NationStates Jolt Archive

Michael Shermer, who has quite a stellar history of rational discourse and consideration, has recently released a missive regarding the "militant" issues of nature betwixt people of a religious persuasion and people who aren't ... both of which have no interest in keeping that particular matter to themselves.

Since the issue comes up QUITE A BIT here on NS, i figured it would be worth a perusal and comments.

Rational Atheism
An open letter to Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens
By Michael Shermer

Since the turn of the millennium, a new militancy has arisen among religious skeptics in response to three threats to science and freedom: (1) attacks against evolution education and stem cell research; (2) breaks in the barrier separating church and state leading to political preferences for some faiths over others; and (3) fundamentalist terrorism here and abroad. Among many metrics available to track this skeptical movement is the ascension of four books to the august heights of the New York Times best-seller list—Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation (Knopf, 2006), Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell (Viking, 2006), Christopher Hitchens’s God Is Not Great (Hachette Book Group, 2007) and Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin, 2006)—that together, in Dawkins’s always poignant prose, “raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral and intellectually fulfilled.” Amen, brother.

Whenever religious beliefs conflict with scientific facts or violate principles of political liberty, we must respond with appropriate aplomb. Nevertheless, we should be cautious about irrational exuberance. I suggest that we raise our consciousness one tier higher for the following reasons.

1. Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe. As Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises warned his anti-Communist colleagues in the 1950s: “An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack. People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be.”

2. Positive assertions are necessary. Champion science and reason, as Charles Darwin suggested: “It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds which follow[s] from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science.”

3. Rational is as rational does. If it is our goal to raise people’s consciousness to the wonders of science and the power of reason, then we must apply science and reason to our own actions. It is irrational to take a hostile or condescending attitude toward religion because by doing so we virtually guarantee that religious people will respond in kind. As Carl Sagan cautioned in “The Burden of Skepticism,” a 1987 lecture, “You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don’t see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it.”

4. The golden rule is symmetrical. In the words of the greatest conscious*ness raiser of the 20th century, Mart*in Luther King, Jr., in his epic “I Have a Dream” speech: “In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrong*ful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.” If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same.

5. Promote freedom of belief and disbelief. A higher moral principle that encompasses both science and religion is the freedom to think, believe and act as we choose, so long as our thoughts, beliefs and actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others. As long as religion does not threaten science and freedom, we should be respectful and tolerant because our freedom to disbelieve is inextricably bound to the freedom of others to believe.

As King, in addition, noted: “The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.”

Rational atheism values the truths of science and the power of reason, but the principle of freedom stands above both science and religion.

As i have what could be considered a nominal history on this particular subject, i suffice to say that it is an interesting piece, considering Shermer's involvement with Skeptic and own personal history being religiously-minded.
What do y'all think?

That I just can't help it...my eyes glaze over the second religion is mentioned.

Vociferous applause.

Right on.

...irrational exuberance...
YATTA!

...

Sorry, couldn't help it.

Nice enough piece, but it seems to not say very much from what I can tell. *Shrug*

You lost me at "If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same."

How about, "If non-bigots do not want racists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto racists the same."

Sorry, but it's bunk. I frankly don't give a hoot whether racists think I'm a race traitor, and I also don't care if the superstitious think I'm a godless heretic. All I care about is that they stop trying to pass laws that spend my tax dollars endorsing, supporting, or enforcing their personal mythologies.

Remember, the key phrase is, "judge not, lest ye be judged." It's only wrong to judge people if you're a cowardly hypocrite who can't handle being judged when it's your turn. Personally, I want to see people using MORE judgment, not less. I want to see people being skeptical and critical MORE often, not less. So I'ma go right ahead and judge racists to be ignorant jackasses, thank you very much, and I'm not going to worry about if they decide to lash back at me because of their poor hurt feelings.

You lost me at "If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same."

How about, "If non-bigots do not want racists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto racists the same."

Sorry, but it's bunk. I frankly don't give a hoot whether racists think I'm a race traitor, and I also don't care if the superstitious think I'm a godless heretic. All I care about is that they stop trying to pass laws that spend my tax dollars endorsing, supporting, or enforcing their personal mythologies.

Remember, the key phrase is, "judge not, lest ye be judged." It's only wrong to judge people if you're a cowardly hypocrite who can't handle being judged when it's your turn. Personally, I want to see people using MORE judgment, not less. I want to see people being skeptical and critical MORE often, not less. So I'ma go right ahead and judge racists to be ignorant jackasses, thank you very much, and I'm not going to worry about if they decide to lash back at me because of their poor hurt feelings.

Which in turn produces the kind of thought and backlash as lined out in part three;

'It is irrational to take a hostile or condescending attitude toward religion because by doing so we virtually guarantee that religious people will respond in kind.'

Hostility will always be met with hostility. This is human nature, therefore it is the RATIONAL thing to find another way to achive your aims.

It is a good piece and highlights the irrationality of the stance taken by Dawkins and such. To call for an end to irrational type thinking, and then to display such type of thought is hypocritical no?

It is a good piece and highlights the irrationality of the stance taken by Dawkins and such.

There is nothing irrational about Dawkin's stance. The coddling of religion and other superstitions has gone on for far too long. No more being Mr. Nice Atheist. There is nothing respectable about superstition, and thus it merits no respect. It is time to end the false pleasantries and deal in the truth: religion is idiotic. No amount of pretending to be nice about it changes that.

Having your opinion and a good strong dose of skepticism and rationality is fine. Being judgemental is going too far for my taste.

The debate I believe is whether the right to choose what they believe in is an inherent choice of humans or should be left to the environment.

Inherent choice:
All people must be given the choices they can make, even the choice not to make one.
They must also be given full and complete infomation about the choice they are making. (As far as we have full and complete infomation)
Applying to religion, should a child be allowed to choose his/her own religion to adhere to without fear of prejudice. And at what age should a child be given a choice? (knowing that children almost inevitably choose what thier parents want them to)

Environment:
People should be left to choose what they want by dint of their experiences, even if that means many people will choose one faith over others without knowing the presence of some of them or the absence of faith.

There is nothing irrational about Dawkin's stance. The coddling of religion and other superstitions has gone on for far too long. No more being Mr. Nice Atheist. There is nothing respectable about superstition, and thus it merits no respect. It is time to end the false pleasantries and deal in the truth: religion is idiotic. No amount of pretending to be nice about it changes that.

Then you show the same irrational hatred that Dawkins shows.

Dawkins would have us let go of all of our irrationality, whilst not showing a shred of evidance for what he preaches. That does not strike you as irrational?

Can he or you, or anybody prove to me that irrational thought is not the geneitic default for us? It has been said that most Atheists come from the those of higher than avarage intelegence, whilst most Theists come from those avargae or below. I'll not quibble this, there does seem to be some data suggesting this is true.

There is also reasonable data that shows us that atheists mate with atheist, and theists mate with theists. Evolution then seems to be on the side of the Theist. Reason tells us then that Dawkins is fighting a lossing battle, yet he persists. This does not strike you as irrational?

Which in turn produces the kind of thought and backlash as lined out in part three;

'It is irrational to take a hostile or condescending attitude toward religion because by doing so we virtually guarantee that religious people will respond in kind.'

Hostility will always be met with hostility. This is human nature, therefore it is the RATIONAL thing to find another way to achive your aims.

You assume that my aims require non-hostile religious people.

I openly, bluntly, and unashamedly oppose bigotry. I see no reason to coddle people who hold irrational, bigoted ideas. I see no reason to worry about their poor hurt feelings if I dare to voice the truth in front of them. If they aren't comfortable with reality then that really sucks for them, but I don't feel the need to baby a grown adult or pamper them with tender lies.

It makes racists very hostile when I call them out and point out the factual flaws in their beliefs. So what? Does that mean I should nod along with them and pretend that they're not full of shit, for fear of making them sad or angry?

It is a good piece and highlights the irrationality of the stance taken by Dawkins and such. To call for an end to irrational type thinking, and then to display such type of thought is hypocritical no?
Just because some people hold misconceptions about the aims of atheists like Dawkins doesn't mean that Dawkins is irrational.

You assume that my aims require non-hostile religious people.

I openly, bluntly, and unashamedly oppose bigotry. I see no reason to coddle people who hold irrational, bigoted ideas. I see no reason to worry about their poor hurt feelings if I dare to voice the truth in front of them. If they aren't comfortable with reality then that really sucks for them, but I don't feel the need to baby a grown adult or pamper them with tender lies.

I assume nothing of the kind and answered in the context of your allogory.

For the record I have a burning hatred of bigotry and bigots myself, I take exactly the same stance as you do, and I realise that my hatred stems fom my irrationality.


Just because some people hold misconceptions about the aims of atheists like Dawkins doesn't mean that Dawkins is irrational.

We all are and that is the whole point. We are all irrational at some points during our lives, probaly at some point during everyday.

Then you show the same irrational hatred that Dawkins shows.

Dawkins would have us let go of all of our irrationality, whilst not showing a shred of evidance for what he preaches. That does not strike you as irrational?

Again, you don't appear to have the least idea what Dawkins actually says.


Can he or you, or anybody prove to me that irrational thought is not the geneitic default for us?

That's not only a terribly garbled idea, it's also irrelevant.


It has been said that most Atheists come from the those of higher than avarage intelegence, whilst most Theists come from those avargae or below. I'll not quibble this, there does seem to be some data suggesting this is true.

Oy. Correlation vs. causation, and all that.


There is also reasonable data that shows us that atheists mate with atheist, and theists mate with theists.

PEOPLE tend to choose mates who share their fundamental ideology. Given that religious affiliation is not coded in our DNA, one's choice of mate is not going to guarantee the future "transmission" of one's beliefs. Indeed, current trends show that young people are more likely to hold beliefs different from those of their parents than in any previous generation. This is a pretty standard trend, really.


Evolution then seems to be on the side of the Theist.

How do you figure?


Reason tells us then that Dawkins is fighting a lossing battle, yet he persists. This does not strike you as irrational?
1) "Reason" tells us no such thing.
2) Fighting a losing battle can be a perfectly rational choice in many situations.

I assume nothing of the kind and answered in the context of your allogory.

For the record I have a burning hatred of bigotry and bigots myself, I take exactly the same stance as you do, and I realise that my hatred stems fom my irrationality.

That's nice for you. I don't share your feelings, or your self-identified irrational hatred.


We all are and that is the whole point. We are all irrational at some points during our lives, probaly at some point during everyday.
Yes, and we all will die some day. That doesn't mean we should all throw ourselves in front of a truck in the morning.

Then you show the same irrational hatred that Dawkins shows.

There is nothing irrational about my hatred of religion. I loathe stupidity, and thus I loathe religion. It "poisons everything".

Dawkins would have us let go of all of our irrationality, whilst not showing a shred of evidance for what he preaches. That does not strike you as irrational?

"Shred of evidence"? The atheist stance is not the one that needs evidence. Not believing in magical creatures in the sky is not something that rational people need rationalise - it is self-evident why it is the rational thing not to believe in pixies, gods, trolls or whatever superstitious nonsense you have.

Can he or you, or anybody prove to me that irrational thought is not the geneitic default for us? It has been said that most Atheists come from the those of higher than avarage intelegence, whilst most Theists come from those avargae or below. I'll not quibble this, there does seem to be some data suggesting this is true.

There is also reasonable data that shows us that atheists mate with atheist, and theists mate with theists. Evolution then seems to be on the side of the Theist. Reason tells us then that Dawkins is fighting a lossing battle, yet he persists. This does not strike you as irrational?

The only thing that strikes me from your two paragraphs is their inconsistent nonsense.

We all are and that is the whole point. We are all irrational at some points during our lives, probaly at some point during everyday.

I daresay the point Bottle and Dawkins are making is not that we should stive to be totally rational beings. It's rather that we should be very wary in case our rationality takes over our lifes as formulated irrational beliefs. Being irrational now and then is just normal. Letting your life be guided by irrationality is dangerous.

It's so caught up in orthodoxy. Personally I take the same stance as the guy quoted by the OP on non-orthodox people. But I fail to see why we should be nice about orthodox people. It is, at best, a mindnumbing disease that completely kills any shred of rationality and morality in it's victims. At worst, it's insanely, unrelentingly violent and malevolent. So why accommodate it? It's not in anyone's interest, arguably not even the orthodox themselves (but that's assuming they enjoy long happy lives, as opposed to slavery and short lifespans).

Again, you don't appear to have the least idea what Dawkins actually says.

Are you going to tell me that he wants only for us to rid humanity of religion. That other aspects of irrationality are fine?

There is nothing irrational about my hatred of religion. I loathe stupidity, and thus I loathe religion. It "poisons everything".

So you can show both rational reason for this loathing of stupidity, and how religion equals stupid? You can also prove how religion 'poisons everything'?



"Shred of evidence"? The atheist stance is not the one that needs evidence. Not believing in magical creatures in the sky is not something that rational people need rationalise - it is self-evident why it is the rational thing not to believe in pixies, gods, trolls or whatever superstitious nonsense you have.

Except I'm not talking about Atheisim, but Dawkins stance on irrationality. Where is the proof that shows us that what Dawkins wants to achive is best for us, where is the proof that irrational thought is not a normal part of humanity, indeed can anybody show me that we can even get rid of it?


The only thing that strikes me from your two paragraphs is their inconsistent nonsense.

Then either I did not make myself clear or you failed to understand me, either way I'm sorry that you don't see the point I was trying to make.

I daresay the point Bottle and Dawkins are making is not that we should stive to be totally rational beings. It's rather that we should be very wary in case our rationality takes over our lifes as formulated irrational beliefs. Being irrational now and then is just normal. Letting your life be guided by irrationality is dangerous.

I wish I could belive that, perhaps of Bottle I can. But I have not seen nor read, nor heard Dawkins say this, or allude to it.

In reality though, how many people do you know who's lives are controled by irrationality, and the few case I can think of are clearly held to be nutters by the majority.

Are you going to tell me that he wants only for us to rid humanity of religion. That other aspects of irrationality are fine?

He's not attacking irrationality, but irrational beliefs.
Humour is irrational, love is irrational, happiness is irrational. I don't see him attacking those.
What he's speaking out against are irrational beliefs. Forms of structured irrationality that some people allow their lifes to be governed by.

That I just can't help it...my eyes glaze over the second religion is mentioned.

Religion!

I wish I could belive that, perhaps of Bottle I can. But I have not seen nor read, nor heard Dawkins say this, or allude to it.

In reality though, how many people do you know who's lives are controled by irrationality, and the few case I can think of are clearly held to be nutters by the majority.

My mother, my grandmother, both my grandfathers....

My mother held the irrational belief that is was unchristian and immoral to leave her husband and thereby deprive the children of a father. That regularly beat the crap out of them and caused a great deal of psychological damage.
My grandmother did her utmost to keep my mother believing just that.
One of my grandfathers keeps threatening me with fire and brimstone because I'm living with my boyfriend without being married.
The other one declared that a non-white ex-boyfriend of mine would not be allowed to set foot in his house, it was bad enough that he had even been allowed into the country. He died recently, which I think was the nicest thing he's ever done for the family.

But I don't need to go quite that far. My best friend's father is a self-declared homoepath. He kept giving her water against her fever and stomach ache, until her aunt took matters into her own hands and brought her to the hospital, where she had her appendix removed, just in time.

And none of them are considered nutters by the majority, although they definitely should.
They allow their lifes, and in cases the lifes of others, to be determined by their irrational beliefs.

My problem with the militant stance is that pissing the other side off does not cause them to change...it just pisses them off and reaffirms them in whatever it is they affirm. Like any other animal backed into a corner, a human being will always, ALWAYS renew their efforts for their cause and fight back even more fiercely.

No...the writer of the article is correct. Reach out to the theists. Speak with them...educate them. Try learning some psychology so you can understand how to change people for the better without making them raise their defenses and enclose themselves in a shell.

Let's be rational, please. Do I find anything about religion acceptable? Absolutely not. Do I want it gone? Absolutely, along with all other superstitious beliefs.

But I also know that being an ass and being hostile towards theists is not going to accomplish anything but causing them to refuse to change. Segregation was not eliminated through violence and anger, but through peaceful demonstrations and constant whittling down with rationalism. The same must be true of religion.

He's not attacking irrationality, but irrational beliefs.
Humour is irrational, love is irrational, happiness is irrational. I don't see him attacking those.
What he's speaking out against are irrational beliefs. Forms of structured irrationality that some people allow their lifes to be governed by.

Then take that thought further. He would like to see a world in which reason replaces supersticion. This seems a noble persuit.

In reality this means denying freedom of thought to a large group of people, but lets leave that one there for a while.

As I have mentioned there is data that supports the idea of like choosing like to mate with. There is also data that supports the ideas of both the inteligensia being more prone to atheism, and that the birth rate for both individual athieists and atheists as a group is far lower than that of theists.

I.E. Athiest couples have less children than theist couples, and atheists as a group bear far less children than theists as a group do.

We can ask then why would evolution provide for the kind of brain that places supersticion above reason, for what reason would this genetic mutation be more privalant than the one that makes an atheist?

Given the above it is reasonable to assume that it is because of the higher birth rate amongst theists, after all lifes porpuse does seem to be to survive.

I belive that Dawkins is some form of geneticsist? So perhaps he has pondered the very same issue.

What then is his motivation for his current milatancy?

You assume that my aims require non-hostile religious people.

I openly, bluntly, and unashamedly oppose bigotry. I see no reason to coddle people who hold irrational, bigoted ideas. I see no reason to worry about their poor hurt feelings if I dare to voice the truth in front of them. If they aren't comfortable with reality then that really sucks for them, but I don't feel the need to baby a grown adult or pamper them with tender lies.

It makes racists very hostile when I call them out and point out the factual flaws in their beliefs. So what? Does that mean I should nod along with them and pretend that they're not full of shit, for fear of making them sad or angry?

Your opposition to bigotry is commendable, but I don't see the relevance to religion. Unless you somehow equate religious ideas with bigoted ideas.

There is nothing irrational about my hatred of religion. I loathe stupidity, and thus I loathe religion. It "poisons everything".

"Shred of evidence"? The atheist stance is not the one that needs evidence. Not believing in magical creatures in the sky is not something that rational people need rationalise - it is self-evident why it is the rational thing not to believe in pixies, gods, trolls or whatever superstitious nonsense you have.


Do you have the same opinion about spirituality? By spirituality, I mean the individual quest towards connection, not connected to an organised religion or any of its dogma and rituals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality#The_spiritual_and_the_religious

I daresay the point Bottle and Dawkins are making is not that we should stive to be totally rational beings. It's rather that we should be very wary in case our rationality takes over our lifes as formulated irrational beliefs. Being irrational now and then is just normal. Letting your life be guided by irrationality is dangerous.

And an irrational dismissal of religious ideas may also be harmful.

My mother, my grandmother, both my grandfathers....

My mother held the irrational belief that is was unchristian and immoral to leave her husband and thereby deprive the children of a father. That regularly beat the crap out of them and caused a great deal of psychological damage.
My grandmother did her utmost to keep my mother believing just that.
One of my grandfathers keeps threatening me with fire and brimstone because I'm living with my boyfriend without being married.
The other one declared that a non-white ex-boyfriend of mine would not be allowed to set foot in his house, it was bad enough that he had even been allowed into the country. He died recently, which I think was the nicest thing he's ever done for the family.

But I don't need to go quite that far. My best friend's father is a self-declared homoepath. He kept giving her water against her fever and stomach ache, until her aunt took matters into her own hands and brought her to the hospital, where she had her appendix removed, just in time.

And none of them are considered nutters by the majority, although they definitely should.
They allow their lifes, and in cases the lifes of others, to be determined by their irrational beliefs.

But the problems in this case are not religious in and of themselves. The racism, spousal abuse, and medical negligence are the problems. Religion or irrational beliefs simply provided a way for these people to rationalise this to themselves. They could have been just as cruel and stupid without religion.

As you pointed out in your last sentence, what is really unpardonable is that their actions impacted the freedom of others.

Then take that thought further. He would like to see a world in which reason replaces supersticion. This seems a noble persuit.

In reality this means denying freedom of thought to a large group of people, but lets leave that one there for a while.

As I have mentioned there is data that supports the idea of like choosing like to mate with. There is also data that supports the ideas of both the inteligensia being more prone to atheism, and that the birth rate for both individual athieists and atheists as a group is far lower than that of theists.

I.E. Athiest couples have less children than theist couples, and atheists as a group bear far less children than theists as a group do.

We can ask then why would evolution provide for the kind of brain that places supersticion above reason, for what reason would this genetic mutation be more privalant than the one that makes an atheist?

Given the above it is reasonable to assume that it is because of the higher birth rate amongst theists, after all lifes porpuse does seem to be to survive.

I belive that Dawkins is some form of geneticsist? So perhaps he has pondered the very same issue.

What then is his motivation for his current milatancy?

He has indeed, in detail.
I would advise you to read "The God Delusion", as I fear I'll give an incomplete and possibly flawed summary of his conclusions about how humans evolved to be supersticious or religious.
He bascially states that humans (and other animals who developed consciousness) have a tendency ot anthropomorphise, to read intention in animate and inanimate objects. There is an evolutionary advantage in being able to predict the immediate future accurately by reading the intention of a crouching tiger, or even the intention of big black clouds on the horizon.
But by reading intention into inanimate objects, you inevitably end up asking what motivates them. You need an explanation why something maliciously made all the fish disappear from your river, or why lightning struck that tree under which you were sitting. Which is how god(s) was/were invented.

This is just aa very short and crude summary though. If you're interested, the book goes into far more detail.

Edit : Damn... I hate posting from work. I only skip over the post I'm replying to and end up answering a question that wasn't really asked. Sorry about that ...

And an irrational dismissal of religious ideas may also be harmful.

How?


But the problems in this case are not religious in and of themselves. The racism, spousal abuse, and medical negligence are the problems. Religion or irrational beliefs simply provided a way for these people to rationalise this to themselves. They could have been just as cruel and stupid without religion.

As you pointed out in your last sentence, what is really unpardonable is that their actions impacted the freedom of others.

Rascism is an irrational belief.
Homoepathy is an irrational set of belief about health and medication.
The belief that a husband has the right to be violent to his wife and children is an irrational belief.

Don't be so arrogant as to think that religions are the only form of irrationality that humanity invented.

Which in turn produces the kind of thought and backlash as lined out in part three;

'It is irrational to take a hostile or condescending attitude toward religion because by doing so we virtually guarantee that religious people will respond in kind.'

Hostility will always be met with hostility. This is human nature, therefore it is the RATIONAL thing to find another way to achive your aims.

It is a good piece and highlights the irrationality of the stance taken by Dawkins and such. To call for an end to irrational type thinking, and then to display such type of thought is hypocritical no?
Ever stop to consider that the reason atheists are fighting back now is because we've been hit with nothing but consistent hostility for millennia now? You're damn right hostility is met with hostility--I'm just paying back the religious fuckers for the shit they've visited on me and mine.

Then take that thought further. He would like to see a world in which reason replaces supersticion. This seems a noble persuit.

In reality this means denying freedom of thought to a large group of people, but lets leave that one there for a while.No it doesn't. You're contradicting yourself. If people were rational, they wouldn't hold irrational beliefs. What you're saying is similar to saying it'd be horrible to ban murder because then pacifists wouldn't be allowed to kill people.

As I have mentioned there is data that supports the idea of like choosing like to mate with. There is also data that supports the ideas of both the inteligensia being more prone to atheism, and that the birth rate for both individual athieists and atheists as a group is far lower than that of theists.Correlation/causation as Fass already said. If you have a long, complex education, you've probably also got a fairly high IQ - because long, complex educations typically require it. If you have that sort of background, you'll likely be bored to tears in a relationship with someone much less educated. And if you have that sort of background, it's likely you understand why the various popular superstitious belief sets passed around, are completely absurd.

None of this has anything to do with theism or atheism. People just tend to pair up with people who aren't so terribly different from themselves, and mainstream religions are simply not believable to anyone with a basic understanding of the hard sciences.

I.E. Athiest couples have less children than theist couples, and atheists as a group bear far less children than theists as a group do.Highly educated people generally have less time, and/or more money to spend that free time doing shit poor people can't (like getting more education, travelling and so on). So they have kids later, have fewer of them, and typically plan it better.

Again, it's not really to do with theism or atheism. It's the working class/middle class divide. And it's been like this for at least a century (back when everyone was religious, you know ;) ).

We can ask then why would evolution provide for the kind of brain that places supersticion above reason, for what reason would this genetic mutation be more privalant than the one that makes an atheist?It's an absurd question. Evolution doesn't do anything by design. It's simply a bunch of completely oblivious mechanisms that helps filter information. You might as well ask addition why 2+2 = 4.

Given the above it is reasonable to assume that it is because of the higher birth rate amongst theists, after all lifes porpuse does seem to be to survive.It doesn't even do that. Various organisms have various goals. Sometimes those goals conflict with their own survival. Sometimes they don't. Species don't go extinct because they're theists, atheists, or because evolution or life had some sort of plan for them.

Imagine throwing a shovel full dirt from a landfill, into a siv made up of a mishmash of siv-parts all held together by a diverse bunch of unintelligent organisms and processes, who may or may not have their own agenda. That's how 'life' works, in a nutshell.

I belive that Dawkins is some form of geneticsist? So perhaps he has pondered the very same issue.He's an evolutionary biologist, but no. I very strongly doubt he's ever pondered the same 'issue'. Mostly because it would have required he at some point didn't know jack shit about his field of science, but jumbled together a lot of newspaper headlines.

What then is his motivation for his current milatancy?He's not a militant. It's just bullshit fundies say when they can't defend the bile they spew. If you want to understand what his motives are, try reading one of his books or essays on the subject. Or drop him an email or something. I'm sure he'll try to answer if you're civil.

By the way... Did you know you can get free, browser integrated spellcheckers these days? Might help people read, understand and take the contents of your posts more seriously. Not that I give a shit. You're perfectly legible. People around here just tend to be grammar-Nazis

Then take that thought further. He would like to see a world in which reason replaces supersticion. This seems a noble persuit.

In reality this means denying freedom of thought to a large group of people, but lets leave that one there for a while.You need to learn the difference between what a person would like to see and what a person might force on others, because it's clear you don't get it right now.

Ever stop to consider that the reason atheists are fighting back now is because we've been hit with nothing but consistent hostility for millennia now? You're damn right hostility is met with hostility--I'm just paying back the religious fuckers for the shit they've visited on me and mine.

Annnnd a great show of rationality that is!;)

My problem with the militant stance is that pissing the other side off does not cause them to change...it just pisses them off and reaffirms them in whatever it is they affirm. Like any other animal backed into a corner, a human being will always, ALWAYS renew their efforts for their cause and fight back even more fiercely.

i don't know, confrontational tactics seem to have a pretty good track record of bringing about changes over time.

You need to learn the difference between what a person would like to see and what a person might force on others, because it's clear you don't get it right now.

Heh it is funny how some words on an internet forum give people great insight into what others do or don't get huh!

Dawkin's is activly persuing his goals.

Annnnd a great show of rationality that is!;)

Oh, but it is. Bullies don't stop bullying because they're asked to nicely, or because they realize the error of their ways. They stop because they get popped in the fucking mouth, and because the bullied stop letting them get away with it. If religious people want atheists to calm down, they can make it happen. They can stop being fucking douchebags to atheists and trying to legislate religious dogma.

Oh, but it is. Bullies don't stop bullying because they're asked to nicely, or because they realize the error of their ways. They stop because they get popped in the fucking mouth, and because the bullied stop letting them get away with it. If religious people want atheists to calm down, they can make it happen. They can stop being fucking douchebags to atheists and trying to legislate religious dogma.

May I hump you? Just a little? Well, tough luck, I'm doing it anyway, bitch.

Heh it is funny how some words on an internet forum give people great insight into what others do or don't get huh!

Dawkin's is activly persuing his goals.

By trying to convince people--not by forcing others to believe as he does. That's rational. Religion can't lay claim to that.

By trying to convince people--not by forcing others to believe as he does. That's rational. Religion can't lay claim to that.

You are right, some religoins can't lay claim to that but some can. Ultimatly I am taking this to the next logical level.

Irrationality IS a part of the human condition, it won't go away, not matter how educated we become there will always be irrational beliefs. What then is the proposal to do away with it?

Oh, but it is. Bullies don't stop bullying because they're asked to nicely, or because they realize the error of their ways. They stop because they get popped in the fucking mouth, and because the bullied stop letting them get away with it. If religious people want atheists to calm down, they can make it happen. They can stop being fucking douchebags to atheists and trying to legislate religious dogma.

That too seems to be part of the human physche, the stronger get their way over the weaker. As there are far less Atheists in the world(according to Dawkins') then by your logic, we Theists should just band togther and have our way with you?

You are right, some religoins can't lay claim to that but some can. Ultimatly I am taking this to the next logical level.

Irrationality IS a part of the human condition, it won't go away, not matter how educated we become there will always be irrational beliefs. What then is the proposal to do away with it?The proposal is yours alone. Nobody ever advocated making machines of men. Well.. I may have suggested making fucking machines of them one time, under the influence of lots of beer.. But that's different.

There is nothing irrational about Dawkin's stance. The coddling of religion and other superstitions has gone on for far too long. No more being Mr. Nice Atheist. There is nothing respectable about superstition, and thus it merits no respect. It is time to end the false pleasantries and deal in the truth: religion is idiotic. No amount of pretending to be nice about it changes that.

HERETIC!!!!!!!

The proposal is yours alone. Nobody ever advocated making machines of men. Well.. I may have suggested making fucking machines of them one time, under the influence of lots of beer.. But that's different.

uuuhhh what proposal? I made none, I asked what would logical come next, I may have infered that we should look to the history of human socialogy to try and gleam this answer. But I certianly made no proposal.

Annnnd a great show of rationality that is!;)
Seriously, Peep, this is an absolutely epic case of Montoya Syndrome. "Rationality" does not mean what you think it means.

How?

Well, I believe in god, and so does my mother. When people come up to us and tell us that we are stupid, ignorant and superstitious, it reduces the chances of us having a meaningful dialogue about belief. It is as harmful as an evangelist telling you that you are an evil sinner. Admittedly, not very harmful to the individual but quite harmful to any sense of understanding between the two communities.

Rascism is an irrational belief.
Homoepathy is an irrational set of belief about health and medication.
The belief that a husband has the right to be violent to his wife and children is an irrational belief.

Don't be so arrogant as to think that religions are the only form of irrationality that humanity invented.

To me, the problem is not the irrational belief, but the fact that these people imposed the belief on others. My belief in god has elements of irrationality in it, but since I do not impose my beliefs on anyone, I do not see why I should not be allowed to enertain or discuss my theism.

That too seems to be part of the human physche, the stronger get their way over the weaker.

I don't know what the hell a "physche" is, but it sounds like a pile of crap to me.


As there are far less Atheists in the world(according to Dawkins') then by your logic, we Theists should just band togther and have our way with you?
Whether or not you "should" do so, the historical fact is that you HAVE DONE SO.

Now, the question is how atheists should respond. Some (mostly theists) believe atheists should continue to quietly accept marginalization and systematic repression, lest they risk giving up the most important thing in the world: the esteem of religious people.

Others (mostly atheists) believe that atheists have gained precisely zilch from pandering, ass-kissing, and endlessly humoring the superstitious, and that it's past time for a new approach.

i don't know, confrontational tactics seem to have a pretty good track record of bringing about changes over time.
No, no, no! Black Americans would be much better off if they'd kept quiet and politely requested that perhaps white Americans might wish to stop oppressing the living fuck out of them. All the loud, rude, uppity behavior of the abolition and Civil Rights movements just made white people angry! And, heaven knows, black people would be better off if white people were happy with them, instead of having the legal equality they enjoy today.

After all, what good are silly things like "rights" and "freedoms" if other people feel cranky at you?

No, no, no! Black Americans would be much better off if they'd kept quiet and politely requested that perhaps white Americans might wish to stop oppressing the living fuck out of them. All the loud, rude, uppity behavior of the abolition and Civil Rights movements just made white people angry! And, heaven knows, black people would be better off if white people were happy with them, instead of having the legal equality they enjoy today.

After all, what good are silly things like "rights" and "freedoms" if other people feel cranky at you?

Bottle, are you equating religion with racism? If so, can I ask why?

To me, the problem is not the irrational belief, but the fact that these people imposed the belief on others. My belief in god has elements of irrationality in it, but since I do not impose my beliefs on anyone, I do not see why I should not be allowed to enertain or discuss my theism.

My mother stayed with my father because she believed it was the right thing to do. Her belief caused her immense physical and emotional damage. Damage that the community had and has to pay for.
People's belief in homoepathy will cause them not to seek medical attention in time. People have died because of this. People who wanted to live and irrationally believed that homoepathy would cure them.

I'm not advocating to outlaw beliefs like that, far from it. That would only serve to make them fascinating and mysterious to even more people. I'm advocating to educate people. A lot more than what is happening right now.
That's why I like Dawkins. He's causing a stir, he's making information available, and hopefully he's making people think rather than believe.

Ever stop to consider that the reason atheists are fighting back now is because we've been hit with nothing but consistent hostility for millennia now? You're damn right hostility is met with hostility--I'm just paying back the religious fuckers for the shit they've visited on me and mine.

I dunno. I don't know if anything we can (or would, anyway) do to theists would ever be equal to what theists have done to us for so long. I mean, it's not like atheists burn people at the stake in the name of nonGod, or bomb people for being fidels.

Which brings me to my point, actually...
Why is it that it takes a much less radical position for an atheist to be a radical atheist than it does for a theist to be a radical member of their religion?

For a theist to be labeled "radical" or "militant" they have to be bombing abortion clinics or at the very least preaching about how they would put various groups of sinners to death, were they given the chance to run the theocracy they desire.

For an atheist, however, it only takes "I think your belief is delusional, and here's my evidence" and it's suddenly "Why are you so confrontational and militant?! What has anybody else's beliefs ever done to you?!"

I mean, I've heard plenty of sermons from very mainstream pastors saying that non-believers will burn in hell for all eternity. It's kinda one of the key beliefs of the mainstream religions. They talk about how without Christ, you will suffer unimaginable torment without end for your thoughtcrime. Nobody calls them "militant." Even Dawkins, who theists will have you believe is militant, doesn't wish hellfire upon anybody.

Bottle, are you equating religion with racism? If so, can I ask why?

Both are irrational sets of beliefs. Which is what we are discussing here.

My problem with the militant stance is that pissing the other side off does not cause them to change...it just pisses them off and reaffirms them in whatever it is they affirm. Like any other animal backed into a corner, a human being will always, ALWAYS renew their efforts for their cause and fight back even more fiercely.

Who cares?

Seriously, as an American, I'm forced to wonder why the hell I should care if religious people will get pissy with me for objecting to the systematic abuses, corruption, and political meddling of religious organizations. They're ALREADY DOING ALL THAT SHIT.

So they'll get snippy and contrary and fight back even more. So what? The angrier they get, the more likely they are to embarrass themselves.


No...the writer of the article is correct. Reach out to the theists. Speak with them...educate them.

The two are not mutually exclusive. I'm blunt, honest, and critical...and none of that is remotely incompatible with being a teacher. Indeed, I don't think a religious person is going to learn one single solitary thing if I'm wasting my time telling them all sorts of crap just because I know it's what they want to hear. They learn when I challenge them and when I demand that they think like an adult instead of whimpering like a coddled child.


Try learning some psychology so you can understand how to change people for the better without making them raise their defenses and enclose themselves in a shell.

As the child of two PhDs in psychology, holder of a bachelors in Psychology, and current student of neuroscience, physiology, and psychology, I think I can safely say....

Done.


Let's be rational, please. Do I find anything about religion acceptable? Absolutely not. Do I want it gone? Absolutely, along with all other superstitious beliefs.

But I also know that being an ass and being hostile towards theists is not going to accomplish anything but causing them to refuse to change.

1) You're wrong. My bluntness and open mockery of religion has actually "converted" at least two former theists that I know of. They flat-out told me so.

2) A person who has already invested a lifetime in religious superstition isn't very likely to be willing to give up on it, because that would mean that they've wasted a shitload of their time. Some few are brave and honest enough to do so, but most aren't. All the sweet words in the world aren't going to work.

What matters, as far as I'm concerned, is curtailing the spread of lazy, cowardly, unworthy, sloppy non-thinking. Stop it from infecting the next generation. Show young people the wide world and the endless options available to them. Teach them to think critically. In my experience, if you open that door to them they will walk through all by themselves, no bullying required. Just be straight up and honest, and quit bullshitting around with them, and kids will learn. They're wired to learn, after all!


Segregation was not eliminated through violence and anger, but through peaceful demonstrations and constant whittling down with rationalism.

Bullshit.

People like to act as though anger is this bad nasty emotion that nobody should have, and that anger never produces concrete beneficial results. That's just bunk.

A lot of anger fueled the Civil Rights Movement, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It was justified anger, and anger can be a great positive force when appropriately channeled. It's bullshit to try to deflate all the struggles for liberation by suggesting that they succeeded without anger or despite anger. People who are oppressed SHOULD be angry about it. There's nothing wrong with that. They should let their anger at injustice help give them the drive to fight their oppression and work for positive change.

And that's what a shitload of people did.

Now, the question is how atheists should respond. Some (mostly theists) believe atheists should continue to quietly accept marginalization and systematic repression, lest they risk giving up the most important thing in the world: the esteem of religious people.

Others (mostly atheists) believe that atheists have gained precisely zilch from pandering, ass-kissing, and endlessly humoring the superstitious, and that it's past time for a new approach.

How I wish I could sig all this. That was awesome.

How I wish I could sig all this. That was awesome.

"Now, the question is how atheists should respond. Some (mostly theists) believe atheists should continue to quietly accept marginalization and systematic repression, lest they risk giving up the most important thing in the world: the esteem of religious people.

Others (mostly atheists) believe that atheists have gained precisely zilch from pandering, ass-kissing, and endlessly humoring the superstitious, and that it's past time for a new approach." ~ Bottle

There, well within the limit.

Both are irrational sets of beliefs. Which is what we are discussing here.

My belief that my children love me is also irrational. Does that mean it can be discussed the exact same way we discuss racism? As something to be wiped out because it has caused so much grief to so many?

Allow me to rephrase my question, then: What is it specifically about religion and racism that sets them apart from other irrational beliefs such that we can equate them?

Bottle, are you equating religion with racism? If so, can I ask why?
Equating? Of course not. Religion =/= racism.

Am I drawing a very obvious parallel? Yep. Because one exists.

We've got a thread with some people who insist that being angry when somebody is oppressing you is somehow wrong or counterproductive. We've got people claiming that you should pander and flatter any ideology, no matter what it is, because otherwise people might feel bad.

My point is that they're full of crap. They want special treatment for religious belief because they like religious belief. They don't advocate that people deal with racists the way they're suggesting we deal with the religious. They don't suggest that victims of racism should quietly endure, and perhaps politely--oh so politely!--ask if the KKK could burn a slightly smaller cross on the lawn, if it wouldn't be too much trouble.

If somebody shares their opinion that all black people are monkeys, I'm going to tell them they're full of shit. (Well, I'm actually more likely to give them a comprehensive list of research explaining the many levels of wrong that are contained in their beliefs, but that's just because I'm long-winded and annoyingly nerdy.)

If somebody shares their opinion that an anthropomorphic magical patriarch made humans out of clay, I'm going to tell them they're full of shit. (Well, I'm actually more likely to give them an extensive course on the meaning of METAPHOR and why the fuck Aesop's fables do not actually lead us to conclude that talking foxes are literally real.)

Most people have no problem with me calling out the racist. Of course, most people aren't overtly racist, so that kinda figures. Most people ARE religious, however, and most of them get pissy when it's their ideology being criticized.

Seriously, Peep, this is an absolutely epic case of Montoya Syndrome. "Rationality" does not mean what you think it means.

No I find that ....inconcivable!;)

My belief that my children love me is also irrational. Does that mean it can be discussed the exact same way we discuss racism? As something to be wiped out because it has caused so much grief to so many?

Well, see, there's your problem.

I don't think superstition is bad simply because it's irrational. Indeed, I think superstition exists for very rational reasons. I think there are a lot of rational reasons why people are religious, and usually a lot of rational reasons why they choose to be religious in their particular way.

The thing is, there are also plenty of rational reasons why a person would be a racist.

To quote my Phil 103 professor (I love you Dr. Devlin!),

"If there is only one thing you remember from this course, let it be this:

Something can be rational without being right. It is quite possible to come to a completely logical conclusion, and still be wrong."

My belief that my children love me is also irrational. Does that mean it can be discussed the exact same way we discuss racism? As something to be wiped out because it has caused so much grief to so many?

Allow me to rephrase my question, then: What is it specifically about religion and racism that sets them apart from other irrational beliefs such that we can equate them?

Your believe that your children love you isn't a social, cultural set of beliefs.
I explained about the difference between personal irrationality and irrational structures earlier on.

<snip>
What matters, as far as I'm concerned, is curtailing the spread of lazy, cowardly, unworthy, sloppy non-thinking. Stop it from infecting the next generation. Show young people the wide world and the endless options available to them. Teach them to think critically. In my experience, if you open that door to them they will walk through all by themselves, no bullying required. Just be straight up and honest, and quit bullshitting around with them, and kids will learn. They're wired to learn, after all!
<snip>
Sometimes when reading through a thread I decide early on that I just have to add in my own tuppence worth, for my own peace of mind. In such cases, I find myself mentally jotting down notes as to what I will say - weighing up the pros and cons of introducing new slants on the argument at hand or simply trying to decide exactly how to express my point of view. On very rare occasions, I find that someone else has already posted something very close to what I had planned, which saves me some mental exertion. This appears to be one of those times.

Thank you, Bottle.

What do y'all think?
'S cool.

Most people ARE religious, however, and most of them get pissy when it's their ideology being criticized.

Or needlessly insulted. Go figure.

There is nothing irrational about Dawkin's stance. The coddling of religion and other superstitions has gone on for far too long. No more being Mr. Nice Atheist. There is nothing respectable about superstition, and thus it merits no respect. It is time to end the false pleasantries and deal in the truth: religion is idiotic. No amount of pretending to be nice about it changes that.

Whichever way you look at it, Dawkins is a first class wanker. His claim that people who have some sort of faith are "delusional" was the claim of someone who really, really, REALLY hates religions and hates those who believe in something.

I don't know what the hell a "physche" is, but it sounds like a pile of crap to me.

Now we all know by now I can't spell, but I thought you intelgent enough to work out what I mean by the context.


Whether or not you "should" do so, the historical fact is that you HAVE DONE SO.

No wrong, I have never, ever done such a thing. And if religion, or some religoins have done such a thing, why are you still here?

It is true that many atheists have felt, indeed have been persecuted, but where I live here in the UK, being an atheist is really no big deal, you don't get treated any better or any worse for your lack of belife in deity, I guess it must be cultural aspects that made you REPLY IN CAPITALS!


Now, the question is how atheists should respond. Some (mostly theists) believe atheists should continue to quietly accept marginalization and systematic repression, lest they risk giving up the most important thing in the world: the esteem of religious people.

Any proof that this goes on, or that mostly theist belive this?



Others (mostly atheists) believe that atheists have gained precisely zilch from pandering, ass-kissing, and endlessly humoring the superstitious, and that it's past time for a new approach.

And for the reasons that I have already said: Attack begets attack, you will have to think of a differant way to achive your aims, because this way will not work, in fact as the letter states it will only increase tensions, that is not what you want, is it?

Or needlessly insulted. Go figure.

I would argue that most of the time, when a religion is being insulted publicly, there's a damn good reason for it and it usually has to do with the members of that religion trying to impose their beliefs on the population at large.

I don't know what the hell a "physche" is, but it sounds like a pile of crap to me.


Whether or not you "should" do so, the historical fact is that you HAVE DONE SO.

Now, the question is how atheists should respond. Some (mostly theists) believe atheists should continue to quietly accept marginalization and systematic repression, lest they risk giving up the most important thing in the world: the esteem of religious people.

Others (mostly atheists) believe that atheists have gained precisely zilch from pandering, ass-kissing, and endlessly humoring the superstitious, and that it's past time for a new approach.

Sigged.

I would argue that most of the time, when a religion is being insulted publicly, there's a damn good reason for it and it usually has to do with the members of that religion trying to impose their beliefs on the population at large.

Or being hypocritical bastards. Sending sexual texts to pages, fucking altar boys, soliciting prostitutes in public bathrooms, etc.

His claim that people who have some sort of faith are "delusional"

They are.

was the claim of someone who really, really, REALLY hates religions and hates those who believe in something.

You say that like that would be a bad thing.

Or needlessly insulted. Go figure.
The target of an insult almost always feels the insult was "needless," but the person doing the insulting often disagrees.

;)

Remember, though, that I'm not the person arguing against anger around here. I think it's perfectly REASONABLE for people to get pissy when I criticize or insult their beliefs. I'm not surprised if a racist gets mad when I lay into them. That's a perfectly sane response.

Both are irrational sets of beliefs. Which is what we are discussing here.

Heh I thought we where discussing the merits or not of the letter?

Whichever way you look at it, Dawkins is a first class wanker. His claim that people who have some sort of faith are "delusional" was the claim of someone who really, really, REALLY hates religions and hates those who believe in something.

Why would you hate a delusional person? The normal reaction would be pity...

Whichever way you look at it, Dawkins is a first class wanker. His claim that people who have some sort of faith are "delusional" was the claim of someone who really, really, REALLY hates religions and hates those who believe in something.
Really?

So, if I say that I think any adult who believes in the literal existence of Santa is delusional, that means I really really really really hate Santa-belief, and I hate those who believe in something?

More bunk.

Heh I thought we where discussing the merits or not of the letter?

Huh? What letter? :confused:

Whichever way you look at it, Dawkins is a first class wanker. His claim that people who have some sort of faith are "delusional" was the claim of someone who really, really, REALLY hates religions and hates those who believe in something.

Even if you're right about Dawkins--and I'm not conceding anything here--no amount of wankitude he indulges in could come close to the shit that gets thrown at atheists every day in the US from the pulpits of so-called christian churches and their cable tv programs. So what if he's a wanker--he's right.

For an atheist, however, it only takes "I think your belief is delusional, and here's my evidence" and it's suddenly "Why are you so confrontational and militant?! What has anybody else's beliefs ever done to you?!"

Now that is a very good point. Ummmm that, I think much more any other point made so far is the one that will have me contemplating tonight.

Now we all know by now I can't spell, but I thought you intelgent enough to work out what I mean by the context.

In general, I would use my abilities of perception to make an educated guess about what you actually meant, based on the most likely meanings of words close to the one you posted.

However, in your very next sentence you will demonstrate why doing this is impossible with you.


No wrong, I have never, ever done such a thing.

See, we were using the plural form of "you" in the conversation. But now you have decided that "you" actually had to mean YOU, Peep, personally, despite the fact that context makes it blatantly obvious that this was not the intended meaning.


And if religion, or some religoins have done such a thing, why are you still here?

If black people were enslaved and oppressed, why are they still here?

Hint: people can live under oppression and inequality for a very, very long time. As a female non-hetero atheist, I feel particularly qualified to assure you of this.


It is true that many atheists have felt, indeed have been persecuted, but where I live here in the UK, being an atheist is really no big deal, you don't get treated any better or any worse for your lack of belife in deity, I guess it must be cultural aspects that made you REPLY IN CAPITALS!

You enjoy one of the main perks of being part of the controlling majority, which is that you have the luxury of not seeing discrimination where it exists.

It's kind of like how most of my male friends were shocked when some of us gals described the routine examples of sexism and discrimination we experienced. The guys insisted they never saw such things, and that girls and guys are equals, and that being a girl doesn't make people treat you any worse, and all that stuff. And we giggled girlishly at their privilege and ignorance.


And for the reasons that I have already said: Attack begets attack, you will have to think of a differant way to achive your aims, because this way will not work, in fact as the letter states it will only increase tensions, that is not what you want, is it?
Let's just backtrack to see if we can sort you out.

Peep, what are my aims?

"Now, the question is how atheists should respond. Some (mostly theists) believe atheists should continue to quietly accept marginalization and systematic repression, lest they risk giving up the most important thing in the world: the esteem of religious people.

Others (mostly atheists) believe that atheists have gained precisely zilch from pandering, ass-kissing, and endlessly humoring the superstitious, and that it's past time for a new approach." ~ Bottle

There, well within the limit.

Oh, is it? Heh, I keep getting my forum sig limits mixed up. I post too many places. :headbang:

Thanks!

Or being hypocritical bastards. Sending sexual texts to pages, fucking altar boys, soliciting prostitutes in public bathrooms, etc.
Or my personal recent favorite, blowing someone (http://www.boingboing.net/2007/08/08/young_republican_nat.html) in his sleep and then calling it consensual when he presses charges against you.

Or my personal recent favorite, blowing someone (http://www.boingboing.net/2007/08/08/young_republican_nat.html) in his sleep and then calling it consensual when he presses charges against you.

...

...

......

...wow...just wow.

Equating? Of course not. Religion =/= racism.

Am I drawing a very obvious parallel? Yep. Because one exists.

We've got a thread with some people who insist that being angry when somebody is oppressing you is somehow wrong or counterproductive. We've got people claiming that you should pander and flatter any ideology, no matter what it is, because otherwise people might feel bad.

My point is that they're full of crap. They want special treatment for religious belief because they like religious belief. They don't advocate that people deal with racists the way they're suggesting we deal with the religious. They don't suggest that victims of racism should quietly endure, and perhaps politely--oh so politely!--ask if the KKK could burn a slightly smaller cross on the lawn, if it wouldn't be too much trouble.

If somebody shares their opinion that all black people are monkeys, I'm going to tell them they're full of shit. (Well, I'm actually more likely to give them a comprehensive list of research explaining the many levels of wrong that are contained in their beliefs, but that's just because I'm long-winded and annoyingly nerdy.)

If somebody shares their opinion that an anthropomorphic magical patriarch made humans out of clay, I'm going to tell them they're full of shit. (Well, I'm actually more likely to give them an extensive course on the meaning of METAPHOR and why the fuck Aesop's fables do not actually lead us to conclude that talking foxes are literally real.)

Most people have no problem with me calling out the racist. Of course, most people aren't overtly racist, so that kinda figures. Most people ARE religious, however, and most of them get pissy when it's their ideology being criticized.

So, you believe a parallel exists. Looking at the history of religion, I am inclined to agree with you.

I don't think the letter quoted in the OP actually asks for special treatment of religious ideas simply because they are religious. I think the letter argues that we should not take a hostile or condescending attitude towards religious ideas unless they have negative impacts on others. I think that's fair, and judging by your posts, I would guess that you agree, as your problems with religion seem to stem from the negative impacts organised religion has had on individual freedoms.

Thus, if somebody shares their opinion that an anthropomorphic magical patriarch made humans out of clay, I would respond with a rational discourse as to why I don't believe that, but I wouldn't consider it a harmful belief to have. As long as it doesn't impact anyone negatively.

..."Something can be rational without being right. It is quite possible to come to a completely logical conclusion, and still be wrong."

I was really asking about the apparent equating of racism and religion. You already described that you see parallels between the two. I understand that both can have rational support.

Your believe that your children love you isn't a social, cultural set of beliefs.
I explained about the difference between personal irrationality and irrational structures earlier on.

Yes, and according to what you wrote, I was under the impression that my love for my children is irrational (personal irrationality), but my belief that my children love me is an irrational belief (an irrational structure). I could easily have misunderstood. But to use a different example: table etiquette. Why is religion more comparable to racism rather than table manners? Bottle answered this by claiming that there are parallels. I assumed she meant that both had been used for systemic social oppression throughout history.

In other words, I agree with the both of you, but I feel the comparison is limited and requires clarification.

The two are not mutually exclusive. I'm blunt, honest, and critical...and none of that is remotely incompatible with being a teacher. Indeed, I don't think a religious person is going to learn one single solitary thing if I'm wasting my time telling them all sorts of crap just because I know it's what they want to hear. They learn when I challenge them and when I demand that they think like an adult instead of whimpering like a coddled child.


And that is where you are completly wrong. Look over your own posting history here, and correlate the amount of discussion where you feel that things have been resovled. Look at the differance in the number of issues like this for both where you have taken your 'blunt, honest, critical' stance, and where you have tried to remain calm, not attack, and both sides tried to understand each other.

Look at the responses in this thread to those that use your tatics and those that use gentaler tatics. When we are 'blunt' towards each other, then we get each others backs up, and ratonality for both sides goes out of the window. I know this is true of the posting history for you and I here.

Do you deny this?

Thus, if somebody shares their opinion that an anthropomorphic magical patriarch made humans out of clay, I would respond with a rational discourse as to why I don't believe that, but I wouldn't consider it a harmful belief to have. As long as it doesn't impact anyone negatively.

Personally, I believe religiosity and superstition of this sort are innately harmful to the individual, at the very least. However, I also believe that individuals should be able to believe whatever the fuck they want, even if it harms them. I only interfere if they choose to act on their beliefs in a manner that is harmful to others.


I could easily have misunderstood. But to use a different example: table etiquette. Why is religion more comparable to racism rather than table manners? Bottle answered this by claiming that there are parallels. I assumed she meant that both had been used for systemic social oppression throughout history.

The parallel I was drawing was actually simpler. It's not about what religion or racism have actually done, it's about how they are perceived and how they should be treated.

I believe racism and religiosity, like all other ideologies, should be treated the same way. My point was that some people on this thread thing religiosity should be given special status and special immunity that they are not prepared to extend to belief systems that they don't personally share in. That is what I'm calling bunk on.

Yes, and according to what you wrote, I was under the impression that my love for my children is irrational (personal irrationality), but my belief that my children love me is an irrational belief (an irrational structure). I could easily have misunderstood. But to use a different example: table etiquette. Why is religion more comparable to racism rather than table manners? Bottle answered this by claiming that there are parallels. I assumed she meant that both had been used for systemic social oppression throughout history.

In other words, I agree with the both of you, but I feel the comparison is limited and requires clarification.

Because slurping your soup won't get you burnt at the stake. *nod*

And that is where you are completly wrong. Look over your own posting history here, and correlate the amount of discussion where you feel that things have been resovled. Look at the differance in the number of issues like this for both where you have taken your 'blunt, honest, critical' stance, and where you have tried to remain calm, not attack, and both sides tried to understand each other.

Once again you're making incorrect assumptions. I'm virtually always quite calm when posting on this site. My bluntness and my unwillingness to waste words on flattery and pointless ego-stroking has nothing to do with anger, and everything to do with my desire to actually get at the heart of matters. My bluntness and my personal style never inhibit my ability to understand others, and they generally appear to help other people understand me.


Look at the responses in this thread to those that use your tatics and those that use gentaler tatics. When we are 'blunt' towards each other, then we get each others backs up, and ratonality for both sides goes out of the window. I know this is true of the posting history for you and I here.

I don't know how you feel, but you don't have my "back up" when you're blunt.

You annoy me when you misrepresent what I've said, when you play dumb, when you are passive-aggressive, when you waste time on tangents and intentional distractions because you are unable to meet an issue head on, and when you whine about how mean it is for people to be honest and straightforward.

When you are blunt and don't waste my time with that kind of crap, I'm not annoyed in the least.


Do you deny this?
To say the least. You'd do better to actually listen to me, instead of wasting so much time trying to inform me of how I feel or what I think.

And you might as well give up altogether on telling me to stop with my blunt style, for fear of failing to achieve my "aims." Particularly in a thread where I'm getting vocal praise for doing things my way...;)

Because slurping your soup won't get you burnt at the stake. *nod*

Yes, I acknowledged that. My reason for wanting clarification is that equating the two seems reductionist. I just wanted to clarify that Bottle was not equating the two, but drawing parallels. She did clarify that. I don't really see why we need to keep discussing this.

Or my personal recent favorite, blowing someone (http://www.boingboing.net/2007/08/08/young_republican_nat.html) in his sleep and then calling it consensual when he presses charges against you.

So creepy, yet so hot. They have to make gay republican porn! The shame in it alone would be worth three loads.

Huh? What letter? :confused:

Page one of the thread, wot the OP posted.

So creepy, yet so hot. They have to make gay republican porn! The shame in it alone would be worth three loads.

They already have Republican Circle Jerk porn. It's called the televised coverage of the RNC.

They already have Republican Circle Jerk porn. It's called the televised coverage of the RNC.

Well, since it passes the television censor in the so called "land of the free", then it must be quite lame.

In general, I would use my abilities of perception to make an educated guess about what you actually meant, based on the most likely meanings of words close to the one you posted.

However, in your very next sentence you will demonstrate why doing this is impossible with you.


See, we were using the plural form of "you" in the conversation. But now you have decided that "you" actually had to mean YOU, Peep, personally, despite the fact that context makes it blatantly obvious that this was not the intended meaning.

I'm lumping these together to make a point here. You talk about context, you ask me to understand your context, whilst being completely oblivous to mine.


I said:

'No wrong, I have never, ever done such a thing.'

Then right after:

'And if religion, or some religoins have done such a thing, why are you still here?'

And then:

'It is true that many atheists have felt, indeed have been persecuted, but where I live here in the UK, being an atheist is really no big deal, you don't get treated any better or any worse for your lack of belife in deity, I guess it must be cultural aspects that made you REPLY IN CAPITALS!'

Does this not show that I did not misunderstand you, and that my first line could be treated as pedantry, pedantry aimed to be homourous?

Once again your words shows that you feel a sense of supioriority over me *shrug* but I'm used to that from you, but please try to understand my words before you fling accusations at me umm.

As to the why are you still here back and find exactly which comment that was aimed at, and then you'll also understand that one.

How about, "If non-bigots do not want racists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto racists the same."

Sorry, but it's bunk. I frankly don't give a hoot whether racists think I'm a race traitor, and I also don't care if the superstitious think I'm a godless heretic. All I care about is that they stop trying to pass laws that spend my tax dollars endorsing, supporting, or enforcing their personal mythologies.


Define to me what a bigot is, then review your own views on religion and how all who follow it are ignorant and unintellegent.... and you will have found the definition of Hypocrisy.

Your statements seem just as bigoted as those you attack.

I'm a major Shermer fan and I'd recommend his Why people believe weird things to anyone who hasn't already read it. Although he makes many valid points I'm surprised by his inclusion of Daniel Dennett alongside Dawkins and Harris, as Dennett's Breaking the Spell is the very antipathy of prejudice, it's a call for reasoned debate. At some points I actually felt that Dennett was trying a little too hard to avoid causing offence, as he was beginning to sound like a patient teacher trying to explain something to a recalcitrant infant "Yes, I'm sure your book is God's one true and completely inerrant message to mankind, but Timmy says that about his book too. Why don't we examine your scripture carefully and if you're right then you've got nothing to worry about, have you?"

Define to me what a bigot is, then review your own views on religion and how all who follow it are ignorant and unintellegent.... and you will have found the definition of hipocracy.

Your statements seem just as bigoted as those you attack.

Hipocracy--rule by the joint which attaches the torso to the leg?

Hipocracy--rule by the joint which attaches the torso to the leg?

O thanks, I fixed that for ya!

I know Attention Deficit Disorder runs rampant these days, and I wouldn't want anyone to lose focus on the discussion! :']

Define to me what a bigot is, then review your own views on religion and how all who follow it are ignorant and unintellegent....

Like Peep, you clearly haven't the faintest idea what my views actually are.


and you will have found the definition of Hypocrisy.

Meanwhile, you couldn't find it if a dictionary tree fell over on your house.

O thanks, I fixed that for ya!

I know Attention Deficit Disorder runs rampant these days, and I wouldn't want anyone to lose focus on the discussion! :']

It's not ADD. It was a none-too-subtle hint that your post didn't really have anything else worth responding to in it.

At some points I actually felt that Dennett was trying a little too hard to avoid causing offence, as he was beginning to sound like a patient teacher trying to explain something to a recalcitrant infant "Yes, I'm sure your book is God's one true and completely inerrant message to mankind, but Timmy says that about his book too. Why don't we examine your scripture carefully and if you're right then you've got nothing to worry about, have you?"
EXACTLY.

Geez, people act as though it's more respectful to talk to religious folks as if they were cranky babies. Whisky tango foxtrot, over?

I talk to religious individuals like I talk to all other individuals. I don't see any need to talk down to them or hold their widdle hands while we have a nice, quiet, careful talk in which we tip-toe around anything that might get their sweet little noggins in a tizzy.

Whenever people suggest I be "more polite" by flattering the superstitious, to me it sounds like they're telling me to be like the kindergarten teacher who tells little Billy that his picture of a truck is terrific when it's really just a bunch of brown loops and squiggles. That kind of attitude is fine when directed at a five year old, but not when talking to a normally-functioning grown adult who just happens to also be religious.

Like Peep, you clearly haven't the faintest idea what my views actually are.

Like all of us here, none of us can know what our views are. we can only go by what we have said.

The OP asked us to talk about our views on the letter on page 1, Bottle called it rubbish from which I can only infer that she did not agree with parts or the whole of it.

Have I got that wrong anywhere Bottle?

Like Peep, you clearly haven't the faintest idea what my views actually are.

My response was based solely on your statements...

You lost me at "If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same."

How about, "If non-bigots do not want racists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto racists the sam

You turn an argument about Atheists vs Theists into Non-bigots vs Bigots.

I shouldn't be held accountable for your inability to clearly define your views, leaving the door open for misconceptions.

Meanwhile, you couldn't find it if a dictionary tree fell over on your house.

Sarcasm is the retort of a weak mind.

Besides, at least I am able to identify what a bigot is ::rolls eyes::

My response was based solely on your statements...



You turn an argument about Atheists vs Theists into Non-bigots vs Bigots.

Wrong.


I shouldn't be held accountable for your inability to clearly define your views, leaving the door open for misconceptions.

Other people on this thread appear to have had no trouble understanding what I was saying.

If you are having trouble understanding me, feel free to ask questions instead of simply posting your personal misconceptions and stating that they are fact.


Sarcasm is the retort of a weak mind.

Like that.

Like all of us here, none of us can know what our views are. we can only go by what we have said.

This is true. So, instead of making random assumptions about my beliefs, how's about you try going by what I've actually said?


The OP asked us to talk about our views on the letter on page 1, Bottle called it rubbish from which I can only infer that she did not agree with parts or the whole of it.

Have I got that wrong anywhere Bottle?
The sentence you just posted is correct. Pretty much nothing else you've inferred about my beliefs is.

Meanwhile, you couldn't find it if a dictionary tree fell over on your house.

Well, if they haven't actually made it a dictionary yet it would be rather difficult

Alternative reply: Uhh...Bottle? Dictionaries grow underground, remember?

It's not ADD. It was a none-too-subtle hint that your post didn't really have anything else worth responding to in it.

Yet you still went out of your way to create a response nonetheless, how thoughtful :']

Yet you still went out of your way to create a response nonetheless, how thoughtful :']
Some of us have a quixotic desire to converse with those who appear least interested in true discussion. The philosophical equivalent of an S&M fetish, if you will.

Some of us have a quixotic desire to converse with those who appear least interested in true discussion. The philosophical equivalent of an S&M fetish, if you will.

Mostly the M. *cough*

Wrong.


Other people on this thread appear to have had no trouble understanding what I was saying.

If you are having trouble understanding me, feel free to ask questions instead of simply posting your personal misconceptions and stating that they are fact.


So what exactly did you mean in that post then pray tell ?

Other than your clearly stated opinion that religion is a superstition, what then do you think of those who follow religions? and should they be able to incorporate their beliefs in the society they live ?

This is true. So, instead of making random assumptions about my beliefs, how's about you try going by what I've actually said?


The sentence you just posted is correct. Pretty much nothing else you've inferred about my beliefs is.

Heh you know this missundertanding thing you are talking about. I think we are all prone to that. I have not told you what I think your beliefs are, can you show me where I have?

In fact I don't belive I assumed anything about your belifes, only responded to what you have posted.

Let me think, without refrancing back to the first page or so I belive it when summit like this.

Letter:

Bottle: That's rubbish that is, I'll be blunt as I like to religios people*

Me: And that's a perfect example of why this attacking stance wont work, I think you need to find a better way to achive your aims.*

Bottle: I'm blunt, and we need to be blunt with religous people, i have no intention of holdin their hands and so on.*

Me: But look, what is happening here, when you take that attitude.

Bottle: DONT TELL ME HOW I THINK, YOU DON'T KNOW NUTHIN YOU!*

*may not be actual words exchanged.

Some of us have a quixotic desire to converse with those who appear least interested in true discussion. The philosophical equivalent of an S&M fetish, if you will.

Really, I thought calling into question your own level of bigotry quite pertinent to the discussion since you seemed to be taking the righteous path of "non-bigot". Remember your own words.. Judge not least ye be judged... You can dish it out but not take it?

Other than your clearly stated opinion that religion is a superstition,

Actually, no. Religion isn't a superstition.


what then do you think of those who follow religions?

That's a pretty fucking big category. That's like asking what I think of people who believe racist things.

The majority of people who hold racist beliefs are mellow, well-meaning, and just a little ignorant. They're not actually trying to fuck anybody over, they're just carrying around some subconscious baggage that leads them to think, say, or feel some bunk racist things from time to time. They're just normal people who haven't (yet) taken the time to really examine their own entrenched beliefs and the entrenched biases of their culture, or haven't felt sufficiently motivated to shake up their assumptions by confronting the full reality of their world.

A loud minority of people who hold racist beliefs are just complete jackasses. They like using racism as the way to vent their jackassery, but racism isn't actually what caused the jackassery.

Pretty much the same can be said about religious individuals.


and should they be able to incorporate their beliefs in the society they live ?
It would be impossible for them not to do so. Society is comprised of individuals.

Heh you know this missundertanding thing you are talking about. I think we are all prone to that. I have not told you what I think your beliefs are, can you show me where I have?

You have asserted,

"Attack begets attack, you will have to think of a differant way to achive your aims, because this way will not work, in fact as the letter states it will only increase tensions, that is not what you want, is it?"

So this leaves you with two options:

1) You believe you know my aims, and are therefore offering advice on how I could best achieve them.
2) You haven't the faintest idea what my aims are, yet you're prepared to inform me that I cannot achieve them using the tactics that I have decided to use (even though I am, of course, aware of my aims).

Pick one.


Letter:

Bottle: That's rubbish that is, I'll be blunt as I like to religios people*

Me: And that's a perfect example of why this attacking stance wont work, I think you need to find a better way to achive your aims.*

Yeah, that's pretty much what you said. The thing is, you're kind of making a joke of yourself since my stance is working beautifully on this very thread.

You're making my point for me, which is that all this hoo-hah about the importance of coddling the religious stems from a complete misunderstanding of what the "aims" of certain atheists really are.


Bottle: I'm blunt, and we need to be blunt with religous people, i have no intention of holdin their hands and so on.*

Me: But look, what is happening here, when you take that attitude.

Right. Look what is happening here. Are you asserting that what is happening here is somehow bad? On what do you base your assumption that I share your opinion?

Other people on this thread appear to have had no trouble understanding what I was saying.

I'm having a little trouble.

The parallel I was drawing was actually simpler. It's not about what religion or racism have actually done, it's about how they are perceived and how they should be treated.

I believe racism and religiosity, like all other ideologies, should be treated the same way. My point was that some people on this thread thing religiosity should be given special status and special immunity that they are not prepared to extend to belief systems that they don't personally share in. That is what I'm calling bunk on.

Here is where I get confused. I assumed you were drawing parallels between the two in regards to oppression, but now it looks like you're saying that there is nothing special about racism that caused you to pick it. It could just as easily have been anarchocapitalism, or scientific materialism, or Raelianism. I agree that all belief systems should be questioned. I don't think they all deserve the same respect, but that's another thread.

That's a pretty fucking big category. That's like asking what I think of people who believe racist things.

The majority of people who hold racist beliefs are mellow, well-meaning, and just a little ignorant. They're not actually trying to fuck anybody over, they're just carrying around some subconscious baggage that leads them to think, say, or feel some bunk racist things from time to time. They're just normal people who haven't (yet) taken the time to really examine their own entrenched beliefs and the entrenched biases of their culture, or haven't felt sufficiently motivated to shake up their assumptions by confronting the full reality of their world.

A loud minority of people who hold racist beliefs are just complete jackasses. They like using racism as the way to vent their jackassery, but racism isn't actually what caused the jackassery.

Pretty much the same can be said about religious individuals.


You see in this statement, you have failed to identify a difference between people holding religious beliefs who may not in any way be bigoted, and those who are .... Which leads me to think you feel all religious followers are in some way bigoted! [Here is some of that lack of clarity] In any well-organized position, you should define who you are talking about instead of leaving it to your listeners to discern your meaning.

Bigotry itself, being an intolerance towards other peoples beliefs should not, I feel, automatically be attributed to someone who in fact believes something. Just because I maybe catholic, does not mean I will in any way be intolerant of other peoples beliefs. Religion itself is all about tolerance and love.

You over generalize and over simplify an entire group (a majority of people I might add) almost giving the allure that your belief system, given your tone is probably atheist, is actually superior because it does not lead you to bigoted predispositions.

Of course, since you haven't really stated what you believe... or if you think all people of faith are bigoted, you leave the door open for those misconceptions. Your aggressive and overbearing tone also helps to that.. But that’s what happens when you use bluntness to further your position. Instead of giving the impression you are talking WITH someone, you give the impression you are talking AT them.

I'm having a little trouble.

Here is where I get confused. I assumed you were drawing parallels between the two in regards to oppression, but now it looks like you're saying that there is nothing special about racism that caused you to pick it. It could just as easily have been anarchocapitalism, or scientific materialism, or Raelianism. I agree that all belief systems should be questioned. I don't think they all deserve the same respect, but that's another thread.
(bold mine)

Yes and no. I didn't choose racism because of the oppression element, in particular, but there was a reason I choose racism instead of one of the other ideologies you mentioned. Well, several reasons, I suppose.

1) Pretty much everybody knows what racism is. A lot of people are confused about what anarchocapitalism is. I picked something that would be easily understood.

2) The reaction to racism by the average person around here is pretty standard. Racism is one of those things that is safely put into the "bad things" category by most people, including at least one of the people who has been arguing against critical discussions on this very thread.

In other words, there are people who are arguing that the godless shouldn't be so blunt and hostile and mean to the religious, even if the godless do have negative views about religion. Meanwhile, those same people don't voice a peep of objection if somebody is blunt or hostile towards ideologies that they, themselves, view negatively.

Myself, I think people should be blunt and critical all the damn time. I say what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If it's okay to tell a racist that you think they're full of shite and here's why, then it's okay to tell a godder that you think they're full of shite and here's why. And it's perfectly valid to inform a racist (or a godder) that you're going to stand up for your rights no matter how sad it makes them, or how hurt their feelings are when you refuse to fluff their ego.

I also think people should be angry if they're oppressed, and they have every right to be hostile if they're getting shat upon. I think it's a pathetic tactic to imply that somebody's valid points become less valid if they dare to also show emotion.

You see in this statement, you have failed to identify a difference between people holding religious beliefs who may not in any way be bigoted, and those who are .... Which leads me to think you feel all religious followers are in some way bigoted!

Because that wasn't remotely my point.

I also didn't identify the difference between religious people and skydivers. Please, hold that against me.


[Here is some of that lack of clarity] In any well-organized position, you should define who you are talking about instead of leaving it to your listeners to discern your meaning.

Yawn.

If you were actually interested in understanding me, you'd have done what Gift-of-god did: you'd ask.

But you aren't, and you've made that very clear from your first post.

That's okay. You don't have to give a shit about understanding me. Just kindly don't try to bullshit around about it. If you don't give a shit about what I think, just say so. Or, better yet, just don't respond to me. Lots of other people have done this and have had great success!


Bigotry itself, being an intolerance towards other peoples beliefs should not, I feel, automatically be attributed to someone who in fact believes something.

Okay.


Just because I maybe catholic, does not mean I will in any way be intolerant of other peoples beliefs. Religion itself is all about tolerance and love.

Religion itself is about whatever the religious person in question wants it to be about. Some religious people want it to be about tolerance and love. Some don't.


You over generalize and over simplify an entire group (a majority of people I might add) almost giving the allure that your belief system, given your tone is probably atheist, is actually superior because it does not lead you to bigoted predispositions.

Actually, I've made it quite clear that I view religious individuals as individuals, with a range of motivations and personality types (pretty much like all humans everywhere). The only generalizations I make about religious people are those that pertain specifically to the trait of religiosity which they share.

In other words, it's like how the generalizations I make about blonde people all revolve around the color of their hair. I don't generalize and assume all blonde people are stupid or fat or kinky or fond of spicy food. I simply assume that people with blonde hair have hair within a certain range of hues.


Of course, since you haven't really stated what you believe

And did you ask me to? No, you decided to open by making uninformed statement about my beliefs.

Learn from your mistake and do better next time.


... or if you think all people of faith are bigoted,

...which I don't...


you leave the door open for those misconceptions.
Ahh, I see. Your error is my fault because I failed to anticipate your mistakes.


Your aggressive and overbearing tone also helps to that.. But that’s what happens when you use bluntness to further your position. Instead of giving the impression you are talking WITH someone, you give the impression you are talking AT them.
You feel that way. Others don't. It's probably not best for you to walk around assuming that everybody shares your personal tastes.

I know people who find fawning politeness to be insipid and disrespectful, because they perceive it as putting up a false front. I also know people who value complicated rituals of politeness as a means of showing respect. People are different. Not everybody is like you, and not everybody is going to like you.

So I’m just wondering... when you write a paper for your class, which states your position in a debate, do you expect your teacher to come back to you after you've submitted it to ask questions about sections you were unclear on?

This seems to be what you expect of everyone reading your posts. Instead of clearly stating your viewpoint, you throw in a thousand analogies (which always seem to lead back to bigots, racists, and the superstitious) that never seem to make it to the topic at hand.

:ex:

You lost me at "If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same."

How about, "If non-bigots do not want racists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto racists the same."

Sorry, but it's bunk. I frankly don't give a hoot whether racists think I'm a race traitor, and I also don't care if the superstitious think I'm a godless heretic. All I care about is that they stop trying to pass laws that spend my tax dollars endorsing, supporting, or enforcing their personal mythologies.


The topic at hand being, atheists complaining about how theists judge them, and how that problem can be rectified through more reasoned debate [rather than judgement]. Instead you go off on a rant ending in the use of tax dollars and governmental support for religion. What does that have to do with bigots, racists, and the superstitious (which are who btw.. people who have god)??

If your point was being.. "i dont care what they think" you could have made it just like that.. saying it straight up. Instead of drowining it in a sea of irrelevance.

Because that wasn't remotely my point.

I also didn't identify the difference between religious people and skydivers. Please, hold that against me.

O.o

so what was your point. I ask you what you think of religious people.. you talk to me about how racists are all alittle racists inside even if they dont know it.

So, are religious people really just a litlte religious inside and dont know it... are religious people a little racists inside and dont know it.. what ?

let this be my true desire to know what exactly it is your trying to say. Since i have to ask it straight up instead of being able to discern it the first time you tried to make your point. What are you trying to say about people who follow religion ?

Actually, no. Religion isn't a superstition.

su·per·sti·tion [soo-per-stish-uhn]
1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.
5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.


Sounds like religion to me. :p


I have no problem with religious people, so long as their personal irrational beliefs do not oppress me. Unfortunately religion is used as a major oppressive force in the world. Not all religious people are oppressive bigots, but many if not most are, and the rest tolerate or even support the bigots.

As an atheist (well... apatheist to be precise) I resent that I live in a nation where my personal behavior is restricted because of christianity.

I was starting to write out some reasons, but this is close enough:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg

Where were the pleas for the religious people to 'be gentle' when a major presidential candidate said that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens?

Or when we're told we have no moral core and without god would simply go about assraping and looting across the countryside?

Or when they started legislating their own beliefs so that whether or not we agreed we'd still have to follow their doctrine?

Fuck that shit. There are shows on every day from preachers to pundits that marginalize and ridicule atheists, belief is still a litmus test for public office regardless of party, states still have laws that require faith.

And you want me to smile gentle and say, "Thank you sir, may I have another?" I'm through being a good 'house atheist.'

Belief has gone from being adorably naive to dangerous, from whether it's telling you to slam planes in buildings, deny rights to a group of people, or believing that a sky fairy wants you to be president.

This has been 'total war' long before Dawkins and the lot. You want to make it more 'civil' move down the chain a few links.

Thank you, Bottle. And Fass, Nazz and all the others who show me I'm not alone in wanting to bang my head against the wall everytime I'm told this is a Christain nation or that so-and-so is inferior because God says so. That gays and unbelievers will spend eternity in torment, so we might as well start screwing them over now.

Do I believe all religious people are evil? Of course not. I've even met a number I like. But religion is now, and has been for a long time, used to deny rights and freedoms, used as an excuse to oppress and persecute anyone who thinks differently. And I've had enough. And I only suffer minor inconveniences compare to the historic treatment of unbelievers.

Michael Shermer, who has quite a stellar history of rational discourse and consideration, has recently released a missive regarding the "militant" issues of nature betwixt people of a religious persuasion and people who aren't ... both of which have no interest in keeping that particular matter to themselves.

Since the issue comes up QUITE A BIT here on NS, i figured it would be worth a perusal and comments.

As i have what could be considered a nominal history on this particular subject, i suffice to say that it is an interesting piece, considering Shermer's involvement with Skeptic and own personal history being religiously-minded.
What do y'all think?

I enjoyed it. I think he made his case fairly well.

On the other hand, I completely understand why atheists would be pissed. They're constantly getting attacked by people who have not a fucking clue about why atheists believe as they do, and rarely understand their own belief system very well. Then the same people who attack them will complain about unfairness if attacked in return.

I'd be pissed too. Hopefully we can get to the point where theists and atheists alike can stop with the attacking and start with the having a drink together and chilling, but that will take time, because the poor behavior that many religious people exhibit towards the non-religious will naturally come back in the direction of the religious. Stupid zealots have made the bed, and sadly we must all lie in it for now.

So I’m just wondering... when you write a paper for your class, which states your position in a debate, do you expect your teacher to come back to you after you've submitted it to ask questions about sections you were unclear on?

What?


This seems to be what you expect of everyone reading your posts.

I honestly haven't the least idea what you are on about.


Instead of clearly stating your viewpoint, you throw in a thousand analogies (which always seem to lead back to bigots, racists, and the superstitious) that never seem to make it to the topic at hand.

I use analogies and parallels because they help explain complex topics in more easily identified terms. They also help people to see similarities across many situations that we face.

If you find something unclear or confusing, ask questions instead of rushing ahead with mistaken impressions and then getting sulky when it turns out you were wrong.


The topic at hand being, atheists complaining about how theists judge them, and how that problem can be rectified through more reasoned debate [rather than judgement].

That's one person's opinion. I don't share it. Nor does Dawkins, as far as I can tell, and nor do many others on this topic.


Instead you go off on a rant ending in the use of tax dollars and governmental support for religion.

If you are actually unable to see how state-sponsored religion fits into this discussion then there is really nothing I can do for you.


What does that have to do with bigots, racists, and the superstitious (which are who btw.. people who have god)??

Again, if you actually can't connect these dots then I don't know that I can help.

Personally, I don't think anybody is actually so irretrievably stupid as to miss the obvious connections in this case. I think, rather, that you are continuing to play stupid because you've been busted and called out for your misconceptions, and you are continuing to try to make this into some kind of referendum on my supposed hatred of religious people. Whatev. Have fun! :D


If your point was being.. "i dont care what they think" you could have made it just like that.. saying it straight up. Instead of drowining it in a sea of irrelevance.
If that was my point, I probably would have.

Feel free to start asking questions instead of making incorrect assumptions any time now.

O.o

so what was your point. I ask you what you think of religious people.. you talk to me about how racists are all alittle racists inside even if they dont know it.

Oy. That's what you got out of that post of mine?

Hint: take the word "racist" and replace it with "religious" in that post (or "racism" with "religion") and then read it through again.

I don't know how to put things in simpler terms. Maybe somebody else can pitch in on this one, because I'm at a loss.

I have no problem with religious people, so long as their personal irrational beliefs do not oppress me. Unfortunately religion is used as a major oppressive force in the world. Not all religious people are oppressive bigots, but many if not most are, and the rest tolerate or even support the bigots.


Way to paint a whole damn bunch of people with one brush. That's like saying that all <insert minority here> people are assholes. Are you talking about the Big Three when you talk about religion? Because many followers of Jehovah/Allah/Yaweh are assholes. Some are even bigots. And yes, pregressives in all of these religions need to speak more loudly and frequently about said assholes.

But that doesn't make all religious people jerks. Christian youth groups go around the world to build shelter and help teach people to grow their own food. Pagans volunteer at food pantrys. Good deeds are done every day in the name of all gods, the problem is that it's more fun to report the bad.

Way to paint a whole damn bunch of people with one brush.

Wow. Seriously, folks, this has to stop.

READ HIS POST. You know, the one you quoted? The one that said, "Not all religious people are oppressive bigots"?

The only "whole damn bunch" of people he was painting with one brush were the people who are both religious AND bigots. And he clearly stated that he is well aware that there are people who are religious without being bigots.


That's like saying that all <insert minority here> people are assholes. Are you talking about the Big Three when you talk about religion? Because many followers of Jehovah/Allah/Yaweh are assholes. Some are even bigots. And yes, pregressives in all of these religions need to speak more loudly and frequently about said assholes.

But that doesn't make all religious people jerks. Christian youth groups go around the world to build shelter and help teach people to grow their own food. Pagans volunteer at food pantrys. Good deeds are done every day in the name of all gods, the problem is that it's more fun to report the bad.
It's like talking to a bunch of wind-up dolls.

Wow. Seriously, folks, this has to stop.

READ HIS POST. You know, the one you quoted? The one that said, "Not all religious people are oppressive bigots"?

The only "whole damn bunch" of people he was painting with one brush were the people who are both religious AND bigots. And he clearly stated that he is well aware that there are people who are religious without being bigots.


It's like talking to a bunch of wind-up dolls.

I DID. Right after that, he said:
Not all religious people are oppressive bigots, but many if not most are, and the rest tolerate or even support the bigots.

How did it suddenly become a bad thing to defend people of faith? I get really fucking tired of people who have problems with attacking any other goddamn group in creation, but seem to think it's okay to call every single person of faith a bigot and an asshole. And I'm sorry, saying that not every theist isn't a bigot, then qualifying that with 'but I really think they all are' doesn't count.

So far no one has really provided any evidence for...well, either position. So far the only person to cite a reliable source of information is the OP. It would seem that if either side had so much burden of proof to convince them that what they were spewing was true, they would find something to back it up.

Oh, but it is. Bullies don't stop bullying because they're asked to nicely, or because they realize the error of their ways. They stop because they get popped in the fucking mouth, and because the bullied stop letting them get away with it. If religious people want atheists to calm down, they can make it happen. They can stop being fucking douchebags to atheists and trying to legislate religious dogma.
I didn't go to your high school, but I imagine it had quite a gang problem, if others thought the same way as you.

So far no one has really provided any evidence for...well, either position. So far the only person to cite a reliable source of information is the OP. It would seem that if either side had so much burden of proof to convince them that what they were spewing was true, they would find something to back it up.
Bush Sr. says that atheists cannot be considered citizens. (http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/060401a.htm)
I asked Mr. Bush, "What are you going to do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"

Mr. Bush replied, "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."

I followed up: "Do you support the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"

Mr. Bush replied, "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."
(that cite has the source verification on the bottom)

Legislating faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment) Not the best source, but if you haven't heard about this you've been living in a cave.
Atheist have no moral center (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071201620.html). Tame by most standards but pulling from a recent Washington Post I thought would do nicely.
So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between good and bad instincts? Theism, for several millennia, has given one answer: We should cultivate the better angels of our nature because the God we love and respect requires it. While many of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.

Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts" because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm going to do whatever I please." C.S. Lewis put the argument this way: "When all that says 'it is good' has been debunked, what says 'I want' remains."

Edit: More:
Atheists most distrusted minority (http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find)

Religious test for office (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/01/the_religious_t.html)

I hope I've satisfied my need to prove the sky blue.

I have no problem with religious people, so long as their personal irrational beliefs do not oppress me. Unfortunately religion is used as a major oppressive force in the world. Not all religious people are oppressive bigots, but many if not most are, and the rest tolerate or even support the bigots.

I am not a bigot, nor do I tolerate or support bigots. Religion - mine, his, yours (or in this case your lack thereof), Fidos, is nothing to base a law on. Your sweeping generalization of all religious people fails.

I hope I've satisfied my need to prove the sky blue.
Yes, this more than suffices.
Now that there is actual evidence, I will do my best to disagree with it.

The statement made by Bush the Elder is one I've never heard and anything online is subject to doubt, but this is not entirely surprising or outrageous (considering who said it). Still, I think it is important to remember this was a statement made by one person, and I doubt his personal beliefs concerning it affected his policy (the military doesn't have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy concerning atheism). That being said, I'm sure this is only the tip of the iceberg, and I can definitely see even one statement would make an atheist feel like society was pushing him off to the sidelines.

The Federal Marriage Amendment was perhaps the single most humiliating think Congress did since the Clinton impeachment. I don't see how it targets atheists, though.

I didn't see the article from The Washington Post when it was first printed (I've obviously read it after seeing the link). I agree with the author, one of the biggest problems I have with atheism is not that atheists are bad people. Because they tend to have arrived at their system of belief after thinking it over, and not just following their culture, I think atheists probably give more thought to what is right than other groups. However, the morality of most atheists I know (I realize my hypocrisy by using personal experience, please forgive me) bears a striking resemblance to Christian morality (and I mean real Christian morality; none of this, "let's Crusade because it's, uh, moral. Moral, yeah, that's the ticket"). I bet atheists that live in Jerusalem have a system of morals very similar to Judaism, and if an atheist is brought up around Hindus, by golly, he probably has a Hindu morality.
Again, none of this makes me doubt the integrity of anyone. I love every last one of you*.


*Void in some states.

I'm a major Shermer fan and I'd recommend his Why people believe weird things to anyone who hasn't already read it. Although he makes many valid points I'm surprised by his inclusion of Daniel Dennett alongside Dawkins and Harris, as Dennett's Breaking the Spell is the very antipathy of prejudice, it's a call for reasoned debate. At some points I actually felt that Dennett was trying a little too hard to avoid causing offence, as he was beginning to sound like a patient teacher trying to explain something to a recalcitrant infant "Yes, I'm sure your book is God's one true and completely inerrant message to mankind, but Timmy says that about his book too. Why don't we examine your scripture carefully and if you're right then you've got nothing to worry about, have you?"
7 pages in.
*bows*

Bush Sr. says that atheists cannot be considered citizens. (http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/060401a.htm)

(that cite has the source verification on the bottom)

Legislating faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment) Not the best source, but if you haven't heard about this you've been living in a cave.
Atheist have no moral center (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071201620.html). Tame by most standards but pulling from a recent Washington Post I thought would do nicely.


Edit: More:
Atheists most distrusted minority (http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find)

Religious test for office (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/01/the_religious_t.html)

I hope I've satisfied my need to prove the sky blue.

CTOAN, again, FTW.

Yes, this more than suffices.
Now that there is actual evidence, I will do my best to disagree with it.

The statement made by Bush the Elder is one I've never heard and anything online is subject to doubt, but this is not entirely surprising or outrageous (considering who said it). Still, I think it is important to remember this was a statement made by one person, and I doubt his personal beliefs concerning it affected his policy (the military doesn't have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy concerning atheism). That being said, I'm sure this is only the tip of the iceberg, and I can definitely see even one statement would make an atheist feel like society was pushing him off to the sidelines.
Like I said, the cite addresses doubt about the quote at the bottom. And it is only the tip of the iceberg, look at the pledge, money, etc.

And as to his faith not affecting his policy, I give you his son.

The Federal Marriage Amendment was perhaps the single most humiliating think Congress did since the Clinton impeachment. I don't see how it targets atheists, though.
It legislates faith.

I didn't see the article from The Washington Post when it was first printed (I've obviously read it after seeing the link). I agree with the author, one of the biggest problems I have with atheism is not that atheists are bad people. Because they tend to have arrived at their system of belief after thinking it over, and not just following their culture, I think atheists probably give more thought to what is right than other groups. However, the morality of most atheists I know (I realize my hypocrisy by using personal experience, please forgive me) bears a striking resemblance to Christian morality (and I mean real Christian morality; none of this, "let's Crusade because it's, uh, moral. Moral, yeah, that's the ticket"). I bet atheists that live in Jerusalem have a system of morals very similar to Judaism, and if an atheist is brought up around Hindus, by golly, he probably has a Hindu morality.
This is pretty convoluted, a bit chicken and egg. You need to develop this more.

Again, none of this makes me doubt the integrity of anyone. I love every last one of you*.


*Void in some states.
I'm from California, so I'll assume I'm in 'some states.'

If you're not 'that guy,' good for you. But sitting on our hands while the religious have gone on has meant that we're getting steamrolled. It is no longer the case that we can sit by politely. We have to push back or get pushed under.

To pretend that religious has been civil to the atheists up to this point is to have one's head in the clouds.

And, of course, Shermer happened to be on The Colbert Report tonight, coincidentally.
Whatever coincidence there is.

Cited work on show: Why Darwin Matters
http://books.google.com/books?id=_sEgtBoTzBoC&dq=&pg=PP1&ots=KGzM1MqJ-C&sig=cBD8c_Y5jAjdlPI4imFBe0wYWzQ&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3DWhy%2BDarwin%2BMatters%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title

This has been 'total war' long before Dawkins and the lot. You want to make it more 'civil' move down the chain a few links.

Sort of like the class war that's been waged on the poor for time eternal. Once in a while, there's a group who fights back. Often as not they're crushed, but the war is still worth fighting.

I didn't go to your high school, but I imagine it had quite a gang problem, if others thought the same way as you.
Hate to break it to you, but if you went to a school where bullies stopped bullying when their victims politely requested that they stop, then your experience was not remotely normal.

How did it suddenly become a bad thing to defend people of faith?

Um, again, READ WHAT HE POSTED. You know, what you quoted?

"Not all religious people are oppressive bigots, but many if not most are, and the rest tolerate or even support the bigots."

The objection was to people who condone and/or support BIGOTS.


I get really fucking tired of people who have problems with attacking any other goddamn group in creation, but seem to think it's okay to call every single person of faith a bigot and an asshole.

I guess you must be so tired that your eyes are drooping shut, because nobody here is doing that. Indeed, even people like me (who are so blunt it's making godders weep) are going out of our way to make it very clear that we don't think all religious people are bigots and assholes.

But thanks for helping make my point for me again:

The godless should not waste time worrying about protecting the feelings of God-believers.

The thoughful, honest religious people out there will listen to what you say and respond in intelligent ways. Don't worry about speaking bluntly around them, because they're actually interested in listening. They don't require that you flatter them and apologize to them for daring to criticize religion or faith, because they're actually looking for substantive discussion instead of personal validation. There are a number of these fine folks around NS General!

The rest of the godders are just going to whine and cry no matter what you say or how many ways you try to protect their dear tender feelings, so don't worry about speaking bluntly around them either. :D


And I'm sorry, saying that not every theist isn't a bigot, then qualifying that with 'but I really think they all are' doesn't count.
Good thing nobody said that.

Um, again, READ WHAT HE POSTED. You know, what you quoted?

"Not all religious people are oppressive bigots, but many if not most are, and the rest tolerate or even support the bigots."

The objection was to people who condone and/or support BIGOTS....

The way I read it, Entropic creation was stating that many religious people are bigots, and that all other religous people support or tolerate them.

You may read it differently, but to me this seems like a generalisation, and an insulting one at that.

I have no problem with religious people, so long as their personal irrational beliefs do not oppress me. Unfortunately religion is used as a major oppressive force in the world. Not all religious people are oppressive bigots, but many if not most are, and the rest tolerate or even support the bigots.

The way I read it, Entropic creation was stating that many religious people are bigots, and that all other religous people support or tolerate them.

You may read it differently, but to me this seems like a generalisation, and an insulting one at that.
I see where you are coming from, I guess, but that still means that the objection was to the fact that religious people are supporting/tolerating BIGOTS, not that they are supporting/tolerating people of faith.

In other words, when Kb says, "How did it suddenly become a bad thing to defend people of faith?" he's totally missed the boat. It's not defending people of faith that's a bad thing; it's defending bigots that's the problem, particularly when you're only defending them on religious grounds.

I 100% agree with that. In my country (USA) we've got an epidemic of this crap. We're supposed to accept and tolerate all sorts of hateful nonsense as long as the person spewing it invokes religion. Simply saying, "I hate fags" is a no-no, but saying that you hate fags because that's what your religion teaches is somehow okay.

I don't think all religious people do this. You're right that it would be a generalization to say that. But geez, people, chill the fuck out. We're not morons, here, and I think we can handle being slightly less literal-minded about every fucking nit that can be picked.

We're not morons, here, and I think we can handle being slightly less literal-minded about every fucking nit that can be picked.

Pff, then all our threads would only be 3 pages long...

Hate to break it to you, but if you went to a school where bullies stopped bullying when their victims politely requested that they stop, then your experience was not remotely normal.
Was I the only one to go to a school with teachers, and the only town with police?

I knew there was always something that struck me as sensible about Shermer...

I 100% agree with that. In my country (USA) we've got an epidemic of this crap. We're supposed to accept and tolerate all sorts of hateful nonsense as long as the person spewing it invokes religion. Simply saying, "I hate fags" is a no-no, but saying that you hate fags because that's what your religion teaches is somehow okay.

The only problem, though, is that no mainstream religion in the US actually teaches this.
I agree, as long as people claim they believe something because it is religious or traditional, they can get away with practically anything. But I don't think people should then attack religion or tradition because people claim it is what drives them. Instead, someone should say, "Actually, nowhere in the Bible does it preach what you say" or "Based on everything else you said, to hate a certain group because of their race/nationality/beliefs makes no sense whatsoever." Doing this has two effects: One, the speakers in question are revealed to be liars or at least misinformed, and two, other religious people don't have to choose between the people who claim to be preaching their faith but aren't and those who seem to be fairly decent but claim that most of the believers beliefs are hogwash.

Here's an analogy: President Bush claimed that Iraq was invaded because of freedom and democracy. I don't support the war, but does that mean I don't support freedom and democracy? No, I don't support the war, and I certainly don't support the man who used noble ideas as a ruse for a very ignoble act.

In other words, when Kb says, "How did it suddenly become a bad thing to defend people of faith?" he's totally missed the boat. It's not defending people of faith that's a bad thing; it's defending bigots that's the problem, particularly when you're only defending them on religious grounds.

1) I'm a woman.
2) Where have you ever seen me support bigotry, in any form? I support freedom to believe pretty much anything you want, including bigoted things, but no one has the right to force their beliefs on anyone else, or be violent toward those who disagree with them.

My problem is that I keep seeing people, in various threads, constantly saying the 'religion is horrible,' 'religious people are bigots or support bigotry,' etc, and it makes me NUTS!!! I just don't understand how it's okay to be like that about theists but not about anyone else.

Hate to break it to you, but if you went to a school where bullies stopped bullying when their victims politely requested that they stop, then your experience was not remotely normal.

So is my experience of bullies stopping after I slammed them into a wall normal? Just curious.

Michael Shermer, who has quite a stellar history of rational discourse and consideration, has recently released a missive regarding the "militant" issues of nature betwixt people of a religious persuasion and people who aren't ... both of which have no interest in keeping that particular matter to themselves.

Since the issue comes up QUITE A BIT here on NS, i figured it would be worth a perusal and comments.



As i have what could be considered a nominal history on this particular subject, i suffice to say that it is an interesting piece, considering Shermer's involvement with Skeptic and own personal history being religiously-minded.
What do y'all think?

I'm an atheist, and I approve this message. :)

Here's an analogy: President Bush claimed that Iraq was invaded because of freedom and democracy. I don't support the war, but does that mean I don't support freedom and democracy? No, I don't support the war, and I certainly don't support the man who used noble ideas as a ruse for a very ignoble act.

I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job. — Lancaster, PA, July 9, 2004

Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this.
and
Our enemy is a spiritual enemy because we are a nation of believers. . . His name is Satan.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/17/wboyk17.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/17/ixnewstop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=15391

1) I'm a woman.

Sorry. I use male as my default assumption around here because I've yet to encounter a woman who was deeply offended by being assumed to be male, but I've encountered a pile of males who were passionately offended to be assumed to be female (ARE YOU CALLING ME A FAG?!?! and whatnot).


2) Where have you ever seen me support bigotry, in any form? I support freedom to believe pretty much anything you want, including bigoted things, but no one has the right to force their beliefs on anyone else, or be violent toward those who disagree with them.

Never said you did. I was criticizing what I believe is your misinterpretation of what another poster said.

In all honesty, I neither know nor do I particularly care about your generalized feelings on bigotry.


My problem is that I keep seeing people, in various threads, constantly saying the 'religion is horrible,' 'religious people are bigots or support bigotry,' etc, and it makes me NUTS!!! I just don't understand how it's okay to be like that about theists but not about anyone else.
Now that's just damn funny.

This whole thread I have been pointing out how criticisms of religion are met with endless complaining and whining and cries of oppression from the poor Faithful, while it most certainly IS acceptable to say far worse things about a great many other groups (my example has been racists).

Sorry, but nobody is buying what you're trying to sell. Religious belief is one of the most coddled, pampered, protected systems of belief on the planet. Religious belief is given more leeway to be irrational, illogical, dangerous, and bigoted than virtually any other belief system in the world today. And, as a result, a lot of religious individuals are particularly prone to pitch giant hissy fits if their precious beliefs are ever subjected to the same level of critical examination that virtually every other belief system must face.

Boo hoo hoo, you have to play by the same rules as everybody else. My heart bleeds.

The only problem, though, is that no mainstream religion in the US actually teaches this.

Lie.

In reality, a large number of major US religions specifically teach that homosexuals are morally inferior beings, and that homosexuals should be legally (and personally) discriminated against. A large number of major US religions teach that homosexuals should not be regarded as equally human, and that homosexuality (unlike heterosexuality) is a chosen perversion or fetish to be regarded as equivalent to necrophilia, pedophilia, or beastiality.

But hey, if you don't like that reality, feel free to keep lying about it. I'm sure if you lie enough times reality will change to accommodate you.


I agree, as long as people claim they believe something because it is religious or traditional, they can get away with practically anything. But I don't think people should then attack religion or tradition because people claim it is what drives them.

I agree that attacking religious belief or tradition EXCLUSIVELY because it is what drives people would be stupid. That's a dumb reason to attack anything.

Happily, nobody here is doing that.


Instead, someone should say, "Actually, nowhere in the Bible does it preach what you say" or "Based on everything else you said, to hate a certain group because of their race/nationality/beliefs makes no sense whatsoever."

Unfortunately, the Bible DOES say what they claim.

Indeed, the Bible also has passages that defend rape, murder, genocide, child abuse, and a whole host of other disgusting practices. You can find a passage in the Bible to support pretty much whatever you want.

Personally, I've never met a single Christian who actually believed in everything included in the Bible. Mainly because that would be impossible, given several complete contradictions in that text.

Christian, like everybody else, reach their moral conclusions based on their personal and social context, building from their lifetime of experiences and influences. The Bible is secondary; Christians select which parts of the Bible they will believe in based on the morality they have already decided to hold.


Doing this has two effects: One, the speakers in question are revealed to be liars or at least misinformed, and two, other religious people don't have to choose between the people who claim to be preaching their faith but aren't and those who seem to be fairly decent but claim that most of the believers beliefs are hogwash.

The game of trying to name who is and isn't a True Christian is pathetic and a waste of time. If Christians want to play around with that crap (and history has shown that many of them do) then they are welcome to do so. It will keep them out of my hair for a while, at least, if they're fighting with each other over who has correctly interpreted the mistranslated scribblings of Dark Ages monks.


Here's an analogy: President Bush claimed that Iraq was invaded because of freedom and democracy. I don't support the war, but does that mean I don't support freedom and democracy? No, I don't support the war, and I certainly don't support the man who used noble ideas as a ruse for a very ignoble act.
Problem is, the godless generally don't think there's anything particularly "noble" about superstition.

I don't think God-belief is noble, any more than Santa-belief is.

Was I the only one to go to a school with teachers, and the only town with police?
If you went to a school where teachers were present 100% of the time during all student contact, and where police officers were on hand to address all incidents of bullying, then yes...you were the only one.

So is my experience of bullies stopping after I slammed them into a wall normal? Just curious.

It's certainly more normal than a bully stopping because you politely asked him to.

So is my experience of bullies stopping after I slammed them into a wall normal? Just curious.Absolutely. As one formerly buck-toothed, four-eyed beanpole who moved a lot, I was a frequent target of bullies. Until they got to know me. I have a violent temper and a father who was formerly a professional boxer and thought it a fine thing to teach his daughter. Even boys gave it up quickly.

1. Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe.

I don't consider atheism a "movement" at all, so whether it "fails" in some grand political context is meaningless to me.

I don't consider atheism a "movement" at all, so whether it "fails" in some grand political context is meaningless to me.
Sheesh, haven't you been getting The Official Godless Newsletter?!

No wonder we haven't managed to enslave all Christians and put them to work in our communist abortion factories...you people aren't even bothering to keep tabs on what The Movement is up to this week!

Lie.

In reality, a large number of major US religions specifically teach that homosexuals are morally inferior beings, and that homosexuals should be legally (and personally) discriminated against. A large number of major US religions teach that homosexuals should not be regarded as equally human, and that homosexuality (unlike heterosexuality) is a chosen perversion or fetish to be regarded as equivalent to necrophilia, pedophilia, or beastiality.

But hey, if you don't like that reality, feel free to keep lying about it. I'm sure if you lie enough times reality will change to accommodate you.

I can vouch for the truth of this, and its affect on society. One of my friends was afraid to come out as bisexual (even to me, an atheist!) because the religiously inspired notion "people who aren't 100% straight are bad!" is so prevalent, that he didn't stop to think that it wasn't a big deal. When he finally told me (through a third party over an instant messenger, actually), I just shrugged and said, "meh. I'm not religious, why would I care?"

Sheesh, haven't you been getting The Official Godless Newsletter?!

No wonder we haven't managed to enslave all Christians and put them to work in our communist abortion factories...you people aren't even bothering to keep tabs on what The Movement is up to this week!

Speaking of The Movement, how are your court cases to ban Christianity in America going, comrade?

Sheesh, haven't you been getting The Official Godless Newsletter?!

No wonder we haven't managed to enslave all Christians and put them to work in our communist abortion factories...you people aren't even bothering to keep tabs on what The Movement is up to this week!

I keep ending up with the Unofficial Godless Newsletter, which is a really just a little shiftless...

I keep ending up with the Unofficial Godless Newsletter, which is a really just a little shiftless...

You can take over my old subscription if you want. I told them I was a theist now, but I think I was talking to someone in the wrong department, because I still receive it.

I have to admit, I still like the comics.

It's certainly more normal than a bully stopping because you politely asked him to.

Well to be fair, most people started doing what I asked for politely after I slammed the one guy into a wall. :)

Absolutely. As one formerly buck-toothed, four-eyed beanpole who moved a lot, I was a frequent target of bullies. Until they got to know me. I have a violent temper and a father who was formerly a professional boxer and thought it a fine thing to teach his daughter. Even boys gave it up quickly.

Rock on. My younger sister got the nickname "Ali" for a similar reason. :)

I'm a major Shermer fan and I'd recommend his Why people believe weird things to anyone who hasn't already read it. Although he makes many valid points I'm surprised by his inclusion of Daniel Dennett alongside Dawkins and Harris, as Dennett's Breaking the Spell is the very antipathy of prejudice, it's a call for reasoned debate. At some points I actually felt that Dennett was trying a little too hard to avoid causing offence, as he was beginning to sound like a patient teacher trying to explain something to a recalcitrant infant "Yes, I'm sure your book is God's one true and completely inerrant message to mankind, but Timmy says that about his book too. Why don't we examine your scripture carefully and if you're right then you've got nothing to worry about, have you?"

"Go ahead, examine it. Just make sure to examine ALL of it."
*crushes the desk under the weight of the Talmud and its commentaries*

I have no objections to Judaism being examined. Unlike other religions, it is a religion of reason and knowledge. If someone claimed that we should not try to understand G-d's word, but just accept it, he might be called a heretic.

As for the atheists, I don't think of them as militants. Dawkins and his friends are more like evangelists.

Um, again, READ WHAT HE POSTED. You know, what you quoted?

"Not all religious people are oppressive bigots, but many if not most are, and the rest tolerate or even support the bigots."

The objection was to people who condone and/or support BIGOTS.

Which according to the poster includes myself and Kbrook simply by virtue of the fact that we have a religion. The fact that neither of us condones or supports the bigots is apparently irrelevant, the fact that we are not atheists is enough that we are accused of such. Do you understand my irritation yet?

"Shred of evidence"? The atheist stance is not the one that needs evidence. Not believing in magical creatures in the sky is not something that rational people need rationalise - it is self-evident why it is the rational thing not to believe in pixies, gods, trolls or whatever superstitious nonsense you have.


Really.

Which is the more logical of these two statements?

I will not believe that something exists until it is proven to exist.

I will not believe something does not exist until it is proven to not exist.

Frankly, they both seem logical to me, whichever one you choose to follow is merely a preference. Logically, one is not better than the other.

Really.

Which is the more logical of these two statements?

I will not believe that something exists until it is proven to exist.

I will not believe something does not exist until it is proven to not exist.

Frankly, they both seem logical to me, whichever one you choose to follow is merely a preference. Logically, one is not better than the other.

Logically, you cannot prove a negative. At least, not one like that. I guess if you were to say at such and such exact time, such a thing exists in such and such exact place, though even then there's a whole quagmire of philosophical dilemmas that really only interest college professors and students about to take an exam.

Logically, you cannot prove a negative. At least, not one like that. I guess if you were to say at such and such exact time, such a thing exists in such and such exact place, though even then there's a whole quagmire of philosophical dilemmas that really only interest college professors and students about to take an exam.

Hrm.. one could call a lack of evidence, proof that something doesn't exist, but one would be wrong.
Just because something cannot be proven wrong does not mean it is right though.
To be absolutely certain that lack of evidence is lack of existence, would be irrational however. Probably illogical as well.

I see where you are coming from, I guess, but that still means that the objection was to the fact that religious people are supporting/tolerating BIGOTS, not that they are supporting/tolerating people of faith.

In other words, when Kb says, "How did it suddenly become a bad thing to defend people of faith?" he's totally missed the boat. It's not defending people of faith that's a bad thing; it's defending bigots that's the problem, particularly when you're only defending them on religious grounds.

Ok, first I have to go check Kbrook for penis. Hopefully I don't find one on her. I'll get back to the rest of this after checking. :p

Nope. My wife doesn't have a penis. (for the humor impared I felt we needed a little funny at this point)

Now on to the rest of the post. The problem that Kbrook is complaining about is the accusation that we either are bigots OR defend them. We most definitely don't yet this poster states that ALL religious people do. Many atheists on this board make sweeping general statements about ALL religions, except the statement usually applies only to the big three (and not to all practitioners of those). In almost all cases it is an accusation of bigotry. We are not defending bigotry on religious grounds, we are defending those who are accused of bigotry for the sole reason that they are not atheists. Not all Christians hate gays, many actively speak out against those who do. Members of many other religions don't give a fig if you're gay, straight, bi, or even fucking trisexual as long as you don't involve the underage or the unwilling. Yet atheist posters here CONTINUALLY make statements that religion (not A religion, not some religious people, but RELIGION AS A WHOLE) makes one a bigot or a supporter of bigots.

I 100% agree with that. In my country (USA) we've got an epidemic of this crap. We're supposed to accept and tolerate all sorts of hateful nonsense as long as the person spewing it invokes religion. Simply saying, "I hate fags" is a no-no, but saying that you hate fags because that's what your religion teaches is somehow okay.

I don't think all religious people do this. You're right that it would be a generalization to say that.

And that specific generalization was made. Not by you but it was made and you are defending it. Looks like it's not just the religious who defend bigotry.

Hrm.. one could call a lack of evidence, proof that something doesn't exist, but one would be wrong.
Just because something cannot be proven wrong does not mean it is right though.
To be absolutely certain that lack of evidence is lack of existence, would be irrational however. Probably illogical as well.

Well, in strict logical terms, lack of evidence for existence doesn't require that the subject not exist, it just sets it into, at best (or worst, whatever side you decide to sit on), a kind of null state, a Schrodinger's (sp?...as well as hoping I'm making proper use of Schrodinger's Cat) Deity, if you will.

But, to be honest, don't confuse being rational with being logical. Contrary to what a lot of academics may like to think, for an entity to be rational, a lot more than just logic has to get tossed into the mix.

Well, in strict logical terms, lack of evidence for existence doesn't require that the subject not exist, it just sets it into, at best (or worst, whatever side you decide to sit on), a kind of null state, a Schrodinger's (sp?...as well as hoping I'm making proper use of Schrodinger's Cat) Deity, if you will.

But, to be honest, don't confuse being rational with being logical. Contrary to what a lot of academics may like to think, for an entity to be rational, a lot more than just logic has to get tossed into the mix.

True that.

Hrm.. one could call a lack of evidence, proof that something doesn't exist, but one would be wrong.
Just because something cannot be proven wrong does not mean it is right though.
To be absolutely certain that lack of evidence is lack of existence, would be irrational however. Probably illogical as well.
So surely you accept that I have a giant invisible bunny that follows me around and gives me advice.

After all, you can't prove that I don't, so logically by your standard you must accept that it is there and give me the same consideration that the religious get, yes?

Sure, it doesn't seem likely. Nor does a tea cup orbiting Pluto (man I wish I could remember who wrote that essay). There are a ton of things you can't prove don't exist, by your standard you have to give them all equal weight no matter how unlikely.

When you take your excercize out it becomes ridiculous. While in a world of infinite possibilities it is possible that pancakes are hurtling toward Earth neither you nor I are filling our pools with syrup. While all things are 'possible' in a philosophical sense, some are so unlikely as to be practically impossible and thus not worth considering.

There have been a ton of things that we couldn't explain in the past, but not once when we've discovered the explanation has the answer turned out to be 'magic. Not once. Maybe you think magic is due.

I wouldn't bet on it.

Really.

Which is the more logical of these two statements?

I will not believe that something exists until it is proven to exist.

I will not believe something does not exist until it is proven to not exist.

Frankly, they both seem logical to me, whichever one you choose to follow is merely a preference. Logically, one is not better than the other.

The bolded one is more logical. That you have problems differentiating the two is a symptom of a larger problem for you.

So surely you accept that I have a giant invisible bunny that follows me around and gives me advice.

After all, you can't prove that I don't, so logically by your standard you must accept that it is there and give me the same consideration that the religious get, yes?

Sure, it doesn't seem likely. Nor does a tea cup orbiting Pluto (man I wish I could remember who wrote that essay). There are a ton of things you can't prove don't exist, by your standard you have to give them all equal weight no matter how unlikely.

When you take your excercize out it becomes ridiculous. While in a world of infinite possibilities it is possible that pancakes are hurtling toward Earth neither you nor I are filling our pools with syrup. While all things are 'possible' in a philosophical sense, some are so unlikely as to be practically impossible and thus not worth considering.

There have been a ton of things that we couldn't explain in the past, but not once when we've discovered the explanation has the answer turned out to be 'magic. Not once. Maybe you think magic is due.

I wouldn't bet on it.

This post is ace, 10/10 and a big thumbs up from me, i look forward to the responses.

Sure, it doesn't seem likely. Nor does a tea cup orbiting Pluto (man I wish I could remember who wrote that essay). There are a ton of things you can't prove don't exist, by your standard you have to give them all equal weight no matter how unlikely.
That was Bertrand Russell, in (I think) an article called "Is there a God?" though I believe when he proposed it, the teapot is between the orbits of Earth and Mars. But that's a minor detail, really.

This post is ace, 10/10 and a big thumbs up from me, i look forward to the responses.

To be fair, I'm just paraphrasing the tea cup guy.

That was Bertrand Russell, in (I think) an article called "Is there a God?" though I believe when he proposed it, the teapot is between the orbits of Earth and Mars. But that's a minor detail, really.

Yeah, that guy. But I came to it from reading a critique of it that had the teacup orbiting Pluto, so that's how I always think of it. Thanks, man.

having read through this thread, i think mr shermer has a point. or 5.

So surely you accept that I have a giant invisible bunny that follows me around and gives me advice.

After all, you can't prove that I don't, so logically by your standard you must accept that it is there and give me the same consideration that the religious get, yes?

Sure, it doesn't seem likely. Nor does a tea cup orbiting Pluto (man I wish I could remember who wrote that essay). There are a ton of things you can't prove don't exist, by your standard you have to give them all equal weight no matter how unlikely.

When you take your excercize out it becomes ridiculous. While in a world of infinite possibilities it is possible that pancakes are hurtling toward Earth neither you nor I are filling our pools with syrup. While all things are 'possible' in a philosophical sense, some are so unlikely as to be practically impossible and thus not worth considering.

There have been a ton of things that we couldn't explain in the past, but not once when we've discovered the explanation has the answer turned out to be 'magic. Not once. Maybe you think magic is due.

I wouldn't bet on it.

Hehe...no. I must accept the possibility that it might very well be there.

No, it does not seem likely, and likely isn't true. That is no reason to stand up on the podium and shout that I know for a fact you are a delusional man who takes career advice from a large invisible rabbit.

By my standard, all things get a weight. How equal these weights are is up to my opinions and personal experience.

"There have been a ton of things that we couldn't explain in the past, but not once when we've discovered the explanation has the answer turned out to be 'magic."

Exactly. If we had discovered how magic worked, it wouldn't be magic eh?
So the fact that we have explained how some things work, means they are not caused by magic. However, until we explain everything, know everything, some things will just be left to 'magic'.

So surely you accept that I have a giant invisible bunny that follows me around and gives me advice.

As long as your pookha isn't telling you to harm others, or cause direct harm itself, why the hell should anyone give a flying fuck?

As long as your pookha isn't telling you to harm others, or cause direct harm itself, why the hell should anyone give a flying fuck?

Thank you. That is my whole philosophy with this whole religion debate.

I believe the point that was being made was that, there is as much evidence to support the existence of an invisible bunny as there is of god.

Edit: Also, that if you believe in one, your belief system requires you to believe the other.

I believe the point that was being made was that, there is as much evidence to support the existence of an invisible bunny as there is of god.

And as long as worshipers of invisible folks in the sky, sidhe, or Bob the Builder don't hurt people or try to make others worship as they do, where's the problem? I'll give you my answer (again): Religion isn't the problem. People are.

Hehe...no. I must accept the possibility that it might very well be there.

No, it does not seem likely, and likely isn't true. That is no reason to stand up on the podium and shout that I know for a fact you are a delusional man who takes career advice from a large invisible rabbit.

By my standard, all things get a weight. How equal these weights are is up to my opinions and personal experience.
Which goes to my conclusion, "some things are so unlikely as to be practically impossible and not worth considering. There is no more reason for you to believe in my Harvey (my bunny), the tea cup, or a sky wizard who grants wishes and turns crackers into flesh etc.

All things being possible is a fun excercize (why can't spell check figure that out?) it doesn't have a practical application. You're not likely to ask for Harvey's advice and that same logic applies to sky fairies and thunder gods.

"There have been a ton of things that we couldn't explain in the past, but not once when we've discovered the explanation has the answer turned out to be 'magic."

Exactly. If we had discovered how magic worked, it wouldn't be magic eh?
So the fact that we have explained how some things work, means they are not caused by magic. However, until we explain everything, know everything, some things will just be left to 'magic'.
Changing the definition of magic doesn't really address anything.

Edit: Also, that if you believe in one, your belief system requires you to believe the other.

Surprisingly, I tend to agree with that. But belief =/= worship. I believe that all gods exist. I only choose to worship a few. I do not choose to worship God/Jehovah/Yaweh/Allah because there's no point in worshiping a god you can't respect.

Does the idea of invisible bunnies or orbital teapots bring comfort to those facing death?

Does astronomical crockery inspire people to unify together to promote a social cause?

Does belief in a flying beast of pasta clarify a moral code for people living in a community?

Has anyone ever had a direct revelation where they claimed to have witnessed an invisible pink unicorn?

Has anyone felt a sense of personal transformation when face to face with the belief that pancakes are hurtling towards earth?

No. No one has ever had any of these experiences. Yet these are the most common types of experiences associated with religion.

Obviously, a comparison between any of these things and religion is a faulty one. If you are going to debate religion, please attempt to do it intelligently.

Does belief in a flying beast of pasta clarify a moral code for people living in a community?

You've clearly never read the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or the Discordian catmas, for that matter.

Does the idea of invisible bunnies or orbital teapots bring comfort to those facing death?

Does astronomical crockery inspire people to unify together to promote a social cause?

Does belief in a flying beast of pasta clarify a moral code for people living in a community?

Has anyone ever had a direct revelation where they claimed to have witnessed an invisible pink unicorn?

Has anyone felt a sense of personal transformation when face to face with the belief that pancakes are hurtling towards earth?

No. No one has ever had any of these experiences. Yet these are the most common types of experiences associated with religion.

Obviously, a comparison between any of these things and religion is a faulty one. If you are going to debate religion, please attempt to do it intelligently.

The psycho ward is full of people who have been transformed by things like invisible bunnies and hurling breakfast pastries. I spent an afternoon reading someone's manifesto on a construction sidewalk about aliens from the planet Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaa that gave him a sense of being and rightiousness. (and no, I'm not making that up, I really did). Do I have to give the Yaaaaaaaaaaaaa guy consideration? Are you seriously saying we should?

Just because someone gets a warm glowy feeling we're supposed to give it consideration? The fact that things that have no more tangibility than an invisible bunny, space pasta, or invisible pink unicorns are giving people direction is part of the problem because as much 'comfort' and 'morals' sky beardie has dolled out there has also been suffering and cruelity that would be difficult for the participants to justify without it.

Does the idea of invisible bunnies or orbital teapots bring comfort to those facing death?

Does astronomical crockery inspire people to unify together to promote a social cause?

Does belief in a flying beast of pasta clarify a moral code for people living in a community?

Has anyone ever had a direct revelation where they claimed to have witnessed an invisible pink unicorn?

Has anyone felt a sense of personal transformation when face to face with the belief that pancakes are hurtling towards earth?

No. No one has ever had any of these experiences. Yet these are the most common types of experiences associated with religion.

Obviously, a comparison between any of these things and religion is a faulty one. If you are going to debate religion, please attempt to do it intelligently.

But the fact that religion consoles people, inspires them, &c has no bearing upon its truth value, correct? And to me, that's the most important part of a factual claim-- whether or not it is true.

You've clearly never read the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or the Discordian catmas, for that matter.

Obviously, I need to expand my religious education.

The psycho ward is full of people who have been transformed by things like invisible bunnies and hurling breakfast pastries. I spent an afternoon reading someone's manifesto on a construction sidewalk about aliens from the planet Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaa that gave him a sense of being and rightiousness. (and no, I'm not making that up, I really did). Do I have to give the Yaaaaaaaaaaaaa guy consideration? Are you seriously saying we should?

Just because someone gets a warm glowy feeling we're supposed to give it consideration? The fact that things that have no more tangibility than an invisible bunny, space pasta, or invisible pink unicorns are giving people direction is part of the problem because as much 'comfort' and 'morals' sky beardie has dolled out there has also been suffering and cruelity that would be difficult for the participants to justify without it.

No. I am not saying you should give them the same consideration. The topic of measuring the validity of different belief sytems is notwhat my post was about. I was discussing the flaw in the comparison between Russell's teapot and modern religion. Religions provide all of these experiences. Russell's teapot, and crazy man's rantings, do not.

And for your claims that the moral order and spiritual comfort of a religion are intrinsically linked to the cruelties inflicted in the name of different religions, I would simply pôint out that you have not supported this claim. Also, Buddhism has been very good at providing a moral context and comfort for its believers, yet we do not see the same cruelty and suffering we associate with the Abrahamic religions. I guess that they are not intrinsically related, as you assumed.

But the fact that religion consoles people, inspires them, &c has no bearing upon its truth value, correct? And to me, that's the most important part of a factual claim-- whether or not it is true.

It has no bearing on its objective truth, definitely. But religion is not making a factual claim, it is making faith-based claims, so the inherent subjectivity of its claims are not important, to the believer. People who are looking for comfort or meaning don't want facts, or even advice. They want sympathy, and compassion. There is no objective truth to compassion or sympathy. But there doesn't need to be any.

Obviously, I need to expand my religious education.



No. I am not saying you should give them the same consideration. The topic of measuring the validity of different belief sytems is notwhat my post was about. I was discussing the flaw in the comparison between Russell's teapot and modern religion. Religions provide all of these experiences. Russell's teapot, and crazy man's rantings, do not.
They do to the man who wrote them. At this point I'd be careful tossing about the term 'crazy.' I haven't seen any signifigant difference in his beliefs in the unseen and anyone elses. Objectively he is no more crazy than you are, you both believe in something unsubstantiated. How much difference is there between you?

Is it numbers of followers? At a handful he's just nuts, a few hundred he's just a Jim Jones or David Koresh, but when you get to a million you get a cool hat and the stamp "Legitimate Religion" and we have to accept your teapot?

Hell, the distinction 'modern' religion seems unneccisary. The Greeks got all the good stuff from belief in Zeus, why is Zeus less probably?

Shakespeare has inspired people, doesn't make him a deity.

Morphine has made comforted people facing death.

Al Gore has unified people in a social cause.

Walt Whitman has given moral codes.

None of them gods.

And for your claims that the moral order and spiritual comfort of a religion are intrinsically linked to the cruelties inflicted in the name of different religions, I would simply pôint out that you have not supported this claim. Also, Buddhism has been very good at providing a moral context and comfort for its believers, yet we do not see the same cruelty and suffering we associate with the Abrahamic religions. I guess that they are not intrinsically related, as you assumed.
While this might be a ringing endorsement for Buddhism, it does not actually address anything. And I suspect if you examined the history of China and Buddhism you'd find some less than stellar moments.



It has no bearing on its objective truth, definitely. But religion is not making a factual claim, it is making faith-based claims, so the inherent subjectivity of its claims are not important, to the believer. People who are looking for comfort or meaning don't want facts, or even advice. They want sympathy, and compassion. There is no objective truth to compassion or sympathy. But there doesn't need to be any.
These things are all possible without bullshit.

If you need the bullshit, then whatever. However, the power of that bullshit is frankly dangerous. And the bullshit you need to face your own mortality becomes a problem when we're fighting wars over who has the best imaginary friend or legislating on what people imagined their imaginary friend hates.

You lost me at "If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same."

How about, "If non-bigots do not want racists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto racists the same."

Sorry, but it's bunk. I frankly don't give a hoot whether racists think I'm a race traitor, and I also don't care if the superstitious think I'm a godless heretic. All I care about is that they stop trying to pass laws that spend my tax dollars endorsing, supporting, or enforcing their personal mythologies.

Remember, the key phrase is, "judge not, lest ye be judged." It's only wrong to judge people if you're a cowardly hypocrite who can't handle being judged when it's your turn. Personally, I want to see people using MORE judgment, not less. I want to see people being skeptical and critical MORE often, not less. So I'ma go right ahead and judge racists to be ignorant jackasses, thank you very much, and I'm not going to worry about if they decide to lash back at me because of their poor hurt feelings.

See, the point is illustrated by the fact that you've managed to piss me off.

I actually agree with you on most political issues. However, I do not like being pre-judged more than anyone. I do not think you are a godless heretic, I don't believe in such a thing as heretics. I am also not trying to pass laws to spend anyone's tax dollars endorsing, supporting or enforcing my "personal mythology." Not that I think any religious views, including my own, should ever be enforced on anyone except on one's own self. Just because I am personally religious doesn't mean I don't fully agree with separation of church and state. Nothing good can come of combining the two, since nothing ever has.

However, I hate it when atheists want to push their views on me as much as I hate it when Christians do. I don't like being pre-judged by atheists any more than I like it when Christians do the same thing and tell me I'm going to hell. I also don't like being compared to racist bigots. I don't see how having religious views that I don't try to force on anyone or even talk about specifically makes me the equivalent of KKK lynch mobs.

See, the point is illustrated by the fact that you've managed to piss me off.

I actually agree with you on most political issues. However, I do not like being pre-judged more than anyone.

Um...boo hoo?

You're going to be pre-judged. Sorry, that's life. Everybody does it, it's just that some people will lie to you and insist they aren't judging you.

I don't judge you more than anybody else. I judge you to the same extent I judge everybody else. If you choose to be superstitious, that is something about you that I include and evaluate.


I do not think you are a godless heretic, I don't believe in such a thing as heretics. I am also not trying to pass laws to spend anyone's tax dollars endorsing, supporting or enforcing my "personal mythology." Not that I think any religious views, including my own, should ever be enforced on anyone except on one's own self. Just because I am personally religious doesn't mean I don't fully agree with separation of church and state. Nothing good can come of combining the two, since nothing ever has.

That's lovely. I don't assume you do any of those things, so thus far we have no problems.


However, I hate it when atheists want to push their views on me as much as I hate it when Christians do. I don't like being pre-judged by atheists any more than I like it when Christians do the same thing and tell me I'm going to hell.

That's nice, but again...don't see why you're bitching to me about it. I think Christianity is boring and stupid, but I'm not remotely interested in passing laws that would force you to give it up. I have some stupid hobbies, too, so why would I try to ban yours? Long as you aren't fucking up anybody else's life, I don't really care.


I also don't like being compared to racist bigots. I don't see how having religious views that I don't try to force on anyone or even talk about specifically makes me the equivalent of KKK lynch mobs.
I've already explained this several times in this thread, and many times in others. Don't feel the need to repeat myself for people who are too lazy/rude to bothering reading what I say.

These things are all possible without bullshit.

If you need the bullshit, then whatever. However, the power of that bullshit is frankly dangerous. And the bullshit you need to face your own mortality becomes a problem when we're fighting wars over who has the best imaginary friend or legislating on what people imagined their imaginary friend hates.
That's the key, for me.

There is absolutely nothing I need or want which can be obtained only through religion/superstition. Why get fuddled in with all that BS, when I can get everything I need and want without the BS?

Does the idea of invisible bunnies or orbital teapots bring comfort to those facing death?

Does astronomical crockery inspire people to unify together to promote a social cause?

Does belief in a flying beast of pasta clarify a moral code for people living in a community?

Has anyone ever had a direct revelation where they claimed to have witnessed an invisible pink unicorn?

Has anyone felt a sense of personal transformation when face to face with the belief that pancakes are hurtling towards earth?

No. No one has ever had any of these experiences. Yet these are the most common types of experiences associated with religion.

Obviously, a comparison between any of these things and religion is a faulty one. If you are going to debate religion, please attempt to do it intelligently.

Comparing belief in God to Russell's Teapot is an argument from analogy. For an argument from analogy to be valid it isn't necessary for the two things being compared to be alike in every way, only that they're similar in some way which is relevant to the argument. For example, Paley famously proposed the teleological argument for the existence of God as an argument from analogy, comparing the human eye to a watch. The fact that watches are hard and metallic while eyes are squishy and organic doesn't matter too much, as it's their complexity that is being compared.

Similarly, when comparing God to a Celestial Teapot the only thing that is being compared is the evidence for their existence, any perceived benefits from religious belief are irrelevant unless they can only be explained by the existence of a supreme being.

Which goes to my conclusion, "some things are so unlikely as to be practically impossible and not worth considering. There is no more reason for you to believe in my Harvey (my bunny), the tea cup, or a sky wizard who grants wishes and turns crackers into flesh etc.

All things being possible is a fun excercize (why can't spell check figure that out?) it doesn't have a practical application. You're not likely to ask for Harvey's advice and that same logic applies to sky fairies and thunder gods.


Changing the definition of magic doesn't really address anything.

I suppose it is a matter of preference, but I disagree with the bolded part. Once you think something is not worth considering, you stop looking for evidence and if you ever come across something that is potentially evidence you just dismiss it as some sort of fluke/illusion/hallucination/military technology.

Not sure how I changed the definition of magic...

I suppose it is a matter of preference, but I disagree with the bolded part. Once you think something is not worth considering, you stop looking for evidence and if you ever come across something that is potentially evidence you just dismiss it as some sort of fluke/illusion/hallucination/military technology.
Or you just don't bother. If evidence does arise then the thing is re-evaluated, however the more unlikely the thing the less you have to worry about evidence arising. All evidence for all things will be reviewed criticly, you cannot view evidence through a lens of willingness to believe.

Not sure how I changed the definition of magic...

From supernatural to 'shit we don't yet understand.' There is a difference between 'we don't know yet' and 'magic did it.'

*snip*

And for your claims that the moral order and spiritual comfort of a religion are intrinsically linked to the cruelties inflicted in the name of different religions, I would simply pôint out that you have not supported this claim. Also, Buddhism has been very good at providing a moral context and comfort for its believers, yet we do not see the same cruelty and suffering we associate with the Abrahamic religions. I guess that they are not intrinsically related, as you assumed.

Phew, that was close. I was just about to write a note to myself "never read a thread like this again." In fact, in my paste buffer was this:

having read through this thread, i think mr shermer has a point. or 5.

Me too. I'm also thinking I don't ever want to hear this "debate" again.

Perhaps Taoism or Confucianism don't fit some people's definition of "a religion." But Buddhism certainly does. That single well-chosen example blows the lid off the assumptions and generalizations that have made this thread so hopelessly ideological.

It's perhaps not just a matter of which religion one uses to make sweeping generalizations about "Religion." Overwhelmingly, the basis for these generalizations seems to be Christianity in the USA. Yes, there have been dark mutterings about the Crusades or the "Dark Ages" in general, but it's the same political tradition.

That makes me wonder if there is something missing in US politics (which because of historical parallels I would expect to see in Australian politics also)? A lack of common values, of morality shared in common, or a lack of "faith" in politics which leaves the door open to theocracy? Are our societies simply weak? Rootless? Immature?

Yeah, I call it theocracy, even if only a partial theocracy, when religious morality is imposed on everyone, believer or non-believer alike. It's a failure of politics when moral questions cannot be debated and a compromise reached without resorting to religious faith.

Comparing belief in God to Russell's Teapot is an argument from analogy. For an argument from analogy to be valid it isn't necessary for the two things being compared to be alike in every way, only that they're similar in some way which is relevant to the argument. For example, Paley famously proposed the teleological argument for the existence of God as an argument from analogy, comparing the human eye to a watch. The fact that watches are hard and metallic while eyes are squishy and organic doesn't matter too much, as it's their complexity that is being compared.

Similarly, when comparing God to a Celestial Teapot the only thing that is being compared is the evidence for their existence, any perceived benefits from religious belief are irrelevant unless they can only be explained by the existence of a supreme being.

Well, I certainly had no trouble seeing GoG's point. There are benefits for the individual and for society in having beliefs in common.

I guess in the context of this thread, the point might seem like mindless quibbling over the value of an analogy. I think it was more constructive than that.

And if I were to take issue with it, I'd go like: with universal education of a good standard, we can all share in common scientific beliefs and a scientific approach, achieving most of those good outcomes without needing religious beliefs in common.

Or you just don't bother. If evidence does arise then the thing is re-evaluated, however the more unlikely the thing the less you have to worry about evidence arising. All evidence for all things will be reviewed criticly, you cannot view evidence through a lens of willingness to believe.

From supernatural to 'shit we don't yet understand.' There is a difference between 'we don't know yet' and 'magic did it.'

Nor can you view it through a microscope of willingness to disbelieve.

Until we understand how certain things work, we cannot be sure that 'magic' is not running the show.

See, the point is illustrated by the fact that you've managed to piss me off.

I actually agree with you on most political issues. However, I do not like being pre-judged more than anyone. I do not think you are a godless heretic, I don't believe in such a thing as heretics. I am also not trying to pass laws to spend anyone's tax dollars endorsing, supporting or enforcing my "personal mythology." Not that I think any religious views, including my own, should ever be enforced on anyone except on one's own self. Just because I am personally religious doesn't mean I don't fully agree with separation of church and state. Nothing good can come of combining the two, since nothing ever has.

However, I hate it when atheists want to push their views on me as much as I hate it when Christians do. I don't like being pre-judged by atheists any more than I like it when Christians do the same thing and tell me I'm going to hell. I also don't like being compared to racist bigots. I don't see how having religious views that I don't try to force on anyone or even talk about specifically makes me the equivalent of KKK lynch mobs.

But if you complain about the accusation you're "whining".

*snip*

And if I were to take issue with it, I'd go like: with universal education of a good standard, we can all share in common scientific beliefs and a scientific approach, achieving most of those good outcomes without needing religious beliefs in common.

Except that if universal education could be made to work that well, we would all have comparable skills in debate and equally well-informed opinions which were in sufficient agreement that we could implement some far-reaching public policy. Crikey, it would be a golden age of civilization.

Oh, the horror! Society would still be going to hell in a handbasket, and we couldn't blame anyone else and their pigheaded ignorance! Oh, woe!

It has no bearing on its objective truth, definitely. But religion is not making a factual claim, it is making faith-based claims, so the inherent subjectivity of its claims are not important, to the believer. People who are looking for comfort or meaning don't want facts, or even advice. They want sympathy, and compassion. There is no objective truth to compassion or sympathy. But there doesn't need to be any.

But religion DOES make claims about objective truth. Christianity claims that there is a God who created the world, that Jesus was his son and our savior, Islam claims that there is no God but Allah, and Muhammed is his prophet, et c. Those are claims of factual truth. Either there is a God, or there is not a God. It's an objective fact one way or the other. It's not "everybody is right, there is both a god and not a god." Some people are wrong. And when I examine the evidence, my conclusion is that it is most likely theism that is factually incorrect.

Well, I certainly had no trouble seeing GoG's point. There are benefits for the individual and for society in having beliefs in common.

I guess in the context of this thread, the point might seem like mindless quibbling over the value of an analogy. I think it was more constructive than that.

And if I were to take issue with it, I'd go like: with universal education of a good standard, we can all share in common scientific beliefs and a scientific approach, achieving most of those good outcomes without needing religious beliefs in common.

Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick, but I got the impression that he (she?) was arguing for the existence of God, rather than just for the benefits of religious belief. Hopefully they'll clarify.

That's nice, but again...don't see why you're bitching to me about it. I think Christianity is boring and stupid, but I'm not remotely interested in passing laws that would force you to give it up.


Where did I say I was Christian? Don't assume.

There is nothing irrational about my hatred of religion. I loathe stupidity, and thus I loathe religion. It "poisons everything".
I understand exactly, and feel the same way about the bigotry, close-mindedness, hatred and totalitarianistic nature of today's self-proclaimed "Liberals", or neo-left. But it's the same with any other bigot or asshole I come across, religious or not! (People like Dawkin etc, obviously included.)

Now, the invention of the scientific method and science is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'Fine, I respect that'. The odd thing is, even as I am saying that I am thinking 'Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended by the fact that I just said that?' but I wouldn't have thought 'Maybe there's somebody from the left wing or somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to this view or the other in economics' when I was making the other points. I just think 'Fine, we have different opinions'. But, the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody's (I'm going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say 'No, we don't attack that; that's an irrational belief but no, we respect it'.

—Douglas Adams

Best response I could think of for the letter referenced by the OP is this one.

As I said in an earlier thread, my religious beliefs are like my genitalia. No one's business but mine.

Oh, man, how I hate Richard Dawkins. I'm one of the most irreligious people on the face of the planet (I'm actually HOPING that there is/are no god/s, be it/they Christian, Hindu, Shinto or otherwise), but reading Dawkins' self-righteous drivel almost makes me want to pick up Fred Phelps's copy of the Bible, homophobic footnotes and all. He's a biologist playing a philosopher's game; like Michael Jordan when he gave up basketball for baseball.

But it is Dennett (who IS a philosopher) in particular, who should know better than to pick at already-infected sores thinking that it would somehow help.

Bottom line: both sides, from the radical Christian creationist types to the radical atheist "science is the TRUE god" types should just whip 'em out and measure 'em already. Maybe then this BS will be settled.

I just hope a bomb goes off when they're huddled together with their miniature tape measures.

Oh, man, how I hate Richard Dawkins. I'm one of the most irreligious people on the face of the planet (I'm actually HOPING that there is/are no god/s, be it/they Christian, Hindu, Shinto or otherwise), but reading Dawkins' self-righteous drivel almost makes me want to pick up Fred Phelps's copy of the Bible, homophobic footnotes and all. He's a biologist playing a philosopher's game; like Michael Jordan when he gave up basketball for baseball.

But it is Dennett (who IS a philosopher) in particular, who should know better than to pick at already-infected sores thinking that it would somehow help.

Bottom line: both sides, from the radical Christian creationist types to the radical atheist "science is the TRUE god" types should just whip 'em out and measure 'em already. Maybe then this BS will be settled.

I just hope a bomb goes off when they're huddled together with their miniature tape measures.

Yeah, I wish the fanatically religious would just keep it to themselves and the fanatical atheists would then stop trying to pry it out, so that the non-fanatical religious and atheists wouldn't have to put up with such shite. As far as I'm concerned, your religion is your own business, not mine. Likewise, you shouldn't make it mine.

To continue the genitalia analogy, your genitalia is none of my business. And I sure don't want you trying to make it my business (especially not the phrase used often with overzealous religious people, "shoving it down my throat").

Nor can you view it through a microscope of willingness to disbelieve.

Until we understand how certain things work, we cannot be sure that 'magic' is not running the show.

Well, in order to view evidence, there has to be some.

There ain't.

Mental experiment over.

I'm sorry, apparently you think magic is 'due,' but since it hasn't come up once, not once, I wouldn't bet on it even with your money.

Oh, man, how I hate Richard Dawkins. I'm one of the most irreligious people on the face of the planet (I'm actually HOPING that there is/are no god/s, be it/they Christian, Hindu, Shinto or otherwise), but reading Dawkins' self-righteous drivel almost makes me want to pick up Fred Phelps's copy of the Bible, homophobic footnotes and all. He's a biologist playing a philosopher's game; like Michael Jordan when he gave up basketball for baseball.

But it is Dennett (who IS a philosopher) in particular, who should know better than to pick at already-infected sores thinking that it would somehow help.

Bottom line: both sides, from the radical Christian creationist types to the radical atheist "science is the TRUE god" types should just whip 'em out and measure 'em already. Maybe then this BS will be settled.

I just hope a bomb goes off when they're huddled together with their miniature tape measures.

Is it just my eyes? Or does your screen name look a lot like "Soheran" ?

Yeah, I wish the fanatically religious would just keep it to themselves and the fanatical atheists would then stop trying to pry it out, so that the non-fanatical religious and atheists wouldn't have to put up with such shite. As far as I'm concerned, your religion is your own business, not mine. Likewise, you shouldn't make it mine.

To continue the genitalia analogy, your genitalia is none of my business. And I sure don't want you trying to make it my business (especially not the phrase used often with overzealous religious people, "shoving it down my throat").

I've asked this before, (even in this thread, I think) but the question interests me and I haven't seen much of an answer to it, so I'll ask again.

Why is it that it takes so much less for an atheist to be "radical" than it does for a theist?

You criticize Dawkins for the "crime" of saying that religious beliefs are irrational and unsupported by evidence--comparable to a belief in Santa Claus. That's all it takes for an atheist to be "militant."

However, theists get away all the time with "Atheists are fools for not believing in God." Hell, it's in their bible. To be "radical" or "militant" they at least have to rant about how if they had a theocracy, they would "kill all the fags" or some such thing.

Why the double standard? Why should theists be so priveleged, and why should their ideas be given a special protection that nobody else's gets? Do atheists ever bomb abortion clinics in the name of unGod? Do Atheists launch crusades and inquisitions in the name of unGod? And, a big question: if (say) the Catholic Church had the kind of power it used to have, if it had the ability to force compliance, do you think it'd go back to doing so? My hunch is yes. The only reason they stopped in the first place is because they didn't have the power they used to. (Though, I'm not sure they would. It's just a hunch. I recognize the fairly large chance that I am wrong)

I find debating/discussing religion is a bit like slamming one's head into a brick wall repeatedly. Nothing is going to be accomplished and someone is going to walk away slightly hurt or annoyed. Trying to prove or disproved something (ie god) that can not be shown either way is circular by nature, thus not much can be accomplished.

Now, the invention of the scientific method and science is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'Fine, I respect that'. The odd thing is, even as I am saying that I am thinking 'Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended by the fact that I just said that?' but I wouldn't have thought 'Maybe there's somebody from the left wing or somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to this view or the other in economics' when I was making the other points. I just think 'Fine, we have different opinions'. But, the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody's (I'm going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say 'No, we don't attack that; that's an irrational belief but no, we respect it'.

—Douglas Adams

Best response I could think of for the letter referenced by the OP is this one.

Funny how many times it comes up, but i suspect it emphasizes exactly why the situation turned out the way it did ....
i met Adams. He was a prick. I almost kicked him down a flight of stairs.
The funny part here, is, on topic, is that he was convinced that his point of view was something everyone else needed to catch up to.

A "do as i say not as i do" thing. :(

As I said in an earlier thread, my religious beliefs are like my genitalia. No one's business but mine.

:D

Noted then, noted now.

I understand exactly, and feel the same way about the bigotry, close-mindedness, hatred and totalitarianistic nature of today's self-proclaimed "Liberals", or neo-left.

WTF?
Sure you understand your vitriol base here?
*shakes head*

You're going to be pre-judged.

It should be noted that there *is* no such thing as "pre"-judged, any more than "pre"-approved.
A judgment is made on material available and conclusions thusly ... fallacious or not, shaky premise or not.

having read through this thread, i think mr shermer has a point. or 5.

The thread has, of course, illustrated a few of them, methinks.

YATTA!

...

Sorry, couldn't help it.
:) That video didn't bug me much at all. I'm sure i'd be sick of it in real short order, but it annoyed my wife a lot more than it bothered me.

Personally, I believe religiosity and superstition of this sort are innately harmful to the individual, at the very least. However, I also believe that individuals should be able to believe whatever the fuck they want, even if it harms them. I only interfere if they choose to act on their beliefs in a manner that is harmful to others.


You know, this parallels a reaction i had to something i read today ...
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_brown/2007/08/was_mother_teresa_an_atheist.html
I call, I cling, I want ... and there is no One to answer ... no One on Whom I can cling ... no, No One. Alone ... Where is my Faith ... even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness ... My God ... how painful is this unknown pain ... I have no Faith ... I dare not utter the words & thoughts that crowd in my heart ... & make me suffer untold agony.

So many unanswered questions live within me afraid to uncover them ... because of the blasphemy ... If there be God ... please forgive me ... When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. I am told God loves me ... and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul.

and in other readings ...
If there be God - please forgive me. When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul.
How painful is this unknown pain - I have no Faith.
-
There is such terrible darkness within me, as if everything was dead. It has been like this more or less from the time I started "the work".

But it's the same with any other bigot or asshole I come across, religious or not! (People like Dawkin etc, obviously included.)

Have you every actually seen Dawkins on TV, or are you just parroting the opinions of others? Every time I've seen him I've noted how polite and calm he is.

What's he said that's bigoted anyway?
-Young Earth Creationism is delusional (it is)
-Public money shouldn't be spent on religious indoctrination (it shouldn't)
-Religious belief lacks evidence (many believers have assured me that this is the whole point of 'faith')

The only reason that Dawkins is seen as bigoted is because religion has grown used to immunity from criticism, and tantrums are thrown when anyone dares to challenge the status quo.

What's he said that's bigoted anyway?
-Young Earth Creationism is delusional (it is)
-Public money shouldn't be spent on religious indoctrination (it shouldn't)
-Religious belief lacks evidence (many believers have assured me that this is the whole point of 'faith')



Those three things are not bigoted, correct. Young Earth Creationism is pretty... yeah... enough said.

Public money shouldn't be spent on religion. This should be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, this eludes certain individuals who seem to love minding other people's business.

And of course religious belief lacks evidence, the many believers you mention are correct, if it had evidence it wouldn't be religious. Certain tenets, such as young earth creationism, have been refuted by scientific fact. Others, such as whether there is a god/deity/great spirit/whatever are irrelevant to science as they can be neither supported with evidence nor refuted. Science is concerned only with what can be accurately studied, measured, tested.

I hate it when people say "I KNOW god such and such!" No, you don't. Nobody can. You can only believe in god(s) or not. I do, myself, but I don't claim to know for sure that said being exists or what that being's nature or wishes are. I have a high chance of being wrong, as does everyone else (the Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, followers of Asatru, Wiccans, etc.). I accept that. I am not so weak as to fear being mistaken. If I am, no big deal.

When it comes to the way the physical universe, however, I'm going to go with science over some dusty, old, dubiously translated book. We can't know for sure anything about god(s) or the spiritual or even if such exist, but we can know about our physical surroundings and how they work.

In my ideal world, religion wouldn't be an issue. The religious wouldn't blather on about it to uninterested parties and the non-religious would be content to ignore religion.

Yeah, I know, wishful thinking, since some religions unfortunately have the tenet that their believers are supposed to actively go out and convert everyone. *sigh*

I've asked this before, (even in this thread, I think) but the question interests me and I haven't seen much of an answer to it, so I'll ask again.

Why is it that it takes so much less for an atheist to be "radical" than it does for a theist?

You criticize Dawkins for the "crime" of saying that religious beliefs are irrational and unsupported by evidence--comparable to a belief in Santa Claus. That's all it takes for an atheist to be "militant."

However, theists get away all the time with "Atheists are fools for not believing in God." Hell, it's in their bible. To be "radical" or "militant" they at least have to rant about how if they had a theocracy, they would "kill all the fags" or some such thing.

Why the double standard? Why should theists be so priveleged, and why should their ideas be given a special protection that nobody else's gets? Do atheists ever bomb abortion clinics in the name of unGod? Do Atheists launch crusades and inquisitions in the name of unGod? And, a big question: if (say) the Catholic Church had the kind of power it used to have, if it had the ability to force compliance, do you think it'd go back to doing so? My hunch is yes. The only reason they stopped in the first place is because they didn't have the power they used to. (Though, I'm not sure they would. It's just a hunch. I recognize the fairly large chance that I am wrong)

It doesn't take less for an atheist to be radical. I don't call atheists fools for not believing the same things I do. Why should they? They're not quantifiable, they have no evidence, I'll be the first to admit that. I choose not to believe that Mohammed is a prophet of god. It is the same kind of choice, I don't believe atheists are going to suffer for eternity for choosing a belief that's actually quite reasonable.

The religious who say things like that may get away for some, but I don't find their comments acceptable. They have ever bit of chance of being wrong. I didn't criticize Dawkens, I merely used a post criticizing him to leapfrog off of to make my own post. I have no opinion of Dawkens, I don't pay attention to him. If all he's saying is that religion has no evidence, then he is correct, because that's rather obvious, or so I would think.

The kind of religious people who expound about how atheists are going to hell or are fools or idiots or whatever would probably also say I'm going to hell or an idiot or a fool, since they are generally the kind of intolerant narrow-minded sheep who hold those opinions about anyone who does not agree with them, which of course, is most of the world.

I do not care about what the Catholic Church would do if it had the kind of power it had in the middle ages again. It doesn't, and most likely won't ever. And since their beliefs are not mine, they don't affect me and are really none of my business. I'm sure the pope thinks I am going to hell. I don't care.

If a person brings up their religious beliefs and tries to broadcast them to all the world, then sure, go ahead, criticize all you want.

For the rest of us who aren't trying to make our specific views on the divine a public matter or trying to make everyone follow them or other such bullshit, it's our own business.

Nor can you view it through a microscope of willingness to disbelieve.


Wait, I can't believe I let this bullshit slide.

Of course you can, it's called being critical. You absolutely question the evidence you have, thoroughly. If it stands up to your closest examination, then it's good evidence, if not it's crap. That's pretty much how it works.

Wait, I can't believe I let this bullshit slide.

Of course you can, it's called being critical. You absolutely question the evidence you have, thoroughly. If it stands up to your closest examination, then it's good evidence, if not it's crap. That's pretty much how it works.

Actually, it is best to be impartial when viewing evidence of any kind. You do question it thoroughly, but it is being analytical, to be critical is "to be inclined to find fault or to judge with severity, often too readily" according to the dictionary. I agree with your description of working with any sort of evidence, but not with the fact that you seem to think everything should be approached as if it is destined to fail all your expectations.

Funny how many times it comes up, but i suspect it emphasizes exactly why the situation turned out the way it did ....
i met Adams. He was a prick. I almost kicked him down a flight of stairs.
The funny part here, is, on topic, is that he was convinced that his point of view was something everyone else needed to catch up to.

A "do as i say not as i do" thing. :(

That's actually vaguely surprising to me. From all accounts I've heard, he was a delightful man, with a great amount of generosity towards others and a true wonder about the world that almost everybody these days seems to lack.

It doesn't take less for an atheist to be radical. I don't call atheists fools for not believing the same things I do. Why should they? They're not quantifiable, they have no evidence, I'll be the first to admit that. I choose not to believe that Mohammed is a prophet of god. It is the same kind of choice, I don't believe atheists are going to suffer for eternity for choosing a belief that's actually quite reasonable.
But it DOES take less for an atheist to get the radical label than a theist. The evidence for that is right in front of you. You might not call atheists fools, but MANY mainstream Christians do. (Not radical fringe groups, but mainstream.) Again, a Christian has to, at least, expound upon how he'd execute non-believers if he ran the theocracy he desired to be labeled radical in today's society.

The religious who say things like that may get away for some, but I don't find their comments acceptable. They have ever bit of chance of being wrong. I didn't criticize Dawkens, I merely used a post criticizing him to leapfrog off of to make my own post. I have no opinion of Dawkens, I don't pay attention to him. If all he's saying is that religion has no evidence, then he is correct, because that's rather obvious, or so I would think.
Yes, he says there's no evidence for, so that it's an irrational belief. Which is true. And he also says that religious belief should be equally open to debate and examination as, say, political belief.

The kind of religious people who expound about how atheists are going to hell or are fools or idiots or whatever would probably also say I'm going to hell or an idiot or a fool, since they are generally the kind of intolerant narrow-minded sheep who hold those opinions about anyone who does not agree with them, which of course, is most of the world.

The thing is, the ones who say that aren't considered that radical, unless they actually talk about their plans for a murderous theocracy.

I do not care about what the Catholic Church would do if it had the kind of power it had in the middle ages again. It doesn't, and most likely won't ever. And since their beliefs are not mine, they don't affect me and are really none of my business. I'm sure the pope thinks I am going to hell. I don't care.

Eh, I suppose that was more of a question of interest for me than anything, but I guess if I was trying to make a point, it's that even as large an organization as the Catholic Church probably would do that-- so nobody can say "Well, it's only a few scattered believers that are like that." But the Catholic Church was just an example. I'd say the same about a lot of other religious organizations, and in some of the cases, I'd have evidence-- they openly say that they'd seize that sort of power and execute sinners given the chance.


If a person brings up their religious beliefs and tries to broadcast them to all the world, then sure, go ahead, criticize all you want.

For the rest of us who aren't trying to make our specific views on the divine a public matter or trying to make everyone follow them or other such bullshit, it's our own business.

But why shouldn't religious belief, in principle, be debatable/examinable? I understand if a given person doesn't enjoy debate in general, sure. But in society, it is wrong in principle to apply rational debate to religion. I think (and so does Dawkins, and he gets much criticized for this) that ANY proposition should be open to debate.

That's actually vaguely surprising to me. From all accounts I've heard, he was a delightful man, with a great amount of generosity towards others and a true wonder about the world that almost everybody these days seems to lack.


Yup, i had the same impression until i actually met him. I'd thought that the way he wrote was something i could really ... REALLY ... relate to. In person, though, he was a totally different story.
In "Salmon of Doubt", he recounts that attitude, though, and how Pete Townshend ostracized his behaviour towards his fans. Pete pointed out that he never could've gotten so many opportunities for his environmental concerns and post-HGTTG pursuits if it weren't for people who appreciated his pre-uber-cynicism phase.
That was as close as myself and the other people at the symposium *ever* got to an apology for his behaviour that night.

They do to the man who wrote them. At this point I'd be careful tossing about the term 'crazy.' I haven't seen any signifigant difference in his beliefs in the unseen and anyone elses. Objectively he is no more crazy than you are, you both believe in something unsubstantiated. How much difference is there between you?

Is it numbers of followers? At a handful he's just nuts, a few hundred he's just a Jim Jones or David Koresh, but when you get to a million you get a cool hat and the stamp "Legitimate Religion" and we have to accept your teapot?

Hell, the distinction 'modern' religion seems unneccisary. The Greeks got all the good stuff from belief in Zeus, why is Zeus less probably?

Shakespeare has inspired people, doesn't make him a deity.

Morphine has made comforted people facing death.

Al Gore has unified people in a social cause.

Walt Whitman has given moral codes.

None of them gods.

The crazy man on the street smells like old urine, can't keep from gesticulating wildly and swearing randomly, and lives in a box, while I am able to understand the concept of burden of proof as illustrated by Bertrand Russell's famous essay, and objectively he is no more crazy than I?:rolleyes:

You have yet to ask me any questions about my beliefs or how I came to them. I would not suggest comparing them to delusional rantings or any thing else until you know what you are actually discussing. As for your other examples, I would reply that other things can do some of the same things that religion does without them being religions.

While this might be a ringing endorsement for Buddhism, it does not actually address anything. And I suspect if you examined the history of China and Buddhism you'd find some less than stellar moments.

It addresses your statement below:

The fact that things that have no more tangibility than an invisible bunny, space pasta, or invisible pink unicorns are giving people direction is part of the problem because as much 'comfort' and 'morals' sky beardie has dolled out there has also been suffering and cruelity that would be difficult for the participants to justify without it.

Perhaps I misread it but I wasunder the impression that you meant that the moral compass and comfort in adversity that religion gives to its followers is somehow linked to all the cruelty and suffering done in the name of that very religion. To refute that, I gave an example of a religion that has provided these things but has not committed such barbarities.

Rereading it, I may have misunderstood your original statement.

These things are all possible without bullshit.

If you need the bullshit, then whatever. However, the power of that bullshit is frankly dangerous. And the bullshit you need to face your own mortality becomes a problem when we're fighting wars over who has the best imaginary friend or legislating on what people imagined their imaginary friend hates.

Yes, sympathy and compassion are possible without bullshit. But you make an assumption that the people need the bullshit. They don't. They need the sympathy and compassion. Religion is one way a community provides that sympathy and compassion.

You are correct that religion is a powerful political tool, but it is also unrelated to what we are discussing. The problem of religious war and faith based legislation has nothing to do with bringing comfort to members of the religious community.

Comparing belief in God to Russell's Teapot is an argument from analogy. For an argument from analogy to be valid it isn't necessary for the two things being compared to be alike in every way, only that they're similar in some way which is relevant to the argument. For example, Paley famously proposed the teleological argument for the existence of God as an argument from analogy, comparing the human eye to a watch. The fact that watches are hard and metallic while eyes are squishy and organic doesn't matter too much, as it's their complexity that is being compared.

Similarly, when comparing God to a Celestial Teapot the only thing that is being compared is the evidence for their existence, any perceived benefits from religious belief are irrelevant unless they can only be explained by the existence of a supreme being.

I almost totally agree with you. It is possible to make assertions about Russell's teapot (it has a void for storing tea and a spout and is able to exist in a vacuum), while it is impossible to make any assertions about god or her nature. Maybe I'm wrong.

But religion DOES make claims about objective truth. Christianity claims that there is a God who created the world, that Jesus was his son and our savior, Islam claims that there is no God but Allah, and Muhammed is his prophet, et c. Those are claims of factual truth. Either there is a God, or there is not a God. It's an objective fact one way or the other. It's not "everybody is right, there is both a god and not a god." Some people are wrong. And when I examine the evidence, my conclusion is that it is most likely theism that is factually incorrect.

Not quite, religious leaders make claims that the followers are to believe as objective truths. The followers use faith to believe these claims. If you have no faith in these leaders, you can make up your own mind,like Luther did.

Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick, but I got the impression that he (she?) was arguing for the existence of God, rather than just for the benefits of religious belief. Hopefully they'll clarify.

I was trying to say that the validity of religious belief is affected by more than what we can prove about it. We can not prove the existence of god. Russell's teapot serves a nice, hot cup of 'why even bother?'

When we compare god to a teapot and say that we can prove the existence of one as easily as the other, we are also asking the believer why he or she chooses to believe in god rather than the teapot. After all, both have the same amount of evidence.

And I relpy that religion provides experiences that a teapot cannot.

Actually, it is best to be impartial when viewing evidence of any kind. You do question it thoroughly, but it is being analytical, to be critical is "to be inclined to find fault or to judge with severity, often too readily" according to the dictionary.
Depends, i guess, on how much you want to capitalise the word "Truth".

Depends, i guess, on how much you want to capitalise the word "Truth".

I like to stay away from the subject of Truth.

It is really hard to obtain.

I like to stay away from the subject of Truth.

It is really hard to obtain.I think that's what CToaN is getting at ... due dilligence.

This thread has become an exercise in how many pieces a hair can be split.

This thread has become an exercise in how many pieces a hair can be split.

Perhaps that's predictable, given the nature of the thread.

But it DOES take less for an atheist to get the radical label than a theist. The evidence for that is right in front of you. You might not call atheists fools, but MANY mainstream Christians do. (Not radical fringe groups, but mainstream.) Again, a Christian has to, at least, expound upon how he'd execute non-believers if he ran the theocracy he desired to be labeled radical in today's society.

Well, they shouldn't. As far as I'm concerned they are out of line and very rude. Perhaps even radical. For the record, not every atheist who calls a religious person a fool is radical, that is just rude. A radical atheist would be one who wanted to say, abolish religion or some such extreme thing.

Yes, he says there's no evidence for, so that it's an irrational belief. Which is true. And he also says that religious belief should be equally open to debate and examination as, say, political belief.

It is true that it's an irrational belief. I don't mind that. As for debate and examination, for one, what's the point? Nothing can be accomplished since everyone knows it's impossible to prove anyway. My political beliefs are public and open to debate. My religious beliefs, since they have no bearing on the lives of others (unlike my political beliefs, which, if enacted into policy as I wish them to be, would affect others) I don't really consider to be something that needs to be dragged out and debated. How do my religious beliefs affect you?

The thing is, the ones who say that aren't considered that radical, unless they actually talk about their plans for a murderous theocracy.

Perhaps they should be.

Eh, I suppose that was more of a question of interest for me than anything, but I guess if I was trying to make a point, it's that even as large an organization as the Catholic Church probably would do that-- so nobody can say "Well, it's only a few scattered believers that are like that." But the Catholic Church was just an example. I'd say the same about a lot of other religious organizations, and in some of the cases, I'd have evidence-- they openly say that they'd seize that sort of power and execute sinners given the chance.

Then they are quite radical. Anybody who would harm others for not following edicts which should be voluntarily taken up and self-enforced I think is very radical.

But why shouldn't religious belief, in principle, be debatable/examinable? I understand if a given person doesn't enjoy debate in general, sure. But in society, it is wrong in principle to apply rational debate to religion. I think (and so does Dawkins, and he gets much criticized for this) that ANY proposition should be open to debate.

It is stupid to apply ration debate to religion, something we have already established as irrational. It's a pointless exercise. My political beliefs, as I've said earlier are an open target, because I've made them public, it's obvious that I want the laws to be based on them and that I think they'll be good for everybody.

My religious beliefs are a different thing entirely. I have not made them public, indeed, the only things I've said about them even on this thread are that I have them and that I'm not Christian. I do not want the laws to be based on them, because why should policy be based on something unprovable? In short, they don't affect you and have no possibility of doing so. The minute I start trying to convert you or trying to base policy on my religious beliefs, sure, attack them all you want. But until I do that, in my opinion, attacking me for something that has no effect on you whatsoever, is just being fucking nosy.

Note: In this post I'm having a lot of trouble with distinguishing verbs from nouns. I revert to an 18th Century form from time to time, capitalizing Nouns. I will also use "radical" in the sense it is most widely used in this thread, as "militant" rather than "basic and atavistic" which I hold to be it's best meaning.

To address the question of "why does it take so much less for an atheist to be considered radical than for a theist":

Atheism is a perfectly okay belief, that there is no God. As a personal belief, that's fine. Atheists who seek to explain the same mysteries as theists (origin of the universe ... the sense of being which seems to the Being as more than simple organic function ... whether or not there is an objective moral standard on any issue) are fine ... until they start defining their position by opposition to the theist one.

The radical theist rarely targets atheists. They may abhor the "Godless" but it's almost always in conjunction with "and the believers in Satan, and Muhammedans and baby-killers and pagans and that false believer who mows his lawn on a Sunday morning" ... yeah, OK, hyperbole there ... but my point is that radical theists are against so many things that they are usually more easily categorized as "Nutter" than "Radical."

Whereas when an Atheist steps out, takes to the crusade as it were, they come right at the theist. Like the radical theist, they're looking for someone to blame and they're mostly preaching to the choir also. It's more about making their points to their own satisfaction than really trying to improve the theist's understanding. But the difference is that the radical theist is usually advocating some kind of theocracy, of forcing others to act as though they believed as the theist does. The radical atheist often targets the beliefs themselves of the theist.

No, of course I don't think laws should enforce a religious belief (or that government funding should be offered to churches as if they were charitable organizations, or that time should be taken out of school classes for prayer, or that religious beliefs have any standing in the judgement of any civil crime), but I also don't think that tracing the origins of bad policy back to people's individual beliefs or trying to debunk beliefs held from self-declared faith should be tolerated. I don't believe in ThoughtCrime.

Both the radical theist and the radical atheist are offensive. They practice conversion, they take the battle to the minds of others, making them think in paradigms not their own, just to defend their own turf.

But the radical atheist isn't carrying baggage. While the radical theist targets everything outside their comfort-zone of faith, and is thereby doomed to fail (reality is bloody huge, and getting bigger) -- the radical atheist targets only one thing, religious belief.

The theist is burdened by faith (an asset within one's belief system, but a liability in debate). The atheist has the benefit of rampant Science, a team which is on a huge winning streak of solving mysteries.

It's not a fair fight. And that's my answer to why an atheist is considered radical so much more easily than a theist.

--------------------
I am agnostic, btw. I am no closer to religious belief than I was at twelve, but neither am I any more certain of the non-existence of god. And I revile the concept "chuck it out because it is old" as much as "revere it because it is old."

For a pretty adornment to my dreary post, here is the last paragraph of the Stephen Hawkings' A Brief History of Time:

However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God.

Actually, it is best to be impartial when viewing evidence of any kind. You do question it thoroughly, but it is being analytical, to be critical is "to be inclined to find fault or to judge with severity, often too readily" according to the dictionary. I agree with your description of working with any sort of evidence, but not with the fact that you seem to think everything should be approached as if it is destined to fail all your expectations.
As a scientist, I know that I can never prove anything. Ever. All I can do is disprove or fail to disprove.

As I said in an earlier thread, my religious beliefs are like my genitalia. No one's business but mine.
...until you choose to whip them out in public.

I find debating/discussing religion is a bit like slamming one's head into a brick wall repeatedly. Nothing is going to be accomplished and someone is going to walk away slightly hurt or annoyed. Trying to prove or disproved something (ie god) that can not be shown either way is circular by nature, thus not much can be accomplished.
If you're trying to prove or disprove God, then that's true.

Happily, that's never my aim when having this discussions, so I've found them to be quite productive.

...until you choose to whip them out in public.

That's an inadequate response to Callisdrun's several excellent posts.

Yeah, you did a lot of heavy lifting early in the thread. Sure, you might be busy now. But it's a debate which would be worth seeing.

*checks the cupboard for popping corn*

That's an inadequate response to Callisdrun's several excellent posts.

Yeah, you did a lot of heavy lifting early in the thread. Sure, you might be busy now. But it's a debate which would be worth seeing.

*checks the cupboard for popping corn*
What debate is that?

What debate is that?

My mistake, as usual. I thought you'd picked the final line out of one of Callisdrun's several long posts. I was wrong.

I infer from your short responses to short posts that you are busy now. But when you get the time, those posts are worth a read. Gift-of-God's, too.

You were really putting it about early in the thread. You seemed a bit angry, calling other people's posts "bullshit" and such.

*fails to find popcorn*

My mistake, as usual. I thought you'd picked the final line out of one of Callisdrun's several long posts. I was wrong.

I infer from your short responses to short posts that you are busy now. But when you get the time, those posts are worth a read. Gift-of-God's, too.

I've read the posts. What, exactly, do you feel has been neglected?


You were really putting it about early in the thread. You seemed a bit angry, calling other people's posts "bullshit" and such.

Once again, people should not mistake bluntness for anger.

I haven't been angry at all during my participation on this thread. I've been mildly annoyed once or twice, but nothing approaching anger. After years of having these discussions (and countless rounds of discussion on NS General alone), it takes quite a bit to actually get me angry. I'm not saying this to brag or to put anybody down, just to clarify.

I use curse words a lot, which I think throws some people. Probably makes me come off as angry when I'm not. I'm one of those people who uses "fuck" like a comma in real life. The amount of cursing I do does not correlate with how angry I am.

This thread has become an exercise in how many pieces a hair can be split.

Philosophy typically goes in that direction...

Philosophy typically goes in that direction...

from the tips to the roots ...