to engage religious belief at its base (the texts themselves in most cases), then you cannot remove the "But the Bible/Koran/etc. says so!" argument. The texts themselves must be discredited to prevent reference to them as a legitimate argument; as long as people can refer to a higher authority that supposedly gives them the only way to gain salvation or live a righteous life, they effectively immunize themselves from criticism by stating their devotion to that higher power. It may be abdicating personal responsibility to some extent but many say that they are taking care of their personal responsibility simply by following doctrine. In this way, religious doctrine is already seen as a legitimate basis for many public policies and personal beliefs, largely in the absence of any effective criticism by atheists and/or secular moderates.
Silence by atheists and tolerance by moderates has done nothing to prevent the rise of evangelical christianity and radical islam (I view them as equally virulent and destructive, like any extremist ideology, with the added wrinkle of their followers believing wholeheartedly that they are doing the will of God). Religion need not be given more importance than it is due; it is already one of the major forces affecting the course of human history right now. Silence is not a solution in this situation. It is time for moderates to stand up and defend the moderate stance against extremists on both sides. You may not like the fact that Loren is more radical than you are but I have not yet seen the religious moderates in the US do anything to effectively stem the tide of evangelism that has infiltrated our government. If moderates will not stand up and fight, then moderates have little ground to criticize those who do, misguided as they may be.
"Those who don't vote shouldn't criticize the government" is a stupid point of view, sorry.
It's a pity that they do too because these nutjobs have become representitves of religion in this country.
1) i'm not interested in removing anyone's political freedoms. you've thrown this at me in the past. stop it.
2) yes, i'm interested in the ending of religion as a viable, respected, and legitimate institution. i'm interested in the abolition of religion.
3) gay people are not analogous to religious people. people who believe that the world was created six thousand years ago are also not analogous to black people. your analogy sucks.
4) is racism a political affiliation? are some political beliefs harmful to society? should we discourage holocaust deniers based on their ideology, or should we support their existence and the promulgation of their beliefs in society? should we stand by and let them operate unopposed?
5) i don't think faith strips a person of their ability to reason. many religious people are very smart, and very logical. there is nothing logical about their religious beliefs, however. this is what i mean by not being intellectually honest about their beliefs, and where their beliefs in religion interact with reality, there is a problem of logic. see: morality, science.
6) i'm inclined to blame the environment that conditions society to believe in nonsense, like homophobia. individuals are responsible for their actions of course, but they are the product of their society. as long as a culture exists that promotes dogmatic homophobia, homophobes will continue to be created.
7) i don't argue scripture. the contents of canon are a problem if people refer to it as a moral guide in some capacity, so i'm not sure what you're talking about. i also wasn't referring to "weak atheists", so i'm sorry if i misled you.
eight) religion is already massively important in society. that's one of the problems. it needs to go away. it's a cultural artifact in the vein of tribalism and astrology, and it needs to go away.
1) you're incorrect about them being "obviously wrong", though i could have added some qualifiers such as "typically" and "in many cases".
2) "Moderates feel compelled to give credence to religious beliefs and interpretations of reality". fixed a little. this is broad enough that i don't feel that it needs such a qualifier. without some amount of religiosity, they aren't religious in any capacity that i care to address.
3) "...they still feel that religion is a valuable institution" i don't deny that there are positive aspects to religion, and religious institutions. i feel that their overall value is outweighed by their baggage of problems. i've been over this in the past, repeatedly.
4) they hold separate standards for evidence for nonreligious propositions and religious propositions. "faith" is still considered a valid avenue for understanding and/or acquiring truth. this is also what i mean by intellectual intellectual dishonesty. i feel that they actually do believe what they say they do, though perhaps not as fervently as some.
as an aside, i feel that this less stringent version of faith leaves many moderates at a loss to understand or explain religious intolerance and violence. they may be unable to understand people who truly believe in paradise with little (if any) doubt, peopole who are truly in the grip of religious dogma, which is moderates so frequently understand problems as being the result anything but religion.
All good points, however I'm not sure the question of faith/science is an argument that can be won by either side. Personally, discrediting sources seems like a waste of time - as I see it, people can believe whatever they want (and will, and I have no way of knowing), so long as they act within the bounds of what is legal/acceptable.
The argument that radicalism/extremism is at the root of all evil has always struck me as particularly hollow. Radical religion is a response to socio-economic pressures - that's apparent in the Middle East more than anywhere, but you can see it in the US, too. Attacking religion/illogic is a noble goal in many ways, but it's a very myopic way of approaching complicated, real-world problems that stem from poverty, isolation, etc, etc.
As I accused Loren in the other thread - attacking religion itself is a) pointless, and b) a quick answer to a complicated problem.
People believe what they want. No amount of crusading will change that. Hell, I doubt that even Loren's non-belief has a logical base (I know he came from a religious background). People are creatures of emotion, imagination and habit, and no amount of intellectual attack/goading will change that.
That's all well and good, but as an atheist, I reserve the right to tell them that they're wrong, and that moral authority does not stem from God.
Then you have a very narrow exposure to the law, and a poor imagination.
1)i believe that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want. but i think we should discourage people from believing certain things. i imagine you already agree with me with regards to racism and homophobia. people should be allowed to believe in either, or both, but we certainly shouldn't encourage it, and should address them as the societal ills that they are. we are intolerant of both, as i feel that we should be towards faith and religious dogmas.
2) this belies the fact that a broad spectrum of people adhere to a wide variety of faiths to a variety of degrees. certainly, certain religious expressions (like suicide bombing) are a response to nonreligious external pressures, but these aren't an explanation of theology. the belief that life begins at conception and that this is somehow important is not a reaction to economics, nor is misogyny or treatment of apostates and adulterers.
3) attacking religion is attacking a facet that is not being addressed. religion is not the only problem, and i have never claimed that it is.
4) uh, crusading has helped quite a bit. racism, for example is a shadow of its former self.
my parents used to be unitarian universalists. i never really was.
And as I said, I have never heard of an irreligious judge getting worked up and punishing a believer, though I guess you have missed my point here. Religious judges in NEW ZEALAND, and ours is far far far less religious country than your own, you understand, have been known to wax wroth and land heavily apon the defendants, and their sentences have been cut on appeal because the judge has allowed his religious "morality" to carry him away.
I have not the least doubt, that in a country where judges are political appointees :roll: this is far more of a problem. And I have never heard of the converse case, that of a judge punishing a religious person and their behaviour offends the NON-religious judges' sense of ethics.
Now, I guess you are easily able to show me such a case, if you're so convinced I have lead too sheltered a life.
Sanstodo, I think you have made some very good points there. Especially
"
Re: Criticism of religion nearing impingment on rights. The problem with your current argument is that any rigorous questioning of religion now is seen as an impingment of rights. At least in the US, one can intensely argue about politics, art, child-rearing techniques, etc in private and/or public and it is seen as ok (within certain boundaries, of course). However, the same level of questioning of another's religion or faith is not permissible (lack of religion is not given such protection in my experience). "
It seems to me, that religious people, when arguing against scientific theories, are allowed to say ANY outragous thing they can think of. And yet they scream hard if in the course of a discussion about Jesus, someone points out he is simply the most famous of the Grain Kings, or a architype preceeded by Balder and Dyonisis.
And mostly it is just an attempt by the religious to exempt their beliefs from public debate.
Gibbon.
Although socio-economic pressures help create the soil in which radical ideologies emerge, they are not the full answer. Many of the leaders and funders of violent religious groups are educated, wealthy, and influential. How people like Osama bin Laden, who was hugely wealthy and powerful even before the rise of al Qaeda, turn into radicals is not nearly as easy to explain with socio-economic factors as the poor suicide bombers in Palestine. To take your example of the Middle East: There are far too many members of violent Islamic groups who come from middle-class and upper class families to blame radicalism in the region solely upon socio-economic factors. Something more complicated is going on and some part of it, no matter how small, may be an inherent flaw in religious belief itself, or how religious belief has thus far been formulated.
I completely agree that problems in the real world are multi-faceted and complicated. However, I disagree in one simple fact: I still believe that religion itself may be one of the contributing factors. Thus, attacking religion can be useful as part of a larger effort to solve certain problems our world faces. Like you, though, I understand that it is hardly a magic bullet.
this is a great distillation of my point. religion is the contributing factor that always goes unaddressed. problems are multifaceted, and religion is the facet that gets ignored and overlooked.
It requires, from my point of view, a distinct lack of empathy to not understand fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims believe that western society is decadent and materialistic, lacking in any substantive spirituality. And when you look around - and it's not hard; turn on Real Housewives of Orange County or My Super Sweet Sixteen - you realize that, at least to some degree, they're right. We are decadent. Public spirituality is scorned, usually, even in the Bible Belt. There is a vast industry dedicated to chronicling the every move of actors and athletes, none of which fucking matters. While people starve, there's a story at least once a week about the obesity epidemic in the United States. Family is often taken for granted. Our fastest growing industry is lawyers; everyone is desperately concerned with covering their ass and getting theirs. As a general rule, most Americans and Australians and Canadians and western Europeans do not know, and will never know, true hardship.
Is it that difficult to see where they're coming from?
Look, I don't think that believing and following Christ or Allah, or anyone else, really, will end those problems, and I don't think the fundamentalists are going about fixing these issues the right way. God helps those who help themselves, and the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. But I understand them, and their reasons, and I know that, in truth, most of them are not bad people. They are just trying to cut a different path. Many would say that they are free to live their lives as they wish, but they cannot do so, not without going completely off the grid. Their views are incompatible with the rest of society, and so they fight. Compromise is not an option for either side, and so here we stand, each side believing the other to be completely and utterly without merit.
i think your explanation of fundamentalism as being purely reactionary is overly simplistic (i agree that it plays a part, of course), but i agree with the above bit. fundamentalists are not bad people. they are not "idiots and assholes" (though some of them certainly are, the same can be said of people from all across the religious and political spectrum).
at the end though, after the "here we stand" in your post, it has to be said that this conflict does not exist in a vacuum. what is true and right does not lie somewhere in between, and though one can see fundamentalists as being humans, and good ones, it still must be said that they are (in many ways) wrong, and are doing harm, and must be dealt with.
By being total assholes?
As someone who believes in a God but isn't a fundamentalist, all I can say is good luck trying to change the world by trying to insult the other side as much as possible. That always works.
this is a great example of the way religious folk (of all stripes and all parts of the spectrum) make religion an unapproachable topic. of course criticism is insulting. and how dare i insult your faith by criticizing it?
I was mainly referring to what was linked to in the first post.
There's criticisim and then there's just being a jerk.
wikipedia isn't an infalible source of information.
and, to be fair, anyone who is a "weak atheist" would not be out denouncing belief in god, so it's really irrellevant. weak atheism is really some one who is unaware of the concept of a god, and therefor does not believe in one by default.
1) don't quote if you're not responding to what you quote.
2) even in the context of the people denying the holy spirit, how the hell is that insulting? they're saying they deny the existence of the holy spirit. if you're insulted by someone else publicly renouncing their belief, my previous response to you applies. atheism is by definition an insulting concept, according to that logic.
Not all religions are christianity, and not all of christianity even ignores science, etc.
There are plenty of religious people who ALSO recognize science, or are pro-choice, or in avor of gay marriage.
These are religious people who recognize that it is not their place to impose their religion on others. They are the majority, it is just that, unfortunately, they are often a silent majority, overshadowed by a vocal minority.
Claiming that all religious people believe that the world is only 6000 years old, or disagree with evolution, or the like, is absolutely rediculous. That'd be like saying that all atheists secretly worship the devil.
These are not compatible. You cannot say "people should be allowed to believe whatever they want" and then say "but we should discourage them from [belief X]"
Since, you know, then you're saying that "people should only believe what I think they should believe in."
the aspect of "insult" come in with the purpose of the declaration.
We live in a progressive world where your religious beliefs aren't generally an issue, at least in america. The one time that I would say that they ARE, Christmas time, is the one time of year when Atheists suddenly forget who they are, nd go and celebrate a religious holiday (I wonder how many of the people making these declarations still scelebrate christmas, "just because").
I would accuse these people of making this statement to make a point to others, and not just for themselves. And they are making this point by blaspheming god.
Remember, this isn't just saying "I don't believe", but going out and blaspheming, which is, by its own nature, and attack on god.
uh, no. that's an example of weak atheism. wikipedia may be imperfect, but it's way better than whatever you're doing.
regardless, strong atheism is logically tenable, and is less likely to be confused with agnosticism.
True, that's just America, but people tend to concern themselves most with things happening in their own country. How can any atheist worship the devil?
Is there like some kind of loophole there because the devil isn't actually a god? Because most atheists I've met discount the supernatural entirely.
yes, I can. it is idiotic to attack irrational beliefs when you also hold irrational beliefs.
I'm pretending that you aren't trying to attack religion specifically in the above post, but rather, are stating anything that requires a leap of faith is irrational.