NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I gotta admit something:
I fail to see the difference between Fundamentalist Christians and Militant Atheists. They support completely opposite ideas, but are completely identical in their manner of presenting it, which I thought was the reason for the opposition of the fundies. They both have pretty strong contempt for the other side, both are completely convinced they are right, both bind together as a "community", both seek to prosetlyze and export their beliefs, and both seek to reduce the influence of the other. So, I guess my question is, independent of what they believe, is there a real difference in the mindset of the two sides?

independent of what they believe

Doesn't that make all the difference?

Is there usually a difference between two radical groups?
Yes.
Are they both radical?
Yes.

What is the point of this thread?
No idea.
Is that smoke I see?
Yes, and probably flames somewhere down the path.

Are they both radical?
Yes.

But the more important question is: so what?

Is there usually a difference between two radical groups?
Yes.
Are they both radical?
Yes.

What is the point of this thread?
No idea.
Is that smoke I see?
Yes, and probably flames somewhere down the path.

Yeah, unfortunately, there are probably some flames down the path. I'm curious because I've never honestly seen the difference between two uncomprimising points of view.

But the more important question is: so what?

Who cares?

I'm curious because I've never honestly seen the difference between two uncomprimising points of view.

What they advocate?

Is an uncompromising stance against, say, genocide the same as an uncompromising stance in favor of it?

Ok, I gotta admit something:
I fail to see the difference between Fundamentalist Christians and Militant Atheists. They...are completely identical in their manner of presenting it, which I thought was the reason for the opposition of the fundies.

even if true (and its not), that is totally not the reason at all in the slightest, and i wonder how you could possibly think that it is.

So, I guess my question is, independent of what they believe, is there a real difference in the mindset of the two sides?

one pushes a useful and reliable method of belief formation, the other pushes a harmful and stupid one.
more generally, one is right and one is wrong.

Is an uncompromising stance against, say, genocide the same as an uncompromising stance in favor of it?

They are both uncompromising.
However, the stances are different.

Two sides of an equally vile coin.

What they advocate?

I've always followed this philosophy:
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies. --Nietzsche

How can someone be so convinced of the truth just because contemporary evidence supports it? The ever changing nature of what we know could very well support the opposite point of view in 100 years. How can one be so self assured?

I've always followed this philosophy:
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies. --Nietzsche

How can someone be so convinced of the truth just because contemporary evidence supports it? The ever changing nature of what we know could very well support the opposite point of view in 100 years. How can one be so self assured?

Yea...
Doesn't matter if my convictions turn out to be wrong in 100 years.

one pushes a useful and reliable method of belief formation, the other pushes a harmful and stupid one.
more generally, one is right and one is wrong.

Ideologies don't cause harm, the way it's applied does. With or without religion, there will still be wars and oppression and the like. Social darwinism, a secular philosophy (i.e. not tied to religion in any way) was used to justify imperialism and big businesses impovershing their workers.

Ok, I gotta admit something:
I fail to see the difference between Fundamentalist Christians and Militant Atheists. They support completely opposite ideas, but are completely identical in their manner of presenting it, which I thought was the reason for the opposition of the fundies. They both have pretty strong contempt for the other side, both are completely convinced they are right, both bind together as a "community", both seek to prosetlyze and export their beliefs, and both seek to reduce the influence of the other. So, I guess my question is, independent of what they believe, is there a real difference in the mindset of the two sides?

I think the difference is there are far fewer reliable examples of militant atheist trying to dominate how we live, whereas there are far more examples of fundamentalist christians.

That and the atheist are uglier.:p

one pushes a useful and reliable method of belief formation, the other pushes a harmful and stupid one.

I'm pretty sure militant atheists pose nothing useful and reliable (and are just as likely to espouse their own ridiculous ideas)...

I'm pretty sure militant atheists pose nothing useful and reliable

empiricism and logic are not useful or reliable?

I'm pretty sure militant atheists pose nothing useful and reliable (and are just as likely to espouse their own ridiculous ideas)...

Their ridiculous ideas are generally along the lines of "you're wrong" "you're an idiot" etc. They don't propose beliefs in the same way, which is the big difference here.

empiricism and logic are not useful or reliable?

They're useful but not always reliable. Even with the use of empiricism as the basis of scientific thought for the last 400 or so years, our understanding of the universe has been completely revolutionized. Evidence is constantly being uncovered and basing a belief and taking an uncomprimising stance on it on contemporary evidence only is ridiculous. Ehhh, not ridiculous, but not a reliable source for a 100% accurate belief.

The difference is that one group offers hope and purpose in life through the salvation of our sins by the death of Jesus Christ, while the other offers only the darkness and despair of a life with no meaning and no higher purpose.

Their ridiculous ideas are generally along the lines of "you're wrong" "you're an idiot" etc. They don't propose beliefs in the same way, which is the big difference here.

I don't know, Marxism and Lysenkoism were pretty much in that vein...

I don't know, Marxism and Lysenkoism were pretty much in that vein...

Most ideologies devolve to that.

I'm always tempted to side with militant atheism, well so long as there not crucifying priests and such (but I'm tempted with some cases especially Bishops)

the whole thing just seems a natural course of action what with dark age superstitions being ridiculed to bedtime stories more and more

The difference is that one group offers hope and purpose in life through the salvation of our sins by the death of Jesus Christ

unless you take one toe out of line by possibly thinking for yourself or I don't know actually look at the logic of silly things like Noah's ark

They're useful but not always reliable. Even with the use of empiricism as the basis of scientific thought for the last 400 or so years, our understanding of the universe has been completely revolutionized. Evidence is constantly being uncovered and basing a belief and taking an uncomprimising stance on it on contemporary evidence only is ridiculous. Ehhh, not ridiculous, but not a reliable source for a 100% accurate belief.

reliability doesn't require foolproofness. here is the thing, which method is open to new evidence?
a)logic and empiricism
b)"this book is literally true in all respects and cannot be challenged"

it is always best to follow the best available evidence, while remaining open to new developments in the future. what other methods even could be reliable?

The difference is that one group offers hope and purpose in life through the salvation of our sins by the death of Jesus Christ, while the other offers only the darkness and despair of a life with no meaning and no higher purpose.

Meaning can come from many things, not just service to a higher power.

The issue here is just of the sad commonality that both sides are so adamant that they are right that they deny the other side a chance to speak. Neither is right, they're just a pair of children trying to shout each other down.

I'm always tempted to side with militant atheism, well so long as there not crucifying priests and such (but I'm tempted with some cases especially Bishops)

"La única iglesia que ilumina es la que arde"

reliability doesn't require foolproofness. here is the thing, which method is open to new evidence?
a)logic and empiricism
b)"this book is literally true in all respects and cannot be challenged"

it is always best to follow the best available evidence, while remaining open to new developments in the future. what other methods even could be reliable?

When I mean reliability, I mean reliability that empiricism leads to atheism. The two are not interconnected; atheism uses empiricism as a tool to support its claims. But empiricism isn't so biased. Consider this: a hypothetical situation in which scientists discovered the true source of the human "soul" or whatnot, proving Christianity.
Logically, the errors of human perception erradicate evidence on both sides and reduce it down to a simple 50-50 chance:

50% God exists in some form or another
50% He doesn't

The difference is that one group offers hope and purpose in life through the salvation of our sins by the death of Jesus Christ, while the other offers only the darkness and despair of a life with no meaning and no higher purpose.

Thats one way to think of it I suppose

When I mean reliability, I mean reliability that empiricism leads to atheism. The two are not interconnected; atheism uses empiricism as a tool to support its claims. But empiricism isn't so biased.

if you follow the evidence, you do not arrive at any gods. they lack any evidence at all.

Logically, the errors of human perception erradicate evidence on both sides and reduce it down to a simple 50-50 chance:

50% God exists in some form or another
50% He doesn't

only if we also accept that there is a 50-50 chance of everything. but we have no reason to think that at all.

The issue here is just of the sad commonality that both sides are so adamant that they are right that they deny the other side a chance to speak.

when have fundies ever been denied a chance to speak? when have atheists arguments ever been even vaguely addressed?

if you follow the evidence, you do not arrive at any gods. they lack any evidence at all.



only if we also accept that there is a 50-50 chance of everything. but we have no reason to think that at all.

Yes, but as noted in the hypothetical example, only contemporary evidence leads us to that conclusion. Past evidence told us something different and who knows where future evidence will lead us. Our understanding of the universe is constantly changing, and saying something is the undeniable truth solely on contemporary evidence is wrong (for Christians and athiests).

And the logic example wasn't to dissuade you from thinking, just to show that logic is pretty neutral in the argument for and against atheism.

when have fundies ever been denied a chance to speak? when have atheists arguments ever been even vaguely addressed?

Richard Dawkins, or whatever his name is comes to mind. Atheist views are addressed appropriately. If you're upset that atheist's views aren't represented as equally fundies, that's because the atheists make up a significantly smaller proportion of the population, therefore, their view is less often heard. The nature of democracy.

when have fundies ever been denied a chance to speak? when have atheists arguments ever been even vaguely addressed?

It's not so much that sides aren't given the chance to speak, but that they're not being given the courtesy of being listened to.

And I hate both groups because they're really just gigantic assholes wearing human suits.

The difference is that one group offers hope and purpose in life through the salvation of our sins by the death of Jesus Christ, while the other offers only the darkness and despair of a life with no meaning and no higher purpose.

And by an ironic twist of fate, most fundamentalist christians will probably end up in Hell roasting in a vat of their own juices, pointing up at Heaven, nudging the atheist next to him and saying, "See? I was right!"

:p

Most christians worship christianity and not Christ.

The difference is that one group offers hope and purpose in life

And the other is religion...

And the other is religion...

Atheism offers hope and purpose? That's news to me...

Atheism offers hope and purpose? That's news to me...

A one way ticket to the devil's playground.
In-flight meal too.

when have fundies ever been denied a chance to speak? when have atheists arguments ever been even vaguely addressed?

It's a matter of respect for the other viewpoint. Both sides begin with the assumption that the other is wrong, leading them to talk past another. By denying the validity of the other side, no debate is possible and it turns into a shouting match. Other Christians and atheists can debate certain points like creationism, but the radical types never seem to get past "You're wrong, I'm right."

"La única iglesia que ilumina es la que arde"

what went so wrong last century?

It's not so much that sides aren't given the chance to speak, but that they're not being given the courtesy of being listened to.

I honestly think if you walk around with "God hates fags" signs there really is no need to do anymore listening

Fundamentalist Christians and militant atheists are both vile, close-minded creatures. However, there are two crucial differences.

1 - The fundamentalist Christian wants to control your life. Militant atheists just want to jerk off publicly to how intellectually superior they think themselves to be.

2 - Atheism just happens to be correct.

Militant Atheists are not trying to change the way anyone lives.
Thier only interests really lie in not having what they see as ridiculous views from invading the way they live.
Particularly, issues like creationism being taught in schools, and abortion.

Smart atheists, like myself, do not try to change the views of any Fundie.
A person who thinks the world is only 6000 years old is not going to listen to any kind of reason, and has no interest in broadening his or her horizons.

Debate the middle-ground christians, instead.

You still cant change thier beliefs on God, but you may just get them to listen to you on other faith-related issues.

The only thing the two groups have in common is that they can often have a "rabid" mindset, in terms of the strength of thier conviction.
Thats where the similarities end.

The Fundie believes what he does becuase he was told to.
The militant atheist decides for himself.

Between the two, I have a touch more respect for the latter.

Most christians worship christianity and not Christ.

An astounishing amount of truth in that statement.

Militant Atheists are not trying to change the way anyone lives.
Thier only interests really lie in not having what they see as ridiculous views from invading the way they live.
Particularly, issues like creationism being taught in schools, and abortion.

What if, for example, someone's way of life includes creationism being taught in schools? Then athiests very much so want to change the way those individuals live, or prevent them from living that way at the very least.
Smart atheists, like myself, do not try to change the views of any Fundie.
A person who thinks the world is only 6000 years old is not going to listen to any kind of reason, and has no interest in broadening his or her horizons.

Debate the middle-ground christians, instead.

You still cant change thier beliefs on God, but you may just get them to listen to you on other faith-related issues.
Really, no interest in broadenng his or her horizons? I guess all people who believe in the fundamentals of a religion are static idiots with no drive, no hope, no intellectual yearning whatsoever, no creativity, no curiosity, and definitely no soul. :rolleyes:
The Fundie believes what he does becuase he was told to.
The militant atheist decides for himself.
Oh... or maybe the 'fundie' looked at the bible and the scientific theories, and decided for him/herself what he/she wanted to regard as the truth. The galaxy spontaneously generating is hardly a more satisfactory answer than a Creator making it.

empiricism and logic are not useful or reliable?

Atheism has nothing to do with "logic or emiricism", it just means you don't believe in God.

This idea that atheists are extra intelligent simply because they don't believe in God, is a bunch of garbage.

The Fundie believes what he does becuase he was told to.
The militant atheist decides for himself.
This isn't true, not even as a generalization. First off, nobody really "thinks for themselves". Our decisions are all based on what we perceive, which is the result of sensory input and genetics. If a person if only exposed to fundamentalist Christianity, they will have fundamentalist Christian beliefs, and it will be reasonable for them to have them because their worldview has developed within that context.

Secondly, there a plenty of atheists out there who didn't decide for themselves. While the cultish Christian groups have a more dominant presence on college campuses, atheist groups frequently exhibit the same symptoms of close-mindedness, and somebody who just happens to be invited to a "freethinkers" meeting may find themselves becoming a "freethinker" not for rational reasons, but social ones.

The galaxy spontaneously generating is hardly a more satisfactory answer than a Creator making it.

That's right. In fact both ideas are equally absurd.

I honestly think if you walk around with "God hates fags" signs there really is no need to do anymore listening

Not all fundies are Westboro's.

Fundamentalist Christians and militant atheists are both vile, close-minded creatures. However, there are two crucial differences.

1 - The fundamentalist Christian wants to control your life. Militant atheists just want to jerk off publicly to how intellectually superior they think themselves to be.

2 - Atheism just happens to be correct.

Militant atheists also, generally, want to outlaw creationism in school. I'd consider that controlling. Now, I believe creationism to be wrong to the best of my knowledge, but if a predominately Christian county/state believes it to be important enough to be included in the curriculum, then let it be. They decide their curriculum. Going on the offensive against Christian beliefs is just as bad as Christians going on the offensive against atheists.

The difference is there's a whole lot more fundamentalist Christians than militant atheists.

Oh... or maybe the 'fundie' looked at the bible and the scientific theories, and decided for him/herself what he/she wanted to regard as the truth. The galaxy spontaneously generating is hardly a more satisfactory answer than a Creator making it.Science doesn't posit a cause for the universe because there is no evidence on which to base such speculation. Claims are made based on evidence, and revised based on evidence. This brings us to a fundamental flaw in most comparison between science, religion, and atheism, which is this:

Religion is a belief system
Atheism is a single negative belief
Science is a METHOD

What if, for example, someone's way of life includes creationism being taught in schools? Then athiests very much so want to change the way those individuals live, or prevent them from living that way at the very least.

though I suppose lying to people can be a way of life, it hurts others and thus breaks the golden rule no?

Oh... or maybe the 'fundie' looked at the bible and the scientific theories, and decided for him/herself what he/she wanted to regard as the truth.

you don't seriously think that do you?

Atheism has nothing to do with "logic or emiricism", it just means you don't believe in God.

God/s not existing is a logical conclusion though

This idea that atheists are extra intelligent simply because they don't believe in God, is a bunch of garbage.

believing that fossils of dinosaurs exist however...

What if, for example, someone's way of life includes creationism being taught in schools? Then athiests very much so want to change the way those individuals live, or prevent them from living that way at the very least.

In wich case, society is firmly with the atheist.
So far, Creationism is not taught in public schools. Therefore, the status quo is something the atheist is comfortable with. Theres nothing to change.


Really, no interest in broadenng his or her horizons? I guess all people who believe in the fundamentals of a religion are static idiots with no drive, no hope, no intellectual yearning whatsoever, no creativity, no curiosity, and definitely no soul. :rolleyes:

Were talking about Fundamentalist Christians, remember.
Ever met one that wanted to hear about science?


Oh... or maybe the 'fundie' looked at the bible and the scientific theories, and decided for him/herself what he/she wanted to regard as the truth. The galaxy spontaneously generating is hardly a more satisfactory answer than a Creator making it.

Would you care to show us how many scientific theories are congruent with Fundamentalist ideals?

Militant atheists also, generally, want to outlaw creationism in school. I'd consider that controlling. Now, I believe creationism to be wrong to the best of my knowledge, but if a predominately Christian county/state believes it to be important enough to be included in the curriculum, then let it be. They decide their curriculum. Going on the offensive against Christian beliefs is just as bad as Christians going on the offensive against atheists.

The problem is that they believe creationism to be a science. Which it's not.

If they taught it under the banner of theology I'd be fine.

But when you start stamping science textbooks with natural selection is only a theory, you've lost all reason.

Militant atheists also, generally, want to outlaw creationism in school. I'd consider that controlling. Now, I believe creationism to be wrong to the best of my knowledge, but if a predominately Christian county/state believes it to be important enough to be included in the curriculum, then let it be. They decide their curriculum. Going on the offensive against Christian beliefs is just as bad as Christians going on the offensive against atheists.
I would suggest that they simply interested in categorizing Creationism correctly by putting it in comparative philosophy/religion class rather than science class.

Militant atheists also, generally, want to outlaw creationism in school. I'd consider that controlling. Now, I believe creationism to be wrong to the best of my knowledge, but if a predominately Christian county/state believes it to be important enough to be included in the curriculum, then let it be. They decide their curriculum. Going on the offensive against Christian beliefs is just as bad as Christians going on the offensive against atheists.

Except that there is separation of church & state, so teaching any sort of religion in public schools is wrong.

If you want your kids to be taught creationism, enroll them in a catholic school.

Not all fundies are Westboro's.

yeah I'm sure some are rational upstanding people...*reads bible* oh wait never mind

In wich case, society is firmly with the atheist.
So far, Creationism is not taught in public schools. Therefore, the status quo is something the atheist is comfortable with. Theres nothing to change.

Good then. But society being with the athiest hardly justifies it based off your point that athiests do not want to change how 'fundies' want to live their lives. If I kept denying someone a job, I am pretty sure that would change their life.
Were talking about Fundamentalist Christians, remember.
Ever met one that wanted to hear about science?
I have never met one.
I am beginning to doubt their supposed widespread existence.

Would you care to show us how many scientific theories are congruent with Fundamentalist ideals?
How is that relevant? Theories are not Laws, just guesses that have been tested enough and with consistent enough results that it is highly plausible they are true. But how many times have you witnessed the Universe being created? Personally, I have yet to see one, been meaning to catch a glimpse next time it comes around, so I can jot down how it happened.

Science doesn't posit a cause for the universe because there is no evidence on which to base such speculation. Claims are made based on evidence, and revised based on evidence. This brings us to a fundamental flaw in most comparison between science, religion, and atheism, which is this:

Big Bang Theory anyone? Eh?
Religion is a belief system
Atheism is a single negative belief
Science is a METHOD
Mhmm.

Except that there is separation of church & state, so teaching any sort of religion in public schools is wrong.

If you want your kids to be taught creationism, enroll them in a catholic school.

I wouldn't consider that a violation of seperation of church and state considering that the in this case, the church isn't involved in the state.

It's a matter of respect for the other viewpoint. Both sides begin with the assumption that the other is wrong, leading them to talk past another. By denying the validity of the other side, no debate is possible and it turns into a shouting match. Other Christians and atheists can debate certain points like creationism, but the radical types never seem to get past "You're wrong, I'm right."

have you actually read anything presented by any 'militant' atheists? because i have never encountered anything of the sort from them.

names, dates, titles, etc?

How can someone be so convinced of the truth just because contemporary evidence supports it?

It may be discovered, one day, that the world is controlled by near-omnipotent reptilian creatures from another dimension. Does that mean that we are forbidden to characterize people who believe this now as absurd?

More important than the specific positions advocated is the grounding for them. If I heard a convincing philosophical argument for the existence of God (or for the other claims religious fundamentalists make), I'd accept it. If I saw convincing empirical evidence for the existence of God (or for the other claims religious fundamentalists make), I'd accept it too.

But for now, when religious fundamentalists maintain their beliefs despite a lack of philosophical grounding and empirical support, the situation is different.

If you want your kids to be taught creationism, enroll them in a catholic school.

I'd say that if you wanted your kids to be force fed this "science" at school you probably have to ask yourself what your doing with children

If you want your kids to be taught creationism, enroll them in a catholic school.Catholicism went over to evolution long ago.

It's not so much that sides aren't given the chance to speak, but that they're not being given the courtesy of being listened to.

they haven't said anything new in hundreds of years, and it was soundly disproven then. we listen, but so far there has been nothing to listen to.

Big Bang Theory anyone? Eh?A how, not a why, and I don't think there is widespread consensus on whether it was a result of a vacuum fluctuation or other universes colliding or a simulation being run on an extrauniversal alien supercomputer.

Atheism has nothing to do with "logic or emiricism", it just means you don't believe in God.

in so far as atheists are atheists for reasons, it is for those reasons. now, clearly there might be atheists who are such for dumb reasons, but that is irrelevant in this argument, since we are talking about the particular group getting called 'militant' atheists, which includes arguers dawkins and pals.

A how, not a why, and I don't think there is widespread consensus on whether it was a result of a vacuum fluctuation or other universes colliding or a simulation being run on an extrauniversal alien supercomputer.

Exactly. A how.
The Big Bang Theory is not considerably more plausible than a Creator crafting the Universe. It can just be explained more sciencey-like.

Good then. But society being with the athiest hardly justifies it based off your point that athiests do not want to change how 'fundies' want to live their lives. If I kept denying someone a job, I am pretty sure that would change their life.

Its the Fundie who wants to change the issue of creationism in schools. The atheist would resist that particular change. Not the other way around. In this particular case, its the Fundie, who would want to change the way others live.


I have never met one.
I am beginning to doubt their supposed widespread existence.

Theres more of them than you think.
In my town, we have (or used to) more churches per capita than anywhere else in the world. We have several of them.


How is that relevant? .

You know what a fossil is?
Of course you do.
This is because your smart enough to know that certain material can become hard and stonelike after millions of years, under the right conditions.
The Fundie refuses to believe in them, becuase the world is "only 6000" years old.

They often believe that dinosaurs and humans liuved at the same time.
Science proves this idea to be rather stupid.
The Fundie sticks his fingers in his ears and yells " la la la".

I wouldn't consider that a violation of seperation of church and state considering that the in this case, the church isn't involved in the state.

In a way it is, you have a bunch of ministers & church goers calling for something that clearly isn't science to be taught in science class. It also clearly is religion, and no one religion should be favored over another.

Its the Fundie who wants to change the issue of creationism in schools. The atheist would resist that particular change. Not the other way around. In this particular case, its the Fundie, who would want to change the way others live.

Granted, but I am sure the militant athiest would attempt to 'turn back the tide' as the saying goes, if society and law ever allowed creationism(for example) taught in schools.
Theres more of them than you think.
In my town, we have (or used to) more churches per capita than anywhere else in the world. We have several of them.
*stays in safe-haven of non-fundamental churchiness*
You know what a fossil is?
Of course you do.
This is because your smart enough to know that certain material can become hard and stonelike after millions of years, under the right conditions.
The Fundie refuses to believe in them, becuase the world is "only 6000" years old.
They often believe that dinosaurs and humans liuved at the same time.
Science proves this idea to be rather stupid.
The Fundie sticks his fingers in his ears and yells " la la la".
Which is why I used the theories behind the creation/explosion/existence of the Universe as my point of refutation and not evolution. :p

Exactly. A how.
The Big Bang Theory is not considerably more plausible than a Creator crafting the Universe. It can just be explained more sciencey-like.

Big Bang Theory isn't even contradictory with the notion of a creator. However, the idea of a creator is something that's not suggested by evidence, so science does not concern itself with the possibility.

The Big Bang Theory is not considerably more plausible than a Creator crafting the Universe.

sure it is. it has evidence. lots and lots of it.

Big Bang Theory isn't even contradictory with the notion of a creator.

Depends on whether the Big Bang was a natural process with some funky molecular stuff/large turtles, or if it was caused by some supercalafrajalistic Being.

However, the idea of a creator is something that's not suggested by evidence, so science does not concern itself with the possibility.
*rubs hands together maniacally and cackles*
Oh, it should....it should...

This isn't true, not even as a generalization. First off, nobody really "thinks for themselves". Our decisions are all based on what we perceive, which is the result of sensory input and genetics.

If that were entirely true, no one would believe in God, would they?
How much sensory input has God shown?



If a person if only exposed to fundamentalist Christianity, they will have fundamentalist Christian beliefs, and it will be reasonable for them to have them because their worldview has developed within that context.

Religions indoctrinate thier young people into membership.
They are taught what to believe from the time they can understand words.

Atheists do not.


Secondly, there a plenty of atheists out there who didn't decide for themselves. While the cultish Christian groups have a more dominant presence on college campuses, atheist groups frequently exhibit the same symptoms of close-mindedness, and somebody who just happens to be invited to a "freethinkers" meeting may find themselves becoming a "freethinker" not for rational reasons, but social ones.

I for one, have never met anyone who decided to not believe in something to fit into any social group. Im not saying this doesnt happen, ive just never met any.

Also, Ive never heard of any groups of atheists getting together to talk about what they didnt believe in.

The difference is that one side has the word "militant" in it, and therefore sounds cooler.

yeah I'm sure some are rational upstanding people...*reads bible* oh wait never mind

So what's your point? "Christians are morons"?

If that were entirely true, no one would believe in God, would they?
How much sensory input has God shown?

He may be a determinist or something.
And none, as far as I can physically see.

Religions indoctrinate thier young people into membership.
They are taught what to believe from the time they can understand words.

Atheists do not.
Generalization.

False as well as a generalization.(because they are taught what to believe, but it is less easier identified being as we are all eventually taught the exact same things, in most cases)

I for one, have never met anyone who decided to not believe in something to fit into any social group. Im not saying this doesnt happen, ive just never met any.

Also, Ive never heard of any groups of atheists getting together to talk about what they didnt believe in.
Not much to talk about you would think. But look at this forum for example, all they need is one Theist and they can talk all day.

Granted, but I am sure the militant athiest would attempt to 'turn back the tide' as the saying goes, if society and law ever allowed creationism(for example) taught in schools.

Definately. However, they would not be alone either, as most christians wouldnt want that to happen either. Thats how it gets voted down every time.


*stays in safe-haven of non-fundamental churchiness*

Youre better off where you are, I would guess.
Unless, I can invite you to the First Church of We Dont Buy It? :P


Which is why I used the theories behind the creation/explosion/existence of the Universe as my point of refutation and not evolution. :p

Yah, if even the Catholics are into Evolution these days...

Militant atheists? Yeah, remember when those atheists blew up those abortion clinics? Remember that time that atheists flew airplanes into skyscrapers? Yeah. Those atheists are so damn radical!

Dawkins criticizes religion as irrational, and people call him militant-- yet for a religious person isn't militant or radical until they call for active persecution of another group, or even actively participate in it! It's perfectly par for course for religious leaders to call atheists fools, yet as soon as the situation is reversed, the atheist is "militant." It's a clear double standard, and I don't see why anybody can support it.

Definately. However, they would not be alone either, as most christians wouldnt want that to happen either. Thats how it gets voted down every time.
Aye.
Youre better off where you are, I would guess.
Unless, I can invite you to the First Church of We Dont Buy It? :P
I already belong to a church, but I assure you, it is quite sane.
Yah, if even the Catholics are into Evolution these days...
*evolves*

Look, we reached a moderate degree of resolution. This is how all debates should progress. Towards resolution. :)

If that were entirely true, no one would believe in God, would they?
How much sensory input has God shown?
God evolved as a cultural meme. The idea has helped people survive, reproduce, and defeat their enemies.

Religions indoctrinate thier young people into membership.
They are taught what to believe from the time they can understand words.
Wrong. Although I'm now atheist, I was raised Catholic, and while my religious education was certainly biased in its favor, I never was told what to believe.
Atheists do not.Some do. I've witnessed it.

I for one, have never met anyone who decided to not believe in something to fit into any social group. Im not saying this doesnt happen, ive just never met any.When it comes to such things, the difference between believing in something and not believing in something is not a significant one.
Also, Ive never heard of any groups of atheists getting together to talk about what they didnt believe in.In my experience, that's the norm for an explicitly atheist gathering.

[quote]
Wrong. I was raised Catholic, and while my religious education was certainly biased in its favor, I never was told what to believe.

Right.
Catechism much?
First Communion?

You certainly were told.





In my experience, that's the norm for an explicitly atheist gathering.

Hmm..Ive never seen an explicitly atheist gathering.

God evolved as a cultural meme. The idea has helped people survive, reproduce, and defeat their enemies.

might as well say that syphilis helped people survive. the fact that a thing exists in a population is not evidence that the thing confers an advantage.

Ok, I gotta admit something:
I fail to see the difference between Fundamentalist Christians and Militant Atheists. They support completely opposite ideas, but are completely identical in their manner of presenting it, which I thought was the reason for the opposition of the fundies. They both have pretty strong contempt for the other side, both are completely convinced they are right, both bind together as a "community", both seek to prosetlyze and export their beliefs, and both seek to reduce the influence of the other. So, I guess my question is, independent of what they believe, is there a real difference in the mindset of the two sides?

There is a huge difference. Fundamentalist Christians actually exist and everything you say about them is totally true. Militant Atheists are the strawmen made up by Fundamentalist Christians and have whatever characteristics the fundies assign to them.

There is a huge difference. Fundamentalist Christians actually exist and everything you say about them is totally true. Militant Atheists are the strawmen made up by Fundamentalist Christians and have whatever characteristics the fundies assign to them.

*cuts strings*

If you are actually a real boy, I apologize in advance.

How can someone be so convinced of the truth just because contemporary evidence supports it? The ever changing nature of what we know could very well support the opposite point of view in 100 years. How can one be so self assured?

We can't be. But sitting around twiddling our thumbs and muttering "I guess we'll never know for sure" tends to be a way of not getting things done.

Neither is right, they're just a pair of children trying to shout each other down.
One side is definitely right, but which side?

Fear is the prime motivator in shouting down the other side? Ego also plays a huge part in these never ending struggles between polar opposites.

might as well say that syphilis helped people survive. the fact that a thing exists in a population is not evidence that the thing confers an advantage.

Society rarely develops a completely pointless/useless/ harmful institution. The fact that the belief becomes outmolded with the times and becomes backwards or harmful doesn't mean it always was. God/ religion was very useful in the old days as psychological comfort for people who had shitty lives, an explanation for a world that most people wouldn't otherwise know, and a method of inducing social control and order where virtually none existed before.

If it became harmful later, then it went the route of other outmolded social institutions. But for a time, it was necessary and vital for society.

You certainly were told.
I certainly wasn't. Did a Christian rape your sister or something, because you seem pretty bigoted against them.

Hmm..Ive never seen an explicitly atheist gathering.Most colleges have atheist/agnostic clubs.

Hmm..Ive never seen an explicitly atheist gathering.

We have them all the time..."freethought" clubs and all that.

Society rarely develops a completely pointless/useless/ harmful institution.

really? seems to me it happens all the time.

The fact that the belief becomes outmolded with the times and becomes backwards or harmful doesn't mean it always was. God/ religion was very useful in the old days as psychological comfort for people who had shitty lives, an explanation for a world that most people wouldn't otherwise know, and a method of inducing social control and order where virtually none existed before.

If it became harmful later, then it went the route of other outmolded social institutions. But for a time, it was necessary and vital for society.

religion predates our ancestors having particularly shitty lives, while social order and control predate religion. it serves those sorts of roles, but it seems unlikely that it formed to fill them.

the real answer seems more likely to be that religion is a byproduct of our brain's evolution. we see patterns so well that we see them where there aren't any to be seen. we model other minds so well that we can only barely help ourselves from attributing minds to everything. we work on 'good enough' decision making, which is known to be prone to confirmation bias, giving undue weight to habit and tradition, and other sorts of cognitive biases. etc.

I certainly wasn't. Did a Christian rape your sister or something, because you seem pretty bigoted against them.


Calm down there... You aren't Christian by any chance, are you?

*cuts strings*

If you are actually a real boy, I apologize in advance.
Ouch, my strings are bleeding!

I'd say the main difference between the two is their belief in God.
But you're right in saying that extremism of any type is very close to its polar opposite in the way it acts. I don't like the term "militant atheist" because it implies that these atheists are collecting guns in some backwoods' shack in Montana or something, and that's just not true. But there are plenty of atheists who are just as irrational in their disbelief, unwavering in their self-righteousness, and annoying when they try to convert you as Pat Robertson himself. If there is a God, I bet he finds all of this hilarious. I know I would. :)

Ouch, my strings are bleeding!

*chuckles*:p
I'd say the main difference between the two is their belief in God.
But you're right in saying that extremism of any type is very close to its polar opposite in the way it acts. I don't like the term "militant atheist" because it implies that these atheists are collecting guns in some backwoods' shack in Montana or something, and that's just not true. But there are plenty of atheists who are just as irrational in their disbelief, unwavering in their self-righteousness, and annoying when they try to convert you as Pat Robertson himself. If there is a God, I bet he finds all of this hilarious. I know I would. :)
I agree with you completely*.

*Pertaining to the contents of this post, limited to, and including all words stated by you within this post. Not valid in other threads. Agreements do not carry over if not acknowledged.

Calm down there... You aren't Christian by any chance, are you?No, I'm an atheist, I just don't hate people because of what they believe. Just like being white doesn't make me racist against non-white people.

But there are plenty of atheists who are just as irrational in their disbelief, unwavering in their self-righteousness, and annoying when they try to convert you as Pat Robertson himself.

names, publications, tv channels they can be seen on regularly, etc?

Militant atheists? Yeah, remember when those atheists blew up those abortion clinics? Remember that time that atheists flew airplanes into skyscrapers? Yeah. Those atheists are so damn radical!

Instead, you get atheistic state entities like China where belief is either strictly controlled- or more accurately, riddled with so many political controls (like Catholicism in China) or practically outlawed (like Falun Gong or Buddhism in Tibet).

Right.
Catechism much?
First Communion?
You certainly were told.
*senses no hate*
I certainly wasn't. Did a Christian rape your sister or something, because you seem pretty bigoted against them.

He cited two facets of catholic education. Perhaps you are both caught on the difference of meaning between "told what to believe" and "taught what catholics do". But I don't know what he meant exactly by using the word 'told'. Perhaps if he had used 'indoctrinated', it would have been more clearly hostile.
No, I'm an atheist, I just don't hate people because of what they believe. Just like being white doesn't make me racist against non-white people.
You just sound hostile. I have a problem taking hostile sounding people seriously.

names, publications, tv channels they can be seen on regularly, etc?

I don't deny Christian wackos have the advantage in media, Christian wackoism is an older establishment. But atheists' voices are certainly heard, and as they should be, free speech and all that. (I'm thinking of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris: the "Unholy Trinity.") And while the United States is a nation of Christians (not to be confused with "a Christian nation"), there are other parts of the world where the Christians, or religious in general, do not have the upper hand. Turkey is a nation that is almost ridiculously secular, and still manages to have its own special type of fanaticism.

I'm thinking of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris: the "Unholy Trinity."

ah. and which of them disbelieves irrationally?

Instead, you get atheistic state entities like China where belief is either strictly controlled- or more accurately, riddled with so many political controls (like Catholicism in China) or practically outlawed (like Falun Gong or Buddhism in Tibet).

Yes. I highly approve of China's enlightened policy in respect of nutters. One day I hope the rest of the world will adopt their forward thinking attitude.

*senses no hate*

He cited two facets of catholic education. Perhaps you are both caught on the difference of meaning between "told what to believe" and "taught what catholics do". But I don't know what he meant exactly by using the word 'told'. Perhaps if he had used 'indoctrinated', it would have been more clearly hostile.

You just sound hostile. I have a problem taking hostile sounding people seriously.
Prejudice makes me prickly.

BackwoodsSquatches makes a few posts saying all religious people are like negative such, and all atheists are like positive such. I called him/her on it, and said I wasn't told what to believe; from the context, it seemed pretty obvious to me that that was his/her meaning.

Then BackwoodsSquatches comes back and says "Yes, you were told what to believe." What is there to say to that other than "You certainly were told?"

You're right that I shouldn't be hostile. In retrospect, I don't even think his/her "You certainly were told" comment was intended to be argumentative, but rather was a manifestation of his belief system. BackwoodsSquatches may think that @of course I had to have been told, because that's how religious people are - they tell each other what to believe, while atheists formulate their beliefs based on reason@ - maybe that's the distinction between atheism and religion in BackwoodsSquatches mind, and why he/she objects to the premise of the thread.

Prejudice makes me prickly.

BackwoodsSquatches makes a few posts saying all religious people are like negative such, and all atheists are like positive such. I called him/her on it, and said I wasn't told what to believe; from the context, it seemed pretty obvious to me that that was his/her meaning.

Then BackwoodsSquatches comes back and says "Yes, you were told what to believe." What is there to say to that other than "You certainly were told?"

You're right that I shouldn't be hostile. In retrospect, I don't even think his/her "You certainly were told" comment was intended to be argumentative, but rather was a manifestation of his belief system. BackwoodsSquatches may think that @of course I had to have been told, because that's how religious people are - they tell each other what to believe, while atheists formulate their beliefs based on reason@ - maybe that's the distinction between atheism and religion in BackwoodsSquatches mind, and why he/she objects to the premise of the thread.

Perhaps. As a bleeding-side pessimist, I attempt to both agree with and refute everyone's argument, while firmly standing on the gray line in between.

ah. and which of them disbelieves irrationally?
All three, in my opinion. Their unwillingness to consider that theism has anything good to offer and conviction that their beliefs are not only among reasonable beliefs, but the only reasonable ones, seems to me very irrational.

Stephen Colbert defined, jokingly, atheism as, "a religion dedicated to its own sense of smug superiority." This is a enormous generalization, but is still true for some people.

All three, in my opinion. Their unwillingness to consider that theism has anything good to offer and conviction that their beliefs are not only among reasonable beliefs, but the only reasonable ones, seems to me very irrational.

what unwillingness? they consider the arguments and reject them with better arguments. like explicitly and at length. so what precisely are the flaws in their arguments? without flaws i don't really see where irrational enters into it at all.

Yes. I highly approve of China's enlightened policy in respect of nutters. One day I hope the rest of the world will adopt their forward thinking attitude.

So you support the brutal crackdown, arrest, imprisonment, torture, slavery and occasional disappearance of people with religious beliefs.

Brilliant.

what unwillingness? they consider the arguments and reject them with better arguments. like explicitly and at length. so what precisely are the flaws in their arguments? without flaws i don't really see where irrational enters into it at all.

They are godless heathens.
Any "rational" "thinking" that comes out "of" their unholy mouths "is" rather "unkempt" and should only be regarded with contempt.

Instead, you get atheistic state entities like China where belief is either strictly controlled- or more accurately, riddled with so many political controls (like Catholicism in China) or practically outlawed (like Falun Gong or Buddhism in Tibet).

None of that was done in the name of atheism. Catholicism and Buddhism were abandoned along with the rest of China's culture and past with the Cultural Revolution. Falen (or however you spell it) Gong was banned because it's members were getting into politics (and being obnoxious pricks) and because the chairman of China at the time was a fool.

what unwillingness? they consider the arguments and reject them with better arguments. like explicitly and at length. so what precisely are the flaws in their arguments? without flaws i don't really see where irrational enters into it at all.

They are godless heathens.
Any "rational" "thinking" that comes out "of" their unholy mouths "is" rather "unkempt" and should only be regarded with contempt.

I think Bann-ed answered it better than I ever could.
But better than even Bann-ed is this article (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=423C1809-E7F2-99DF-384721C9252B924A) by Michael Shermer, who is himself an atheist. Basically, don't become the demagogues you decry, and recognize that while you are right, people are free to disagree with you, to say you are wrong, to give you silly names like "militant atheists" (although Shermer himself uses the term, oddly enough).
I suppose then, it is not the beliefs that I find irrational but the methods. Same with the Christian Right.

I think Bann-ed answered it better than I ever could.
:eek:
Whether there was a half-truth in there or not, I was joking.

BackwoodsSquatches makes a few posts saying all religious people are like negative such, and all atheists are like positive such. I called him/her on it, and said I wasn't told what to believe; from the context, it seemed pretty obvious to me that that was his/her meaning.

You didnt "call" me on anything. As far as I was aware, we were having a discussion on Christian idealogy, and indoctrination.
Then out of nowhere, you got nasty. I suppose that tells me all about you that I need to know.
Also, Ive never once implied that all religious people are "all negative such", nor the opposite for atheists. If you somehow got that from me, you either were not reading anything I wrote, or perhaps I wasnt clear enough for you.

You may as well know, that I hold a few christians in very high regard, and have known a few atheists who are downright assholes. There are no sweeping generalizations.


Then BackwoodsSquatches comes back and says "Yes, you were told what to believe." What is there to say to that other than "You certainly were told?"

Thats because you most certainly were taught what to believe.
This was done, if you truly are/were catholic, before you were able to receive your first Communion. You were instructed on what to believe, and why.
You can argue that you never actually believed any of it, thats your right, but do not pretend that this instruction never took place, or that it does not take place for every Catholic, or any other member of any church anywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism


You're right that I shouldn't be hostile. In retrospect, I don't even think his/her "You certainly were told" comment was intended to be argumentative, but rather was a manifestation of his belief system.

Were you born Catholic?

NO?

Then it looks like I knew what I was talking about.



BackwoodsSquatches may think that of course I had to have been told, because that's how religious people are

Ummm...yup. In that respect your (former?) religion is no different than any other.
You were instructed on what to believe, from the time you first went to church.
Thats how religion works.



- they tell each other what to believe, while atheists formulate their beliefs based on reason - maybe that's the distinction between atheism and religion in BackwoodsSquatches mind, and why he/she objects to the premise of the thread.

I dont object to the premise of the thread.
I Object to anyone making assinine comments like "was your sister...", when shown clearly that religious instruction was obviously a part of your upbringing, like any other person of the same religion.
Whether or not you actually believe anything you were taught is entirely up to you, however, as Ive made abundantly clear, you were in fact, instructed on what to believe, or rather, what youre SUPPOSED to believe as a Catholic.

Atheism, is not something that can usually be taught to anyone.
Usually, such insistance has the opposite effect on anyone pushed towards it.
It almost always comes from a persons own deep inner reflections on God's existance.

:eek:
Whether there was a half-truth in there or not, I was joking.

As was I, no worries.

I think Bann-ed answered it better than I ever could.
But better than even Bann-ed is this article (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=423C1809-E7F2-99DF-384721C9252B924A) by Michael Shermer, who is himself an atheist. Basically, don't become the demagogues you decry, and recognize that while you are right, people are free to disagree with you, to say you are wrong, to give you silly names like "militant atheists" (although Shermer himself uses the term, oddly enough).
I suppose then, it is not the beliefs that I find irrational but the methods. Same with the Christian Right.

and where does dawkins, for example, use 'irrational' methods? where the hell is this demagoguery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogy)? will somebody be fucking specific on this point, please?

More important than the specific positions advocated is the grounding for them. If I heard a convincing philosophical argument for the existence of God (or for the other claims religious fundamentalists make), I'd accept it. If I saw convincing empirical evidence for the existence of God (or for the other claims religious fundamentalists make), I'd accept it too.

But for now, when religious fundamentalists maintain their beliefs despite a lack of philosophical grounding and empirical support, the situation is different.
See, the problem with that line of thinking is that you atheists completely miss the point of religion. The purpose of religion is to help us determine what should be, not what is. Evidence and the scientific method are great at discovering what is, but worthless at pointing us in any specific direction for future development or showing us what should be.

Ok, I gotta admit something:
I fail to see the difference between Fundamentalist Christians and Militant Atheists. They support completely opposite ideas, but are completely identical in their manner of presenting it, which I thought was the reason for the opposition of the fundies. They both have pretty strong contempt for the other side, both are completely convinced they are right, both bind together as a "community", both seek to prosetlyze and export their beliefs, and both seek to reduce the influence of the other. So, I guess my question is, independent of what they believe, is there a real difference in the mindset of the two sides?

Perhaps it is the persecuting fundamentalist mentality that atheists face daily?

http://www.asanet.org/cs/root/topnav/press/atheists_are_distrusted

Also, Ive never once implied that all religious people are "all negative such", nor the opposite for atheists.
This...The Fundie believes what he does becuase he was told to.
The militant atheist decides for himself.
Religions indoctrinate thier young people into membership.
They are taught what to believe from the time they can understand words.

Atheists do not....seems pretty clear to me.

Thats because you most certainly were taught what to believe.
This was done, if you truly are/were catholic, before you were able to receive your first Communion. You were instructed on what to believe, and why.
You can argue that you never actually believed any of it, thats your right, but do not pretend that this instruction never took place, or that it does not take place for every Catholic, or any other member of any church anywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism
You'll probably never be convinced - apparently you think I'm lying or something, or have some whacked out idea of what Catholicism is, but here is how it went down where I come from:

I was taken to church and taught what Catholics believe and why, and given the option to believe in it or not believe. When it came time for my age group to go through confirmation, myself and one other individual declined to participate.

Were you born Catholic?

NO?

Then it looks like I knew what I was talking about.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I was born a baby. I was raised in the Catholic church. I'm an atheist now.

Ummm...yup. In that respect your (former?) religion is no different than any other.
You were instructed on what to believe, from the time you first went to church.
Thats how religion works.You admit your preconceptions, and cover your ears when faced with testimony to the contrary. Do you see the irony? This is how fundamentalists keep their beliefs.

I dont object to the premise of the thread.
I Object to anyone making assinine comments like "was your sister...", when shown clearly that religious instruction was obviously a part of your upbringing, like any other person of the same religion.
Whether or not you actually believe anything you were taught is entirely up to you, however, as Ive made abundantly clear, you were in fact, instructed on what to believe, or rather, what youre SUPPOSED to believe as a Catholic.Yes, clearly I must be deluded. It's impossible that any religious organization anywhere might possibly respect a person's right to choose their belief! (Never mind that the necessity of free will is deeply entrenched in most non-fundamentalist religion)

Seriously though, you have some major irrational prejudices toward religion, which is why I asked about your sister. That, and I was insulted by your second-guessing of my own experiences.

Atheism, is not something that can usually be taught to anyone.
Usually, such insistance has the opposite effect on anyone pushed towards it.
It almost always comes from a persons own deep inner reflections on God's existance.What evidence do you have to support this claim? I would submit that atheism is far easier to teach somebody, since it is only one negative belief - that those who claim there is a god are mistaken. On the other hand, religions have all kinds of details and crazy things going on with them. It's just that religion has strength in numbers and makes people feel good that gives it an advantage.

See, the problem with that line of thinking is that you atheists completely miss the point of religion. The purpose of religion is to help us determine what should be, not what is. Evidence and the scientific method are great at discovering what is, but worthless at pointing us in any specific direction for future development or showing us what should be.

Not really. Religions make many claims about what is. For example, there is a God. (So they claim) There is a hell. (So the vast majority claim)
Everybody that doesn't believe in the first item (and in the proper way!) will go to the place specified in the second. (So a significant majority claim).

They don't claim that those things ought to be true, they claim that they are true.

See, the problem with that line of thinking is that you atheists completely miss the point of religion. The purpose of religion is to help us determine what should be, not what is. Evidence and the scientific method are great at discovering what is, but worthless at pointing us in any specific direction for future development or showing us what should be.

First off, I doubt that Soheran relies solely on evidence and scientific method to determine what should be.

Secondly, do you have any method other than reason and evidence to discover what should be?

Thirdly, does religion actually say what should be, or rather relentlessly tell us how things ARE?

I've always followed this philosophy:
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies. --Nietzsche

How can someone be so convinced of the truth just because contemporary evidence supports it? The ever changing nature of what we know could very well support the opposite point of view in 100 years. How can one be so self assured?

They're useful but not always reliable. Even with the use of empiricism as the basis of scientific thought for the last 400 or so years, our understanding of the universe has been completely revolutionized. Evidence is constantly being uncovered and basing a belief and taking an uncomprimising stance on it on contemporary evidence only is ridiculous. Ehhh, not ridiculous, but not a reliable source for a 100% accurate belief.

'Kay, but here's the thing-in all of the time in which our understanding has changed, where we thought things worked one way and it turned out to work another, "magic" has the shittiest track record around, batting .0 at all turns. Now, maybe you all think magic is 'due,' but it just seems pretty fucking unlikely. If 'magic' were a horse, only desperate fools who are about to lose their girlfriends and wives over their lousy gambling would bet on it.

"Anything is possible" is a fun philosophical exercise, but not everything is equally likely. You don't grant for every possibility, you don't wear a plate on your head and carry syrup in case the cosmic pancake lands on you. You have to ask yourself why you entertain that specific possibility, if its likelyhood is even reasonably entertained without having to rely on 1 million Elvis fans...

And 'atheists' (and this seems rather broad) are not inflexible, science and observation are more than allowed to adjust our understanding of the universe. There is just a profound and understandable resistance to 'believing' something just because someone has a book. There's no more reason to believe that then there is that Gandalf lead the humans to victory.
It's a matter of respect for the other viewpoint. Both sides begin with the assumption that the other is wrong, leading them to talk past another. By denying the validity of the other side, no debate is possible and it turns into a shouting match. Other Christians and atheists can debate certain points like creationism, but the radical types never seem to get past "You're wrong, I'm right."
Is there room, really? If you are evangelical is there room to not believe? Doesn't that undermine faith? And what reason does the atheist have to believe?

Militant atheists also, generally, want to outlaw creationism in school. I'd consider that controlling. Now, I believe creationism to be wrong to the best of my knowledge, but if a predominately Christian county/state believes it to be important enough to be included in the curriculum, then let it be. They decide their curriculum. Going on the offensive against Christian beliefs is just as bad as Christians going on the offensive against atheists.
Things are not true by consensus.
Militant atheists? Yeah, remember when those atheists blew up those abortion clinics? Remember that time that atheists flew airplanes into skyscrapers? Yeah. Those atheists are so damn radical!

Dawkins criticizes religion as irrational, and people call him militant-- yet for a religious person isn't militant or radical until they call for active persecution of another group, or even actively participate in it! It's perfectly par for course for religious leaders to call atheists fools, yet as soon as the situation is reversed, the atheist is "militant." It's a clear double standard, and I don't see why anybody can support it.

There is a huge difference. Fundamentalist Christians actually exist and everything you say about them is totally true. Militant Atheists are the strawmen made up by Fundamentalist Christians and have whatever characteristics the fundies assign to them.
Ya-up.

Atheism offers hope and purpose? That's news to me...
Well then... (http://www.workswithoutfaith.org/2007/04/atheist-blood-drive.html)

Secondly, what do you have any method other than reason and evidence to discover what should be?
Because of the is-ought problem. Reason and evidence are amoral; they cannot be used to derive guidelines for human behaviour.

Thirdly, does religion actually say what should be, or rather relentlessly tell us how things ARE?
Whenever religion makes statements about the way things ARE, it is only in order to persuade people to agree with a certain vision of the way things SHOULD BE. For instance, the existence of hell is only important in order to get people to behave in such a way as to avoid going to hell.

Not really. Religions make many claims about what is. For example, there is a God. (So they claim) There is a hell. (So the vast majority claim)
Everybody that doesn't believe in the first item (and in the proper way!) will go to the place specified in the second. (So a significant majority claim).

They don't claim that those things ought to be true, they claim that they are true.
Yes, but why are God and hell important at all? Why should you care whether they exist or not? Because their existence influences the way you should act.

Because of the is-ought problem. Reason and evidence are amoral; they cannot be used to derive guidelines for human behaviour.

Ok, then let me shift the question.

In what way do you or religion manage to step around the is-ought?

Well then... (http://www.workswithoutfaith.org/2007/04/atheist-blood-drive.html)
Irrelevant. I do not deny that atheists may do good things, but the problem is that they do good things for the wrong reasons, and often for no reason at all beyond a desire to conform to the cultural norms of a mostly religious society.

To use your own example from the link above, give me one good reason why an atheist should donate blood.

Ok, then let me shift the question.

In what way do you or religion manage to step around the is-ought?
By postulating the existence of an external force that is not amoral and may in fact be used to derive guidelines for human behaviour.

By postulating the existence of an external force that is not amoral and may in fact be used to derive guidelines for human behaviour.

euthyphro

By postulating the existence of an external force that is not amoral and may in fact be used to derive guidelines for human behaviour.

How does the search not fail by the very (bolded) nature of the force the religious are searching for.

If there can be found an existing moral force that spells out moral guidelines to human behavior despite the is-ought, why can there be no empirical moral evidence, why cannot reason derive a real set of moral guidelines?

If you accept an ironclad opinion of is-ought, you are almost stuck accepting that morality is not real.

Meh. There are overbearing assholes of all stripes who try to push their beliefs on others. I don't see why it should be surprising that there are both theist and atheists among such assholes.

The only difference is their reason for being assholes.

Because of the is-ought problem. Reason and evidence are amoral; they cannot be used to derive guidelines for human behaviour.


Whenever religion makes statements about the way things ARE, it is only in order to persuade people to agree with a certain vision of the way things SHOULD BE. For instance, the existence of hell is only important in order to get people to behave in such a way as to avoid going to hell.


Yes, but why are God and hell important at all? Why should you care whether they exist or not? Because their existence influences the way you should act.
Ah, but generally, when people debate religion, they aren't debating whether or not it's beneficial to society. They're debating whether it's true or not. An analogy could be made by putting a fake security camera in a place where it'll be seen. It may be beneficial for people to believe that they're being watched by a security guard, but that doesn't make it true.

Now, I'd contest the claim that religion is beneficial to society, but remember that that's not the point. The point is whether or not it's true--in which case evidence is a perfectly valid way to look at it.

Irrelevant. I do not deny that atheists may do good things, but the problem is that they do good things for the wrong reasons, and often for no reason at all beyond a desire to conform to the cultural norms of a mostly religious society.

To use your own example from the link above, give me one good reason why an atheist should donate blood.

Empathy. Other people will die if people do not donate blood, and we can have empathy for them. Just as we do not wish to die ourselves, we recognize that other people want to survive too.

You may need to believe that a sky fairy will kick your ass if you're not good if you are to behave and to treat others well, but the rest of us do not.

The only difference is their reason for being assholes.

Not really. I'm pretty sure they're assholes because that's their personalities. The beliefs they decide to try to push by being assholes are really irrelevant to the personality type. There are plenty of non-militant atheists and plenty of non-pushy/non-fundy theists.

euthyphro
Ah, but Socrates himself never gave an adequate answer to his own questions, did he?

Besides, most of Euthyphro's fallacies were due to his polytheism.

How does the search not fail by the very (bolded) nature of the force the religious are searching for.

If there can be found an existing moral force that spells out moral guidelines to human behavior despite the is-ought, why can there be no empirical moral evidence, why cannot reason derive a real set of moral guidelines?
Because, unfortunately, the nature of this moral force is such that its existence can never be empirically proven.

In other words, if God appeared in your living room right now, He could not prove Himself to be the source of morality. He could prove himself to be very powerful or know a lot of things, but He could not prove Himself to be the source of morality. Even if a source of morality exists, there is no conceivable way to prove that the object or entity in question is, in fact, the source of morality.

That is why faith is necessary.

Irrelevant. I do not deny that atheists may do good things, but the problem is that they do good things for the wrong reasons, and often for no reason at all beyond a desire to conform to the cultural norms of a mostly religious society.
Do good for the wrong reasons? Please don't tell me that the 'right reasons' aren't "Because some sky fairy told me to in this book he told someone to write."

There are reasons that make simple sense why people have a vested interest in other people that doesn't involve and invisible threatening all being that has it out for sons. (Wipes out first borns, telling his followers to kill their kids to 'test' them...hell, he killed his own kid-though that was just being mellodramatic because he brought him right back to life...)

We move slow, have no natural weapons-we needed each other in order to survive. Only people who did made it.

Beyond that, we live in a society and a sense of decency doesn't have to come from threats from a sky wizard and his zombie son.

To use your own example from the link above, give me one good reason why an atheist should donate blood.
A general interest in the community they live in, the knowledge that he might need blood one day himself and feels an obligation to contribute to such a resource.

Just for starters.

Ah, but generally, when people debate religion, they aren't debating whether or not it's beneficial to society.
Maybe other people don't, but I do. The only criterion we should use to decide whether or not to accept an idea is whether or not it is beneficial to society. Truth is only important insofar as false ideas tend to be bad ideas; but this is not always the case.

They're debating whether it's true or not. An analogy could be made by putting a fake security camera in a place where it'll be seen. It may be beneficial for people to believe that they're being watched by a security guard, but that doesn't make it true.

Now, I'd contest the claim that religion is beneficial to society, but remember that that's not the point. The point is whether or not it's true--in which case evidence is a perfectly valid way to look at it.
See, this is why I said you're missing the point:

It doesn't MATTER if religion is true or not.

1. If religion is true, all is well and we should be religious.
2. If religion is false, there is no objective morality; truth is not an absolute good; therefore there is no particular reason to uphold the truth.

So, even if religion is false, that is not a problem, since in that case truth has no value anyway.

Empathy.
Emotion? The great atheist champions of logic and reason propose that we base our actions on emotion?

Other people will die if people do not donate blood, and we can have empathy for them. Just as we do not wish to die ourselves, we recognize that other people want to survive too.
Irrelevant. Why should an atheist care about other people? Or, for that matter, why should atheists even care about themselves?

"Instinct" and "emotion" would be hypocritical answers from a self-proclaimed champion of reason. Unless you wish to concede that reason is not an adequate moral tool after all.

You may need to believe that a sky fairy will kick your ass if you're not good if you are to behave and to treat others well, but the rest of us do not.
So you feel it is superior to do things because you randomly feel like it, rather than because of religious reasons?

It is not a virtue to do things for no good reason at all.

Because, unfortunately, the nature of this moral force is such that its existence can never be empirically proven.

In other words, if God appeared in your living room right now, He could not prove Himself to be the source of morality. He could prove himself to be very powerful or know a lot of things, but He could not prove Himself to be the source of morality. Even if a source of morality exists, there is no conceivable way to prove that the object or entity in question is, in fact, the source of morality.

That is why faith is necessary.

So religion doesn't determine any ought.

Emotion? The great atheist champions of logic and reason propose that we base our actions on emotion?

Wait, wait, wait...you're not confusing 'atheists' and 'Vulcans,' are you?

Do good for the wrong reasons? Please don't tell me that the 'right reasons' aren't "Because some sky fairy told me to in this book he told someone to write."
It's better than "because I feel like it," which seems to be the alternative you're proposing.

Beyond that, we live in a society and a sense of decency doesn't have to come from threats from a sky wizard and his zombie son.
Perhaps not, but it has to come from somewhere, and I frankly don't trust that people will somehow find "a sense of decency" (read: "a desire to comply with whatever cultural norms exist at the time") in the bottom of their sweet little hearts.

A general interest in the community they live in, the knowledge that he might need blood one day himself and feels an obligation to contribute to such a resource.
I see no rational reason why an atheist should care about anything. All your proposals are appeals to emotion, such as feelings of belonging, of attachment, of duty to the community etc.

Wait, wait, wait...you're not confusing 'atheists' and 'Vulcans,' are you?
So it's ok to base our actions on emotion? Any emotion?

Fair enough. Faith is an emotion. Case closed.

It's better than "because I feel like it," which seems to be the alternative you're proposing.
That's not what I proposed at all. Please re-read.


Perhaps not, but it has to come from somewhere, and I frankly don't trust that people will somehow find "a sense of decency" (read: "a desire to comply with whatever cultural norms exist at the time") in the bottom of their sweet little hearts.
"Never trust a religious sonofabitch. His word ain't worth shit, not with the Good Lord tellin' him how to fuck you on the deal." W.S. Burroughs...

I don't trust people that get their instructions from a sky being mentioned in a book and interpreted by some guy in a robe. It's gone horribly wrong so very often.


I see no rational reason why an atheist should care about anything. All your proposals are appeals to emotion, such as feelings of belonging, of attachment, of duty to the community etc.
I gave you reasons, you mis-read them. Please re-read.

So it's ok to base our actions on emotion? Any emotion?

Fair enough. Faith is an emotion. Case closed.

Dude, you'll pop your arm out making those stretches.

Maybe other people don't, but I do. The only criterion we should use to decide whether or not to accept an idea is whether or not it is beneficial to society. Truth is only important insofar as false ideas tend to be bad ideas; but this is not always the case.

Well, then our beliefs are probably irreconcilable. I attempt to believe what is true. In any event, the pursuit of the truth is helpful to society, even if the application isn't immediately obvious. When Darwin first published his theory, I doubt that it seemed in any way "useful" knowledge to society, but then we later discovered that we could apply it to medicine. The discovery of truth for its own sake eventually leads to uses for the truth.



See, this is why I said you're missing the point:

It doesn't MATTER if religion is true or not.

1. If religion is true, all is well and we should be religious.
2. If religion is false, there is no objective morality; truth is not an absolute good; therefore there is no particular reason to uphold the truth.

So, even if religion is false, that is not a problem, since in that case truth has no value anyway.


Your own argument is self-defeating.

If religion is false, then why do you still claim that the moral precepts of religion are absolutely good? Indeed, I'm sure you'd agree that many of the moral precepts of many religions are horrible: the Bible says to kill homosexuals, people who eat shellfish, and disobedient children.

But as I said, even if you don't agree that those precepts are bad, your logic for the case in which religion is false is self-contradictory, and here's why.
Your Argument:
1. There is no objective value if religion is false
Therefore:
2. If religion is false, then truth is irrelevant.
3. Ignore point 1 for a moment. It is objectively good to follow the religious precepts, even if they are not true.
4. Therefore, we should all believe in religion, whether it is true or not.

Religion also tends to slow down scientific progress, which certainly has a tangible effect on society-- and I don't think you could argue that slowing down science is in any way beneficial.


Emotion? The great atheist champions of logic and reason propose that we base our actions on emotion?


Irrelevant. Why should an atheist care about other people? Or, for that matter, why should atheists even care about themselves?

"Instinct" and "emotion" would be hypocritical answers from a self-proclaimed champion of reason. Unless you wish to concede that reason is not an adequate moral tool after all.

Reason is a good tool for finding out what is true, and for guiding our actions insofar as attempting to reach our goals. Eating because you are hungry is acting on the basis of your hunger drive, but it's hardly irrational: you wish for your hunger to go away, so the rational course of action is to eat.

In the same way, I have empathy for others, so I attempt to make the world a better place. Indeed, because I am not religious, and I do not believe that I will live on in the afterlife, I realize that the only way I can "live on" in any sense is to make the world a better place for my having been in it.


So you feel it is superior to do things because you randomly feel like it, rather than because of religious reasons?

It is not a virtue to do things for no good reason at all.

But it certainly is far better to do things for the good that they do, and not because somebody will kick your ass if you don't. I'd praise the man who doesn't steal something when nobody is looking over the one who doesn't steal because there's a cop standing behind the counter.

I don't trust people that get their instructions from a sky being mentioned in a book and interpreted by some guy in a robe. It's gone horribly wrong so very often.
Yes, for some reason you think it is better if you don't follow any instructions at all and just make up your own code of ethics as you go along.

I'd rather trust a religious fanatic than an atheist. At least with the religious fanatic you know what to expect; the atheist can change his mind any number of times.

I gave you reasons, you mis-read them. Please re-read.
All your reasons were based on the premise that the atheist should care about other people, about society, or at least about himself. Like I said before, however, why should an atheist care about anything? Of course, as human beings we have instincts and feelings, but I see no rational reason why an atheist should care about anything. And I also do not see how judgements based on instinct or emotion are superior to judgements based on faith.

1. If religion is true, all is well and we should be religious.If Satanism is true, should we all be Satanists?
2. If religion is false, there is no objective morality; truth is not an absolute good; therefore there is no particular reason to uphold the truth.Brainwashed fundy alert, somebody call the logic police!


Here are some atheist reasons to be good.

Practical Selfishness:
Be good and others will be good to you.

Emotional Selfishness:
Be good and you'll feel good.

Rational Empathy:
Start with selfishness, define good and bad , then by inductive logic, see that other people exist and rationally extend your selfish morals to cover those other selves as well, thus establishing objective morality

If Satanism is true, should we all be Satanists?
Brainwashed fundy alert, somebody call the logic police!


Here are some atheist reasons to be good.

Practical Selfishness:
Be good and others will be good to you.

Emotional Selfishness:
Be good and you'll feel good.

Rational Empathy:
Start with selfishness, define good and bad , then by inductive logic, see that other people exist and rationally extend your selfish morals to cover those other selves as well, thus establishing objective morality

But don't you see?! That system of morality isn't objective because it doesn't say to kill the fags!!!111one

The only difference is their reason for being assholes.

which assholes? where?

Yes, for some reason you think it is better if you don't follow any instructions at all and just make up your own code of ethics as you go along.
Yes, that IS better! Don't you see, if you're just following instructions you're a mere tool of the instructor, and there is no morality in what you do because there is no thought, will, or empathy involved. Most religions will tell you that you should do what is good in and of itself, not because you're afraid of going to hell.

I'd rather trust a religious fanatic than an atheist. At least with the religious fanatic you know what to expect; the atheist can change his mind any number of times.Free will! Heaven forbid!

Yes, for some reason you think it is better if you don't follow any instructions at all and just make up your own code of ethics as you go along.

I'd rather trust a religious fanatic than an atheist. At least with the religious fanatic you know what to expect; the atheist can change his mind any number of times.
You make it sound like throwing darts. That's a comically limited view of how decisions are made. Please be serious.


All your reasons were based on the premise that the atheist should care about other people, about society, or at least about himself. Like I said before, however, why should an atheist care about anything? Of course, as human beings we have instincts and feelings, but I see no rational reason why an atheist should care about anything. And I also do not see how judgements based on instinct or emotion are superior to judgements based on faith.
You don't think self interest is inherent? You're sponging definitions to the point that they're meaningless. You're a knot, I don't know if I have the patience for that...

This...
...seems pretty clear to me.

I fail to see how this is at all negative.
Its quite simple. I suppose I dont undertsand why you think that it is negative.


You'll probably never be convinced - apparently you think I'm lying or something, or have some whacked out idea of what Catholicism is, but here is how it went down where I come from:

I was taken to church and taught what Catholics believe and why, and given the option to believe in it or not believe. When it came time for my age group to go through confirmation, myself and one other individual declined to participate.

Well, thats all well and good for you, but clearly, you were told what the catholic traditions were. You may have decided that it wasnt right for you, but you received the instruction nonetheless.



I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I was born a baby. I was raised in the Catholic church. I'm an atheist now.

Right. You were taught how to be a catholic. you were taught what to believe.
The fact that you didnt buy into it, doesnt change the fact that you were indoctrinated, albeit unsuccsessfully.


You admit your preconceptions, and cover your ears when faced with testimony to the contrary. Do you see the irony? This is how fundamentalists keep their beliefs.

Im sorry...what evidence?


Yes, clearly I must be deluded. It's impossible that any religious organization anywhere might possibly respect a person's right to choose their belief! (Never mind that the necessity of free will is deeply entrenched in most non-fundamentalist religion)

Thats not true. If you do not believe in what they offer, you cannot participate, can you?
Offering eternal suffering if you choose not to believe, is hardly a choice.


Seriously though, you have some major irrational prejudices toward religion, which is why I asked about your sister. That, and I was insulted by your second-guessing of my own experiences.

No, I really dont. Only the ones who use thier faiths to spread bullshit.
Like the Phelpses and others like him, or the Kontors, or Dixieannas of the world.
As for second-guessing your experiences, I wasnt trying to do that either.
Merely clarifying the point that religions tell thier followers what to believe.
Its a natural part, and inherent system that all of them use.
Even if a follower chooses not to believe in that system, it does not change the fact that they were (like you) once taught to believe in that particular system.


What evidence do you have to support this claim? I would submit that atheism is far easier to teach somebody, since it is only one negative belief - that those who claim there is a god are mistaken. On the other hand, religions have all kinds of details and crazy things going on with them. It's just that religion has strength in numbers and makes people feel good that gives it an advantage.

I really dont think it needs supporting.
The same logic hold true for the theist.
Introspection.
Ultimately, both sides have to decide if they believe the teachings. (or lack of)

Well, then our beliefs are probably irreconcilable.
That is probably the case, but I enjoy debating anyway. :) I do find myself wishing that there were more hardline utilitarians like myself around, though.

I attempt to believe what is true. In any event, the pursuit of the truth is helpful to society, even if the application isn't immediately obvious. When Darwin first published his theory, I doubt that it seemed in any way "useful" knowledge to society, but then we later discovered that we could apply it to medicine. The discovery of truth for its own sake eventually leads to uses for the truth.
In the majority of cases, that is correct. But not in all cases. The pursuit of truth is usually beneficial to society and should therefore be encouraged on principle. However, every once in a while we discover something that is harmful to society, and it would be a good thing if we could eliminate that harmful knowledge. The most obvious example is the knowledge to build nuclear and biological weapons.

So, in other words, I believe that all truth should be considered good until proven otherwise - but I am open to the possibility that some truths may in fact be proven otherwise.

Your own argument is self-defeating.

If religion is false, then why do you still claim that the moral precepts of religion are absolutely good? [...]

But as I said, even if you don't agree that those precepts are bad, your logic for the case in which religion is false is self-contradictory, and here's why.
Your Argument:
1. There is no objective value if religion is false
Therefore:
2. If religion is false, then truth is irrelevant.
3. Ignore point 1 for a moment. It is objectively good to follow the religious precepts, even if they are not true.
4. Therefore, we should all believe in religion, whether it is true or not.
That is a strawman. I only ever made points 1 and 2; I never argued for 3 or 4. My real argument runs as follows:

1. There is no objective value if religion is false
Therefore:
2. If religion is false, then truth is irrelevant.
3. Therefore, if religion is false, you may go ahead and believe anything - including religion. All is equally lacking in value, and there is no reason to prefer truth over lies or lies over truth.

Indeed, I'm sure you'd agree that many of the moral precepts of many religions are horrible: the Bible says to kill homosexuals, people who eat shellfish, and disobedient children.
First of all, those particular precepts are later revealed as having been intentionally extreme and not meant to be followed (at least that is the argument of St. Paul in the New Testament). But in any case, you say such things are "horrible." Horrible by what standard? By the cultural standards of 21st century Western society? Cultural standards change.

Religion also tends to slow down scientific progress, which certainly has a tangible effect on society-- and I don't think you could argue that slowing down science is in any way beneficial.
I concede this point; just because I defend religion as a general principle doesn't mean I will defend every single action ever undertaken by any religious institution.

I'd like to point out, however, that religion's conflict with science is a relatively modern development - one which will hopefully be overcome soon.

Reason is a good tool for finding out what is true, and for guiding our actions insofar as attempting to reach our goals. Eating because you are hungry is acting on the basis of your hunger drive, but it's hardly irrational: you wish for your hunger to go away, so the rational course of action is to eat.
Right, but the hunger drive itself is not rational. And if it is acceptable to use reason to determine how best to follow irrational urges, why is it not equally acceptable to take faith as the irrational axiom and use reason to determine how best to follow your faith?

In the same way, I have empathy for others, so I attempt to make the world a better place. Indeed, because I am not religious, and I do not believe that I will live on in the afterlife, I realize that the only way I can "live on" in any sense is to make the world a better place for my having been in it.
But why is it important to make the world a better place?

But it certainly is far better to do things for the good that they do, and not because somebody will kick your ass if you don't. I'd praise the man who doesn't steal something when nobody is looking over the one who doesn't steal because there's a cop standing behind the counter.
Ah, but you're taking it for granted that stealing is wrong. You are assuming the existence of an objective moral code.

You don't think self interest is inherent?
It is inherent only in the same way as the urge to eat is inherent - that is to say, at the level of instinct. But there is no rational reason to follow your instincts, and I certainly don't know anyone who would argue that you should follow all your instincts all the time. So how do you decide between them? How do you decide when to follow them and when not to?

Practical Selfishness:
Be good and others will be good to you.

Emotional Selfishness:
Be good and you'll feel good.

Rational Empathy:
Start with selfishness, define good and bad , then by inductive logic, see that other people exist and rationally extend your selfish morals to cover those other selves as well, thus establishing objective morality
See above. You are just assuming that people should be selfish, with no explanation as to why that is. "Do what is best for you" is in itself a moral rule, and like all other moral rules, it has no rational basis.

Well. One difference I can think of is that "militant atheists" are generally in a minority, whereas fundamentalist Christianity has immense political weight with the world's only superpower...

I'm sure that's an unimportant difference though, much better to focus on the vague but somehow imminent threat of annihilation at the hands of militant atheists.

Yes, for some reason you think it is better if you don't follow any instructions at all and just make up your own code of ethics as you go along.
Yes, that IS better! Don't you see, if you're just following instructions you're a mere tool of the instructor, and there is no morality in what you do because there is no thought, will, or empathy involved. Most religions will tell you that you should do what is good in and of itself, not because you're afraid of going to hell.
It is better, and more virtuous, to be part of a larger whole and work dilligently for the good of the whole, than to follow your own arbitrary desires. Your free will does not magically disappear if you decide to follow a greater calling; rather you are using your free will to make the decision to follow, to be loyal, honourable, and unwavering. Doing whatever you want to is the easiest thing in the world, but following a narrow path requires devotion and strength of spirit.

And yes, you should do these things not out of fear of retribution or hope of reward, but out of love and duty.

I fail to see how this is at all negative.
Its quite simple. I suppose I dont undertsand why you think that it is negative.
What you say about all fundies is quite negative, and it is not true for all. What you say about atheists I consider to be positive, and also not true for all.

Well, thats all well and good for you, but clearly, you were told what the catholic traditions were. You may have decided that it wasnt right for you, but you received the instruction nonetheless.Do you suggest that ignorance of religion is the correct path to freethought?

Right. You were taught how to be a catholic. you were taught what to believe.
The fact that you didnt buy into it, doesnt change the fact that you were indoctrinated, albeit unsuccsessfully.Are you merely using the term "indoctrinated" as a buzz-word for "informed", or do you believe that I was told "Believe what we say!"

Im sorry...what evidence?That of my personal experience, and presumably many others' as well, unless you think us to be liars or mistaken, and if so - for what reason?

Thats not true. If you do not believe in what they offer, you cannot participate, can you?
Offering eternal suffering if you choose not to believe, is hardly a choice.Aside from the fact that plenty of Christians do not have such fundamentalist notions of hell, and aside from the fact that the threat of eternal suffering is impotent to one who does not believe, you suppose that all religions operate with the overriding motive of conversion to faith at any cost, when the behavior of the vast majority of the religious, and modern religious doctrines as well, not to mention my personal experience, indicates that this is not the case.

Merely clarifying the point that religions tell thier followers what to believe.Most don't do that at all, even if they say that you must believe something to be a member of the religion, only a few overtly expect to be able to tell people to believe a particular thing.
Its a natural part, and inherent system that all of them use.No, it's not. Here look, I just invented a religion. It involves worshipping Q-tips and believing that cleaning your ears is the key to salvation. Am I instructing anybody to believe it? NO! But how can that be if that's an inherent part of religion!!!!!!!111
Even if a follower chooses not to believe in that system, it does not change the fact that they were (like you) once taught to believe in that particular system.Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it any less false.

I really dont think it needs supporting.I give up!

You are just assuming that people should be selfish, with no explanation as to why that is.It's not so much that people SHOULD be selfish, but that they ARE selfish. Acknowledgement of truth (selfishness/consciousness) is rational. Not doing so is irrational. Thus, the morals listed above are rationally-derived.
"Do what is best for you" is in itself a moral rule, and like all other moral rules, it has no rational basis.If it were so that moral rules hold no rational basis, then that would hold no less true for theism, because in that case you are basically saying "It's best for you to follow God or he'll whup your ass," which is just another permutation of "Do what is best for you," which you have already rejected.

It is better, and more virtuous, to be part of a larger whole and work dilligently for the good of the whole, than to follow your own arbitrary desires.And yet, rational empathy leads to this more consistently than religion. Or should I instead turn your argument against you and ask what rational basis is there for wanting to be "part of a larger whole" and what defines "virtue" and the "greater good". You cannot turn back around and say God, or that makes your argument circular. My morality seems to be more deeply rooted in rationality than yours.

Your free will does not magically disappear if you decide to follow a greater calling; rather you are using your free will to make the decision to follow, to be loyal, honourable, and unwavering.But on what basis is that free decision being made? Why loyalty and honor, if not for an objective morality that isn't reliant on instruction.

Doing whatever you want to is the easiest thing in the world, but following a narrow path requires devotion and strength of spirit.On the contrary, doing "whatever you want" is difficult and requires that you think things through and take responsibility for your own decisions, while following the narrow, dictated path requires little moral or mental effort - only blind obedience.

And yes, you should do these things not out of fear of retribution or hope of reward, but out of love and duty.Why love? Why duty? Where's YOUR rational basis for morality?

It is better, and more virtuous, to be part of a larger whole and work dilligently for the good of the whole, than to follow your own arbitrary desires.

Why?

And why is it you think that my desires are "arbitrary" but your "larger whole" is not? They're both arbitrary.

Your free will does not magically disappear if you decide to follow a greater calling; rather you are using your free will to make the decision to follow, to be loyal, honourable, and unwavering. Doing whatever you want to is the easiest thing in the world, but following a narrow path requires devotion and strength of spirit.

And yes, you should do these things not out of fear of retribution or hope of reward, but out of love and duty.

Yeah well, plenty of evil shit has been done by people who were loving, dutiful, unwavering, honorable, loyal, devoted and strong who were dedicated to the "greater good." Crusades. Holocaust. Nazism. Fascism. Communism. I don't see what's so inherently great about those qualities. Show me a guy who just wants to get some food, live life, have friends and family and I'll show you a guy not going around killing people because of some stupid ideology that's "calling" him.

What you say about all fundies is quite negative, and it is not true for all. What you say about atheists I consider to be positive, and also not true for all.

I dont mean to imply that in a negative context. Indoctrination isnt always bad, even if I personally feel that fundamentalism, particularly when in conjunction with creationism is.


Do you suggest that ignorance of religion is the correct path to freethought?

Not at all. Ignorance of anything is rarely a good thing.


Are you merely using the term "indoctrinated" as a buzz-word for "informed", or do you believe that I was told "Believe what we say!"

Religions are systems of belief. In order to be a member of a religion, one must adhere to its teachings. To be a christian, one must believe in the divinity, sacrifice, and ressurection of Jesus. If you do not...then you ARE not.


That of my personal experience, and presumably many others' as well, unless you think us to be liars or mistaken, and if so - for what reason?

I guess I still dont know what evidence youre reffering to...


Aside from the fact that plenty of Christians do not have such fundamentalist notions of hell, and aside from the fact that the threat of eternal suffering is impotent to one who does not believe, you suppose that all religions operate with the overriding motive of conversion to faith at any cost, when the behavior of the vast majority of the religious, and modern religious doctrines as well, not to mention my personal experience, indicates that this is not the case.

Uhh..pretty much all of the different christian denominations believe that refusing to accept Jesus means youre going to hell. Its the whole "No man shall enter heaven unless through me.." thing. Matthew, I believe.


Most don't do that at all, even if they say that you must believe something to be a member of the religion, only a few overtly expect to be able to tell people to believe a particular thing.

Uhh..what?
They all require you to believe.
"There is no God but Allah, and Muhammed is his prophet"...
They all require belief in them. Thats what religions ARE.


I give up!

*shrug*

Yeah well, plenty of evil shit has been done by people who were loving, dutiful, unwavering, honorable, loyal, devoted and strong who were dedicated to the "greater good." Crusades. Holocaust. Nazism. Fascism. Communism. I don't see what's so inherently great about those qualities. Show me a guy who just wants to get some food, live life, have friends and family and I'll show you a guy not going around killing people because of some stupid ideology that's "calling" him.

No, but there will still be plenty of murderers, rapists, thieves, abusive spouses, drug addicts, alcoholics, serial killers and pedophiles...the only difference is that they act alone or in small groups, while these people are simply better at forming bigger groups for their own evil ends. Ideologies merely give them a way to do so; evil will happen and has happened regardless of the motivations of the person committing the crimes. A peasant farmer can be just as evil and violent as a brutal dictator (and more than a few of the latter came from the former).

Don't look now, but you have all fallen into the religion morass again. ;)

Don't look now, but you have all fallen into the religion morass again. ;)

Various responses:

1. Well, it IS NSG...

2. Obligatory mud-clown reference.

3. YOURE a morass!

Various responses:

1. Well, it IS NSG...

2. Obligatory mud-clown reference.

3. YOURE a morass!

Let's not forget the LG=god references. :cool:

;)

Let's not forget the LG=god references. :cool:

;)

*insert taco reference*

One major similarity between fundy christians and militant atheists is they all worship...

Chocolate Jesus (http://files.blog-city.com/files/aa/2370/p/f/christian_bigotry_chocolate_jesus.jpg)! [[Warning! Naked Candy Alert! Maintain Eye Contact at all times!]]

One major similarity between fundy christians and militant atheists is they all worship...

Chocolate Jesus (http://files.blog-city.com/files/aa/2370/p/f/christian_bigotry_chocolate_jesus.jpg)! [[Warning! Naked Candy Alert! Maintain Eye Contact at all times!]]

At least they paid attention to detail and made sure Jesus was circumcised.

At least they paid attention to detail and made sure Jesus was circumcised.

although, he has no chocolate pubes.

Hmm....apparently he trims his chocolate bush.

At least they paid attention to detail and made sure Jesus was circumcised.

:eek: You peeked! :eek:

although, he has no chocolate pubes.

Hmm....apparently he trims his chocolate bush.

It's a good idea in the desert, I would think. Or anywhere, but the desert's kind of the main focus area.

although, he has no chocolate pubes.

Hmm....apparently he trims his chocolate bush.

I would. *nod*

It's a good idea in the desert, I would think.

To avoid chocolate lice?

I would. *nod*

You'd trim his chocolate bush too.....?

Oh....I see.

Nevermind.

although, he has no chocolate pubes.

Hmm....apparently he trims his chocolate bush.

Not to mention it's a great topping for ice cream. :)

To avoid chocolate lice?

The worst kind of lice...except perhaps caramel lice, but then Jesus would just be an amorphous blob and it wouldn't matter all that much.

Not to mention it's a great topping for ice cream. :)

Oh sure...but when *I* ask for them at the local Coldstone Creamery.....

Oh sure...but when *I* ask for them at the local Coldstone Creamery.....

No chocolate Jesus pubes??? :eek: Perhaps the shop owner is jewish. :p

The worst kind of lice...except perhaps caramel lice, but then Jesus would just be an amorphous blob and it wouldn't matter all that much.

I dunno...remember those "Red Hots" candies?
http://candyaddict.com/blog/candy_images/red_hots_box.jpg

Red Hot Lice sound scary.

http://files.blog-city.com/files/aa/2370/p/f/christian_bigotry_chocolate_jesus.jpg

Chocolate Jesus loves you this much!

Christianity would be more popular if it was "Take this piece of chocolate for it is My Body. And I am your Lord so Sweet, so lick me and eat me!"

Religions are systems of belief. In order to be a member of a religion, one must adhere to its teachings. To be a christian, one must believe in the divinity, sacrifice, and ressurection of Jesus. If you do not...then you ARE not.Yes. Most religions only insist that you believe in them if you are claiming to be part of that religion.

This is practically codified in US Catholicism. First you are taught about Catholicism, then if you decide you believe, you get confirmed a Catholic. If not, then you don't go through confirmation. It's like a if you started a "I believe that giraffes are cool" facebook club. You certainly wouldn't want people who disliked giraffes to be joining, but you wouldn't demand that everybody in the world like giraffes, although you would certainly inform them of their coolness so they could be enlightened if they so choose.

I guess I still dont know what evidence youre reffering to...The fact that I was never instructed to possess any a belief. This proves your assertion that all religions do this to be false.

Uhh..pretty much all of the different christian denominations believe that refusing to accept Jesus means youre going to hell. Its the whole "No man shall enter heaven unless through me.." thing. Matthew, I believe.The less fundamentalist ones have a more progressive interpretation of that scripture.

Uhh..what?
They all require you to believe.Only if you want to join.
"There is no God but Allah, and Muhammed is his prophet"...
They all require belief in them. Thats what religions ARE.No it isn't. A religion is a belief system, and an assertion that it is correct, not an irrational demand that everybody agree.

Ok, I gotta admit something:
I fail to see the difference between Fundamentalist Christians and Militant Atheists. They support completely opposite ideas, but are completely identical in their manner of presenting it, which I thought was the reason for the opposition of the fundies. They both have pretty strong contempt for the other side, both are completely convinced they are right, both bind together as a "community", both seek to prosetlyze and export their beliefs, and both seek to reduce the influence of the other. So, I guess my question is, independent of what they believe, is there a real difference in the mindset of the two sides?
I don't believe that it's possible to look at the issue "independent of what they believe". The difference is in the intent.

Fundamentalist Christians (or, indeed, fundamentalist believers in many other religions) believe that they are under some divine mandate to "spread the Word" or somesuch - proselytisation is the will of their god and they must follow it through.

The "militant" atheists, on the other hand, are not engaged in telling people what to believe. They instead seek to encourage everyone to think critically about the subject and to make up their own minds having considered the available evidence objectively. To give objectivity a fighting chance they want to see an end to the religious indoctrination of children that takes place in many of our societies.

Some people simply can't see that any indoctrination is taking place. That's understandable since that is, after all, pretty much a defnining feature of indoctrination.

It's the whole "tell them what to think" against "tell them how to think, and let them decide for themselves" face-off.

Yes. Most religions only insist that you believe in them if you are claiming to be part of that religion.

This is practically codified in US Catholicism. First you are taught about Catholicism, then if you decide you believe, you get confirmed a Catholic. If not, then you don't go through confirmation. It's like a if you started a "I believe that giraffes are cool" facebook club. You certainly wouldn't want people who disliked giraffes to be joining, but you wouldn't demand that everybody in the world like giraffes, although you would certainly inform them of their coolness so they could be enlightened if they so choose.


The fact that I was never instructed to possess any a belief. This proves your assertion that all religions do this to be false.

Wrong. You chose not to believe. Therefore you chose not to belong.
If you do not believe in "..........", then you cannot be a "..............".


The less fundamentalist ones have a more progressive interpretation of that scripture.

Such as?


No it isn't. A religion is a belief system, and an assertion that it is correct, not an irrational demand that everybody agree.

Wrong again.
If you do not believe in that system....then you cannot be a part of that system.

Wrong. You chose not to believe. Therefore you chose not to belong.
If you do not believe in "..........", then you cannot be a "..............".That's exactly what I'm saying. It doesn't equate to being instructed to possess any particular belief, just as it doesn't equate to being instructed to undergo confirmation and join the church. In fact, that would be considered abhorrent and against teaching.

Such as?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation for starters

Wrong again.
If you do not believe in that system....then you cannot be a part of that system.Yes, but you are asserting that every religion insists that everybody converts to them.

Ok, I gotta admit something:
I fail to see the difference between Fundamentalist Christians and Militant Atheists. They support completely opposite ideas, but are completely identical in their manner of presenting it, which I thought was the reason for the opposition of the fundies. They both have pretty strong contempt for the other side, both are completely convinced they are right, both bind together as a "community", both seek to prosetlyze and export their beliefs, and both seek to reduce the influence of the other. So, I guess my question is, independent of what they believe, is there a real difference in the mindset of the two sides?

Easy. When was the last time you've got out of bed at 8am on a Saturday to open the door to a militant, evangelising atheist?
When was the last time you wanted to get into your church and there was a demonstration of atheists in front of it, with megaphones, trying to stop you from getting in?
When was the last time you wanted to go out for a beer and found all pubs and bars closed due to an atheist holiday?

I don't really mind people's mindsets - I do find them interesting from a pathological point of view, but that's just a private hobby - but what I do mind is when others try and impose their values on me. And I don't care for it.

Ok, I gotta admit something:
I fail to see the difference between Fundamentalist Christians and Militant Atheists. They support completely opposite ideas, but are completely identical in their manner of presenting it, which I thought was the reason for the opposition of the fundies. They both have pretty strong contempt for the other side, both are completely convinced they are right, both bind together as a "community", both seek to prosetlyze and export their beliefs, and both seek to reduce the influence of the other. So, I guess my question is, independent of what they believe, is there a real difference in the mindset of the two sides?

Nope. And not only these two groups, and fundamentalist by the definition of the word believes that there are completely correct and any opposing view thus completely wrong.

Nope. And not only these two groups, and fundamentalist by the definition of the word believes that there are completely correct and any opposing view thus completely wrong.

Eh, no
fun·da·men·tal·ism /ˌfʌndəˈmɛntlˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

Bolding for relevance.

But essentially, Christians who insist that what they believe is absolutely correct and that everyone must agree with them aren't hugely different from Atheists who insist that what they believe is absolutely correct and that everyone must agree with them. There simply appears to be less of the latter, whether because they're are actually less common, or they're just given less attention or a combination of both.

Eh, no


Bolding for relevance.

But essentially, Christians who insist that what they believe is absolutely correct and that everyone must agree with them aren't hugely different from Atheists who insist that what they believe is absolutely correct and that everyone must agree with them. There simply appears to be less of the latter, whether because they're are actually less common, or they're just given less attention or a combination of both.

Heh so you agree with me, but disagree with what I say about fundamentalism?

Ok, I gotta admit something:
I fail to see the difference between Fundamentalist Christians and Militant Atheists. They support completely opposite ideas,

Erm...

Let's think about that for a second. "I see no difference between X and Y. Aside from them supporting completely opposite ideas."


but are completely identical in their manner of presenting it, which I thought was the reason for the opposition of the fundies.

If you think militant atheists and militant Christians are really pursuing their ideals in the same way, then you've got your head so deep in the sand that nobody can help you.

I suspect you're quite aware that they don't, however. You're probably well aware that militant atheists simple CANNOT pursue their ideals the way the militant Christians do, because the Christians actually, you know, control government and stuff.

Didja watch the recent YouTube GOP debate? See the part where every single one of those Christian white males on the stage licked the ass of the person who asked if they believed the Bible was 100% true? Notice how not a single candidate said, "Actually, I'm an atheist"? Shit like that tends to impact politics, you know.


They both have pretty strong contempt for the other side, both are completely convinced they are right, both bind together as a "community", both seek to prosetlyze and export their beliefs, and both seek to reduce the influence of the other.

That's pretty much true of everybody who gives a shit about anything. I have strong contempt for racists, I'm convinced that I'm right about racism being a bunch of bullshit, my personal circle of friends and companions does not include racists, I frequently seek to teach others about how racism is a bunch of bullshit, and I constantly help to expose, ridicule, and undermine racists whenever I can.

You want to tell me that you see no difference between me and racists? Please do! I could use a chuckle. :D


So, I guess my question is, independent of what they believe, is there a real difference in the mindset of the two sides?
Let me answer your question with another question:

Who the fuck do you think you're kidding?

Heh so you agree with me, but disagree with what I say about fundamentalism?

Evidently.

Erm...

Let's think about that for a second. "I see no difference between X and Y. Aside from them supporting completely opposite ideas."


If you think militant atheists and militant Christians are really pursuing their ideals in the same way, then you've got your head so deep in the sand that nobody can help you.

I suspect you're quite aware that they don't, however. You're probably well aware that militant atheists simple CANNOT pursue their ideals the way the militant Christians do, because the Christians actually, you know, control government and stuff.

Didja watch the recent YouTube GOP debate? See the part where every single one of those Christian white males on the stage licked the ass of the person who asked if they believed the Bible was 100% true? Notice how not a single candidate said, "Actually, I'm an atheist"? Shit like that tends to impact politics, you know.


That's pretty much true of everybody who gives a shit about anything. I have strong contempt for racists, I'm convinced that I'm right about racism being a bunch of bullshit, my personal circle of friends and companions does not include racists, I frequently seek to teach others about how racism is a bunch of bullshit, and I constantly help to expose, ridicule, and undermine racists whenever I can.

You want to tell me that you see no difference between me and racists? Please do! I could use a chuckle. :D


Let me answer your question with another question:

Who the fuck do you think you're kidding?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/thumbup.gif

Evidently.

Sweet! I quite like this place you know. It astounds me how people can agree, disagree, use different ways to say the same thing, use the same way to say different things. It all just highlights the enormous differences between us all, and the massive amount of 'mindsets' out there to attempt to understand.

Fabulous!(errm did that sounds gay?):D

and where does dawkins, for example, use 'irrational' methods? where the hell is this demagoguery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogy)? will somebody be fucking specific on this point, please?

Dawkins isn't actually that extreme. I included him in my example because he's famous, and because three is a better number than two.
But the title of Hitchens book itself is radical: God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Hitchens goes on to say that religion has had a purely negative effect on the world, and that people such as Martin Luther King were not inspired by their religion but a secular humanist idea, despite people such as King saying otherwise. Religion is something worthy of criticism, but wholly negative? To say that something so ingrained in all human culture is only bad is irrational.
Before I get eaten alive, I would like to say that I believe the "militant atheist" movement is a justifiable reaction to religious extremism. However, some of its proponents are just as extreme.

It is inherent only in the same way as the urge to eat is inherent - that is to say, at the level of instinct. But there is no rational reason to follow your instincts, and I certainly don't know anyone who would argue that you should follow all your instincts all the time. So how do you decide between them? How do you decide when to follow them and when not to?


There's a core difference that's making this a stupid conversation. You believe in god and I don't. I know that seems obvious but this conversation is working on those two seperate premises and therefore isn't working.

You see, since you believe in god, all this crap comes from him. If you believe in god you get all these funky rules like Fish Fridays and ritual cannibalism that apparently make you a better person and those come from god.

If you don't believe in god then you have to believe that rules like Fish Friday and ritual cannibalism were made by men when they were telling stories about how they thought things came together. So then it is perfectly reasonable to acknowledge that people can come up ways to behave because they totally already have.

The difference is how much value the fairy tale has.

For some reason it's an impossible stretch for you that a rational self interest and acknowledgment that one lives in a society to survive and if that society is to work the individual has certain responsibilities to it-you don't want to die because this life is all you get, you don't go around bopping people on the head because you don't want people bopping you on the head, etc.

You're arguing that we should believe the fairy tale because it gives a fairy tale reward system to something that is already in our interest, but adds the ability to beg for crap as long as you use a really loose interpretation of the answers...

You're arguing for the fairy tale, not for the actual existance of god.We need the fairy tale. We don't. There are so many compelling reasons to not be a dick that don't involve fashion choices like a halo or horns.

There's a core difference that's making this a stupid conversation. You believe in god and I don't. I know that seems obvious but this conversation is working on those two seperate premises and therefore isn't working.

You see, since you believe in god, all this crap comes from him. If you believe in god you get all these funky rules like Fish Fridays and ritual cannibalism that apparently make you a better person and those come from god.

If you don't believe in god then you have to believe that rules like Fish Friday and ritual cannibalism were made by men when they were telling stories about how they thought things came together. So then it is perfectly reasonable to acknowledge that people can come up ways to behave because they totally already have.

The difference is how much value the fairy tale has.

For some reason it's an impossible stretch for you that a rational self interest and acknowledgment that one lives in a society to survive and if that society is to work the individual has certain responsibilities to it-you don't want to die because this life is all you get, you don't go around bopping people on the head because you don't want people bopping you on the head, etc.

You're arguing that we should believe the fairy tale because it gives a fairy tale reward system to something that is already in our interest, but adds the ability to beg for crap as long as you use a really loose interpretation of the answers...

You're arguing for the fairy tale, not for the actual existance of god.We need the fairy tale. We don't. There are so many compelling reasons to not be a dick that don't involve fashion choices like a halo or horns.

I like this argument, it is quite sound but it does fall apart when faced with a believer in God who is not from any of the Abrahamic faiths.

I like this argument, it is quite sound but it does fall apart when faced with a believer in God who is not from any of the Abrahamic faiths.

Except it doesn't because the 'Fish Friday' things are just examples. One could just as easily replace them with references to rituals from non-Abrahamic religions.

Except it doesn't because the 'Fish Friday' things are just examples. One could just as easily replace them with references to rituals from non-Abrahamic religions.

And again what if you are faced with a religion which states that meaningless rituals should be abandend?

And again what if you are faced with a religion which states that meaningless rituals should be abandend?

Then reference meaningful rituals.

There's a core difference that's making this a stupid conversation. You believe in god and I don't. I know that seems obvious but this conversation is working on those two seperate premises and therefore isn't working.

You see, since you believe in god, all this crap comes from him. If you believe in god you get all these funky rules like Fish Fridays and ritual cannibalism that apparently make you a better person and those come from god.

If you don't believe in god then you have to believe that rules like Fish Friday and ritual cannibalism were made by men when they were telling stories about how they thought things came together. So then it is perfectly reasonable to acknowledge that people can come up ways to behave because they totally already have.

The difference is how much value the fairy tale has.

For some reason it's an impossible stretch for you that a rational self interest and acknowledgment that one lives in a society to survive and if that society is to work the individual has certain responsibilities to it-you don't want to die because this life is all you get, you don't go around bopping people on the head because you don't want people bopping you on the head, etc.

You're arguing that we should believe the fairy tale because it gives a fairy tale reward system to something that is already in our interest, but adds the ability to beg for crap as long as you use a really loose interpretation of the answers...

You're arguing for the fairy tale, not for the actual existance of god.We need the fairy tale. We don't. There are so many compelling reasons to not be a dick that don't involve fashion choices like a halo or horns.

You aren't actually giving him reasons that one should be moral. You are offering up hypothetical imperatives that are generally of the nature "If the person is self-interested, he should do this", but that doesn't establish any moral imperative, as you have not shown that the person should be self-interested.

And that people are self-interested is a biological drive and as such provides no moral basis either.

Then reference meaningful rituals.

Ohh I don't know, like you know when you get married that thing with exchanging the rings?

Or when you have a baby and you and your mates go out to get pissed?

Or even when you get trolleyed, and you feel the need, the need for kebab!

Ohh I don't know, like you know when you get married that thing with exchanging the rings?

Or when you have a baby and you and your mates go out to get pissed?

Or even when you get trolleyed, and you feel the need, the need for kebab!
What on earth are you talking about?

What on earth are you talking about?

Umm did you just ask me for meaningful rituals?

You aren't actually giving him reasons that one should be moral. You are offering up categorical imperatives that are generally of the nature "If the person is self-interested, he should do this", but that doesn't establish any moral imperative, as you have not shown that the person should be self-interested.

I'd say that's probably good, since there IS no moral imperative.

Though I suppose we could have a very interesting discussion about whether or not it's moral to lie to people and tell them there's a moral imperative in order to get them to behave in a moral manner...


And that people are self-interested is a biological drive and as such provides no moral basis either.
Morality is subjective. In other news, water is wet.

Umm did you just ask me for meaningful rituals?

and none of those are meaningful or rituals.

Umm did you just ask me for meaningful rituals?

No.

Then reference meaningful rituals.

So what then did you mean by this?

So what then did you mean by this?

I meant that if one were going to use the arguement we were talking about, but relate it to a religiong with no meaningless traditions then one would reference meaningful traditions instead. You were there, how did you forget the context when you were a part of it?

That's exactly what I'm saying. It doesn't equate to being instructed to possess any particular belief, just as it doesn't equate to being instructed to undergo confirmation and join the church. In fact, that would be considered abhorrent and against teaching.

You are trying to assert that religions do not require belief in them.
This is a foolish notion, as religions are nothing more than belief systems. Failure to accept what they offer as truth, results in expulsion, or excommunication.
In fact, most of them consider non-believers to be rather evil.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation for starters

also in that very article: "Today, most Christian denominations reject Universal Reconciliation. Evangelicals and related Christian denominations have published extensively against universalism in recent decades, defending the doctrine of perpetual Hell[3]."



Yes, but you are asserting that every religion insists that everybody converts to them.

No. Im asserting that just about all of them indoctrinate thier followers, and required certain beliefs in order to to belong, as religions are as we have both agreed, belief systems, and failure to believe means you cannot belong.
Ergo, as you were raised catholic, as was my own mother, you were taught what to believe by that same organization.

I meant that if one were going to use the arguement we were talking about, but relate it to a religiong with no meaningless traditions then one would reference meaningful traditions instead. You were there, how did you forget the context when you were a part of it?

Ahh I see, I misunderstood your meaning then. I too could be pretentious and ask you be more clear, but fuckit I wont.

Anyhow, then that argument still does not work, based around meaningless rituals as it was.

And again what if you are faced with a religion which states that meaningless rituals should be abandend?

People have a tendency to ignore such statements. Humans need rituals, and they will furnish most of their activities with rituals, meaningful or not.

People have a tendency to ignore such statements. Humans need rituals, and they will furnish most of their activities with rituals, meaningful or not.

I agree with you there. So there is an argument that can be made which suggest no ritual is meaningless?

I agree with you there. So there is an argument that can be made which suggest no ritual is meaningless?

That would depend on your point of view, really, rituals tend to have two (or more) meanings. If you were an anthropologist studying rituals, you would most likely come to the conclusion that rituals as such have a calming effect on humans, that they provide a frame for social life which otherwise would be difficult to organise, that they facilitate bonding inside the group and make bonding with members of other groups more difficult, to name but a few effects. In that way, all rituals are meaningful.

If, however, you are asking if rituals are meaningful in achieving their superficial aim, like my grandmother sprinkling holy water on the family grave cause the priest told her it would help douse the flames of hell, one could be forgiven for being slightly more sceptic.

That would depend on your point of view, really, rituals tend to have two (or more) meanings. If you were an anthropologist studying rituals, you would most likely come to the conclusion that rituals as such have a calming effect on humans, that they provide a frame for social life which otherwise would be difficult to organise, that they facilitate bonding inside the group and make bonding with members of other groups more difficult, to name but a few effects. In that way, all rituals are meaningful.

If, however, you are asking if rituals are meaningful in achieving their superficial aim, like my grandmother sprinkling holy water on the family grave cause the priest told her it would help douse the flames of hell, one could be forgiven for being slightly more sceptic.

Yeah again I agree, and it is reference to the later part that I talk about.


Ahhhh gota go for a while brb-ish

Need another difference between militant atheists and fundie Christians?

Atheists are cats and fundies are sheep. While you can herd sheep, you can't herd cats, but in large numbers, cats make a hell of a lot of noise.

Need another difference between militant atheists and fundie Christians?

Atheists are cats and fundies are sheep. While you can herd sheep, you can't herd cats, but in large numbers, cats make a hell of a lot of noise.

I disagree, you can in fact herd cats, you just need food. Umm okay perhaps stampede is a more appropriate word?

Need another difference between militant atheists and fundie Christians?

Atheists are cats and fundies are sheep. While you can herd sheep, you can't herd cats, but in large numbers, cats make a hell of a lot of noise.

Rawr.

No, but there will still be plenty of murderers, rapists, thieves, abusive spouses, drug addicts, alcoholics, serial killers and pedophiles...the only difference is that they act alone or in small groups, while these people are simply better at forming bigger groups for their own evil ends. Ideologies merely give them a way to do so; evil will happen and has happened regardless of the motivations of the person committing the crimes. A peasant farmer can be just as evil and violent as a brutal dictator (and more than a few of the latter came from the former).

Well, qualitatively one murder may be just as "evil" as 10 million murders. But only the latter can be done through ideological "higher callings." I think the latter is worse for the world, therefore I disagree with the premise that it's somehow inherently more ethical to pursue some "higher calling" than "selfish desires."

I disagree, you can in fact herd cats, you just need food. Umm okay perhaps stampede is a more appropriate word?

Sure food works if the cat hasn't already eaten all your leafy greens and fish. :) And the cat isn't engrossed in a good marathon nap. ;)

I disagree, you can in fact herd cats, you just need food. Umm okay perhaps stampede is a more appropriate word?

Pfft, of course you can motivate an animal (including humans) with foods. But that's not herding behavior. They don't join in the collective sheep-consciousness and mill about aimlessly like cows. They just do whatever it takes to get the food. If they feel like it, that is. Another thing about cats is they don't just sit and graze all day, even the fat ones. They're predators! And sociopaths! God love 'em!

So you support the brutal crackdown, arrest, imprisonment, torture, slavery and occasional disappearance of people with religious beliefs.

Brilliant.

Come play when you can give me an example of when they do that in the name of atheism. Unlike, of course, in Sudan, where they kill and/or forcibly convert Christians in the name of Islam.

Come play when you can give me an example of when they do that in the name of atheism. Unlike, of course, in Sudan, where they kill and/or forcibly convert Christians in the name of Islam.

Does the Latin term de facto mean anything to you? China is avowedly atheist in its formation as the PRC and that's not enough apparently. Nope, you want some loony to declare on TV "In the name of Atheism I smite thee, sheep!"

And if you're trying to imply that Sudan is an example of all nations where Muslims hold enough political majority then please, we've heard that same tired old song plenty of times on NSG. 3b1l M05l3mz is a meme that's even harder to kill than Chuck Norris Facts.

:rolleyes:

Does the Latin term de facto mean anything to you? China is avowedly atheist in its formation as the PRC and that's not enough apparently. Nope, you want some loony to declare on TV "In the name of Atheism I smite thee, sheep!"

And if you're trying to imply that Sudan is an example of all nations where Muslims hold enough political majority then please, we've heard that same tired old song plenty of times on NSG. 3b1l M05l3mz is a meme that's even harder to kill than Chuck Norris Facts.

:rolleyes:

Actually, whilst I personally believe that religions are wrong in most ways of the word, I don't believe that Sudan is perfect representative of a muslim nation. It just so happens that what I said happens there happens there. Saudi Arabia for example - yes, they kill people, but not because they're not muslim.

I don't follow the "3b1l M05l3mz" crowd because the fact is I know plenty of muslims that are perfectly nice, relatively sensible people that respect my entitlement to my beliefs (of lack of them) as much as I respect their entitlement to theirs.

Forget those fundies and militant atheists...I'm worried about all those radical compromisers, I just know they've got something sinister up their sleeve...them and their damn compromising...I HATE THEM SO MUCH!! PICK A SIDE DAMMIT!!! :mad::mad:









:D

Does the Latin term de facto mean anything to you? China is avowedly atheist in its formation as the PRC and that's not enough apparently. Nope, you want some loony to declare on TV "In the name of Atheism I smite thee, sheep!"

if religious people do something, but say that it is for non-religious reasons x, y, and z, then you have some work to do to show that it actually was done for religious reasons after all. likewise with the opposite.

if religious people do something, but say that it is for non-religious reasons x, y, and z, then you have some work to do to show that it actually was done for religious reasons after all. likewise with the opposite.

China is a political entity that is steeped in Realpolitik. Unless some Chavez or Ahmedinejad type ranting loony is somehow made Chairman, nobody's going to hear them declare doing any religious crackdown in the name of Atheism.

In addition, Muslims across the Western World have declared that the Bullshit in Sudan was nothing more than a fucking political football. They agree that it had little if anything to do with actual Islamic beliefs at all.

Does the Latin term de facto mean anything to you? China is avowedly atheist in its formation as the PRC and that's not enough apparently. Nope, you want some loony to declare on TV "In the name of Atheism I smite thee, sheep!"


Just because you happen to be an atheist doesn't mean any crime you commit is done in the name of atheism.

Just because you happen to be black doesn't mean any crime you commit is motivated by racism.

A man who murders is not necessarily a misogynist...

Just because you happen to be an atheist doesn't mean any crime you commit is done in the name of atheism.

Just because you happen to be black doesn't mean any crime you commit is motivated by racism.

A man who murders is not necessarily a misogynist...

You mean any man who murders is not necessarily homicidal. Look up Misogyny sometimes.

But people here have little to no trouble assuming any crime committed by an avowedly religious or theocratic state is automatically committed in the name of religion. And they're relying on the Burden of Proof fallacy of someone explicitly commiting crimes in the "name of Atheism" to justify the notion that atheists are somehow incapable of belief-based crimes as opposed to those with religious faith. It just means there hasn't been one that's been publically declared.

You mean any man who murders is not necessarily homicidal. Look up Misogyny sometimes.

No, I meant misogyny, because see, he's a man. Clearly his hateful, woman-hating ideology forces him to commit crimes, even against other men. This is similar to how the atheist 'ideology' forces China to commit crimes, even against other atheists.

But people here have little to no trouble assuming any crime committed by an avowedly religious or theocratic state is automatically committed in the name of religion.

I do, when used as a means of religious bigotry.

But, an avowed theocracy IS motivated by religion, because unlike atheism, religion is an ideology. It has its own prescribed rules, dictates, procedures, complete with the built-in authority figures, hiearchy, and economy, and these aspects of religion can influence a society much more than "I don't believe in God."

And the real driving force of China's crueller policies is... well. Government, communism, and ultimately, the bastards who write the orders.

And they're relying on the Burden of Proof of someone to explicitly commit crimes in the "name of Atheism" to justify that atheists are somehow incapable of belief-based crimes as opposed to those with beliefs. It just means there hasn't been one that's been publically declared.

So these atheists you imply are committing crimes in the name of atheism - they are just shy about their beliefs and too embarassed to say it? But not shy enough not to do it...?

Usually when someone kills for a religious ideology they have no problem 'publically declaring' it. Most of the time you couldn't possibly get them to shut up about it!

No, I meant misogyny, because see, he's a man. Clearly his hateful, woman-hating ideology forces him to commit crimes, even against other men. This is similar to how the atheist 'ideology' forces China to commit crimes, even against other atheists.

Slippery slope. I said De Facto. Which clarifies that China is cracking down on any religious instution it cannot thoroughly control as a state apparatus, even if it does not make any silly cartoon villainish declarations of doing it in "The Name of Atheism."

I do, when used as a means of religious bigotry.

But, an avowed theocracy IS motivated by religion, because unlike atheism, religion is an ideology. It has its own prescribed rules, dictates, procedures, complete with the built-in authority figures, hiearchy, and economy, and these aspects of religion can influence a society much more than "I don't believe in God."

And the real driving force of China's crueller policies is... well. Government, communism, and ultimately, the bastards who write the orders.

And you're saying atheism is not an ideology in and of itself? That the persistent belief that there are no divine figures taking charge over mortal affairs is not an ideology?

Almost all theocracies are deep down cynical institutions that rely on religion as an excuse and a means of establishing power over the masses. China realizes this much, knowing that religion in any form it cannot control is a threat to its power. Hence its avowed atheism and crackdown on religions beyond its control like Falun Gong and Tibetan Buddhism.

So these atheists you imply are committing crimes in the name of atheism - they are just shy about their beliefs and too embarassed to say it? But not shy enough not to do it...?

Usually when someone kills for a religious ideology they have no problem 'publically declaring' it. Most of the time you couldn't possibly get them to shut up about it!

And you're relying on the Burden of Proof fallacy again. Going by that you well as might say there is no world wide belief in anarchy since that would require anarchists from all across the world to organize.

Doesn't the very nature of atheism discourage participating in pageantry and ceremonies consistent with organized religion? Therefore wouldn't any atheist who commits crimes against people with beliefs "in the name of Atheism" would be going against his or her own beliefs by participating in an ecclesiastical behavior?

The purpose of religion is to help us determine what should be, not what is.

"God exists."
"The world was created."
"There is an afterlife."

All matters of "is", not of "should be."

Evidence and the scientific method are great at discovering what is, but worthless at pointing us in any specific direction for future development or showing us what should be.

Philosophy, on the other hand, is invaluable.

Religion, of course, fails utterly at this, with far worse consequences than its merely unfortunate errors in matters of "is." (Homophobia? Sexism? Violent sectarianism? The legitimization of unjust social orders?)

The difference is that Fundamentalist Christians exist, whereas "militant atheist" is just a derogatory term invented by religious people in an attempt to make their critics appear extreme.

The difference is that Fundamentalist Christians exist, whereas "militant atheist" is just a derogatory term invented by religious people in an attempt to make their critics appear extreme.

I wonder... is a Militant Atheist, just an Atheist having a real bad day and then is confronted by a couple of evangelicals who try and tell him the "good news" and not wanting to hear it, tells them off... When all this little Atheist wants to do is be ignored.

I wonder... is a Militant Atheist, just an Atheist having a real bad day and then is confronted by a couple of evangelicals who try and tell him the "good news" and not wanting to hear it, tells them off... When all this little Atheist wants to do is be ignored.

Perhaps. Or even worse, someone like Richard Dawkins, who has the audacity to try to convince other people!

Perhaps. Or even worse, someone like Richard Dawkins, who has the audacity to try to convince other people!

I don't see how Dawkins is so bad. In fact, I'm quite enjoying his book, The God Delusion. He isn't trying to convince anyone, he's giving a scattered minority a rallying point. He even admits in his book that there are some people he won't convince. His target are the people who are religious out of obligation and nothing more. The people who didn't know that they could break away from religion. The people who are in the middle, like agnostics and deists.

Radicals on both sides are stupid and irritating shocker.

I don't see how Dawkins is so bad. In fact, I'm quite enjoying his book, The God Delusion. He isn't trying to convince anyone, he's giving a scattered minority a rallying point. He even admits in his book that there are some people he won't convince. His target are the people who are religious out of obligation and nothing more. The people who didn't know that they could break away from religion. The people who are in the middle, like agnostics and deists.

Yeah, I was just kidding. My point was that Dawkins is a very reasonable guy, but some religious people are so afraid of criticism that they paint him as an extremist.

Come play when you can give me an example of when they do that in the name of atheism. Unlike, of course, in Sudan, where they kill and/or forcibly convert Christians in the name of Islam.
Yeah, fine. 28 Orthodox Bishops and about 1000 priests were killed in the first five years of the USSR alone, let alone in the Great Purge.

Ok, I gotta admit something:
I fail to see the difference between Fundamentalist Christians and Militant Atheists. They support completely opposite ideas, but are completely identical in their manner of presenting it, which I thought was the reason for the opposition of the fundies. They both have pretty strong contempt for the other side, both are completely convinced they are right, both bind together as a "community", both seek to prosetlyze and export their beliefs, and both seek to reduce the influence of the other. So, I guess my question is, independent of what they believe, is there a real difference in the mindset of the two sides?

I'm sorry, is there an anti-church of atheism where people gather to be told how there is no god nor afterlife and get accused of moral failure in failing to accept these ideas? When their ideas are challenged to they pretend that their beliefs are exempt from the laws that govern all other discourse? Do they argue that those who fail to acknowledge their primacy in all things deserve to be stripped of their rights?

There's a big difference. The fact that some broad strokes can encompass both does nothing to make them similar.

Night and day are both periods of the rotation of the Earth and represent the amount of visible solar luminosity. They both make up roughly equal amounts of time in the calendar year. They are both recognizable by the color of the sky, and the time on a clock. But they are not the same.

I'd say that's probably good, since there IS no moral imperative.

Though I suppose we could have a very interesting discussion about whether or not it's moral to lie to people and tell them there's a moral imperative in order to get them to behave in a moral manner...

Well, if you believe there is a moral manner in which to behave, you are also saying that there is a moral imperative. Saying "This is moral behavior" is the same as saying "To behave morally, one must do this".

Well, if you believe there is a moral manner in which to behave, you are also saying that there is a moral imperative. Saying "This is moral behavior" is the same as saying "To behave morally, one must do this".
Actually, all that requires is a personal opinion. No external moral imperative required.

I can say "This is excellent soup" without there being some tasty imperative toward which all soups should strive.

Yeah, fine. 28 Orthodox Bishops and about 1000 priests were killed in the first five years of the USSR alone, let alone in the Great Purge.
And that had fuckall to do with enforcing atheism. It was about enforcing a religion called Stalinism. The reason the Orthodox Bishops had to be wiped out was because they were competition. If you read up a bit, you'll find that the church was allowed to function as a patriotic organization at several points, it's just that when they got uppity there would be shootings and other violent unpleasentness. Much like the violent unpleasentness that was used on pretty much anybody else, of any religious or philosophical bent, who got uppity.

Perhaps. Or even worse, someone like Richard Dawkins, who has the audacity to try to convince other people!

it was better back in the old days, when militancy counted for something. you know, when we were going to free mankind by strangling the last king with the entrails of the last priest.

Slippery slope. I said De Facto. Which clarifies that China is cracking down on any religious instution it cannot thoroughly control as a state apparatus, even if it does not make any silly cartoon villainish declarations of doing it in "The Name of Atheism."

China cracks down on any institution it cannot thoroughly control, so I really don't see why you think this is evidence of an ideologically atheist crusade.

And you're saying atheism is not an ideology in and of itself? That the persistent belief that there are no divine figures taking charge over mortal affairs is not an ideology?

As a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture? No it's not. Belief is not synonymous with ideology.

Almost all theocracies are deep down cynical institutions that rely on religion as an excuse and a means of establishing power over the masses. China realizes this much, knowing that religion in any form it cannot control is a threat to its power. Hence its avowed atheism and crackdown on religions beyond its control like Falun Gong and Tibetan Buddhism.

China isn't a theocracy.


And you're relying on the Burden of Proof fallacy again. Going by that you well as might say there is no world wide belief in anarchy since that would require anarchists from all across the world to organize.

Nonsense.

Doesn't the very nature of atheism discourage participating in pageantry and ceremonies consistent with organized religion?

Why yes, because unlike organized religion atheism is not an ideology, nor a religion.

Therefore wouldn't any atheist who commits crimes against people with beliefs "in the name of Atheism" would be going against his or her own beliefs by participating in an ecclesiastical behavior?

I never said "ecclesiastical." But you know, you would think they would MENTION it. If you're cracking down on Muslims/Jews/whatever, you don't make it a secret. You make it known, so as to discourage what you're trying to crack down on make a clear example to others.

But apparently they are just ultra-mysterious and only you know their real motives.

Actually, all that requires is a personal opinion. No external moral imperative required.

do you want to say that the person who says "it is right for me to rape people" is just as right as the person who denies that claim?

Ok, I gotta admit something:
I fail to see the difference between Fundamentalist Christians and Militant Atheists. They support completely opposite ideas, but are completely identical in their manner of presenting it, which I thought was the reason for the opposition of the fundies. They both have pretty strong contempt for the other side, both are completely convinced they are right, both bind together as a "community", both seek to prosetlyze and export their beliefs, and both seek to reduce the influence of the other. So, I guess my question is, independent of what they believe, is there a real difference in the mindset of the two sides?

Isn't that true of ANY militant/fundamentalist group in regards to ANY subject?

Isn't that true of ANY militant/fundamentalist group in regards to ANY subject?

Pretty much. Jerks will be jerks, regardless of what it is they're pushing.

Pretty much. Jerks will be jerks, regardless of what it is they're pushing.

militancy is not itself a bad thing

Is there usually a difference between two radical groups?
Yes.
Are they both radical?
Yes.

What is the point of this thread?
No idea.
Is that smoke I see?
Yes, and probably flames somewhere down the path.

Your blind, he/she is trying to say that the radical atheists are just as bad, bigoted and ebil as fundies. It should be an obvious fact that radicals by majority are all the same and share this mental illness that they are superior/right and that everyone must bend to their will. Most radicals are wrong in the same way that fundies are so why just target fundies? Why pick on only "teh ebil Christians" when there are lots of people with differing beliefs that do the exact same shit!

Your blind, he/she is trying to say that the radical atheists are just as bad, bigoted and ebil as fundies. It should be an obvious fact that radicals by majority are all the same and share this mental illness that they are superior/right and that everyone must bend to their will. Most radicals are wrong in the same way that fundies are so why just target fundies? Why pick on only "teh ebil Christians" when there are lots of people with differing beliefs that do the exact same shit!

i am an anti-racist. a militant anti-racist. am i just as bad, bigoted, and evil as the klan? is the fact that i believe my anti-racist cause is right and just a sign of mental illness? does the fact that i wish to eradicate racism make my anti-racism wrong?

Ok, I gotta admit something:
I fail to see the difference between Fundamentalist Christians and Militant Atheists. They support completely opposite ideas, but are completely identical in their manner of presenting it, which I thought was the reason for the opposition of the fundies. They both have pretty strong contempt for the other side, both are completely convinced they are right, both bind together as a "community", both seek to prosetlyze and export their beliefs, and both seek to reduce the influence of the other. So, I guess my question is, independent of what they believe, is there a real difference in the mindset of the two sides?

No, at least not on NSG. :eek:

i am an anti-racist. a militant anti-racist. am i just as bad, bigoted, and evil as the klan? is the fact that i believe my anti-racist cause is right and just a sign of mental illness? does the fact that i wish to eradicate racism make my anti-racism wrong?

1) Only if you make it so

2) If you say that your views are the ONLY right ones and that ALL others are wrong then engage in a militant crusade against all others and commit the same atrocities, you are.

3) no, by all means eradicate racism but just don't become like the radicals and extremists who bomb buildings starts riots and demands everyone becomes like them.

1) Only if you make it so

2) If you say that your views are the ONLY right ones and that ALL others are wrong then engage in a militant crusade against all others and commit the same atrocities, you are.

my views on race are the only right ones.

and if that is your standard for equivalence, then clearly militant atheists and whacked out fundies are not equivalent at all.

my views on race are the only right ones.

and if that is your standard for equivalence, then clearly militant atheists and whacked out fundies are not equivalent at all.

2) fundies and atheists are equivalent in that they do the same shit.

What are your views on race?

2) fundies and atheists are equivalent in that they do the same shit.

We have never said that religious fundamentalists will burn in Hell forever. Nor have the present-day category of "militant atheists" proposed that religious people be killed or religion actively, legally repressed.

You are trying to assert that religions do not require belief in them.
This is a foolish notion, as religions are nothing more than belief systems.They only requirement is for membership. Buddhism does not require that I believe what Buddhists believe, because I do not profess to be Buddhist.
In fact, most of them consider non-believers to be rather evil.Bullshit. Most denominations of Christianity and Islam perhaps, but few others, unless you care to cite a source.

No. Im asserting that just about all of them indoctrinate thier followers, and required certain beliefs in order to to belong, as religions are as we have both agreed, belief systems, and failure to believe means you cannot belong.You're backpedalling. You actually were asserting that all religions tell everybody what to believe, but what you wrote above I agree with. My religious experience was one of the those where I wasn't told that I had to join the religion. As a result, I was not confirmed a Catholic.
Ergo, as you were raised catholic, as was my own mother, you were taught what to believe by that same organization.I can't speak for your mother, but I wasn't taught what to believe. "Ergo" means that something logically follows from the preceding statements, but your statements are not dependent on each other. Here's an analogy:

"Atheism requires a certain belief (that those who claim there is a god are wrong) in order to belong, to be an atheist. Failure to believe that there is no god means you can't belong. Ergo, atheists tell people what to believe."

Can you spot the flaw in the logic?

do you want to say that the person who says "it is right for me to rape people" is just as right as the person who denies that claim?
Whether or not I want to do so, the reality is that morality is 100% subjective. Happily, as humans we enter into social contracts which allow us to enforce particular subjective moral systems, so I can choose to live in a society which enforces a subjective moral system that is in general allignment with my own.

2) fundies and atheists are equivalent in that they do the same shit.

Bunk. Let's see your evidence of this.

Yeah, I was just kidding. My point was that Dawkins is a very reasonable guy, but some religious people are so afraid of criticism that they paint him as an extremist.

Ah, I guess I misread your tone in the previous post. :) My bad. But yes, you're quite right about how some religious people would do that, and without having actually read the book... kind of like how some don't like Harry Potter but never read a damn book from that series, relying only on heresy.