Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-18-2019 12:51 PM
130 online now:
Diomedes, RAZD, ringo (3 members, 127 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,428 Year: 3,465/19,786 Month: 460/1,087 Week: 50/212 Day: 11/39 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
456
7
89Next
Author Topic:   Atheist attitudes.
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 91 of 121 (524107)
09-14-2009 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Rrhain
09-13-2009 7:05 PM


Sanctimony
Right, because a racial characteristic is equivalent to a dogmatic philosophy. Everybody who is black behaves in a (reasonably) consistent way while those who follow a dogma have absolutely no common traits.

Clearly you're not understanding the point of the exercise. I'm illustrating how if someone attacks religion it is socially acceptable, but is taboo for most anything else.

I'm not saying that Dawkins doesn't reserve the right to say it, I'm just pointing out that his methodology is a bit severe. That's just my opinion, as in either direction it is subjective. You obviously disagree and that's fine.

How many cases do we need to examine before we can conclude that it is not a problem of "a few bad apples" or "bad luck" or "poor implementation" but is rather a systemic problem inherent in the enterprise at its foundation?

Well, if you look at something like what Jesus taught I doubt many people can reasonably find fault in it. Some would say he is just pointing out the obvious, yet something as simple as the law of reciprocity is almost impossible to achieve. Otherwise there would be no wars or conflicts.

So, no, I don't think someone belonging to a certain religion necessarily has to behave like a "bad apple" because it is inherently flawed.

I am critical of religion too for SPECIFIC reasons, but not so much that I wear a blindfold so that I can't see that some very positive things come from it. That would be unfair and unrealistic. Where I find fault with Dawkins and people of his ilk is that his assesments are extreme to automatically generalize the way he does.

Thus proving that your entire argument is full of shit.

Thanks for playing.

It's a good thing you're nothing like those hate mongering and sanctimonious Christians, Rrhain. Clearly religion makes them behave that way, and as we ALL can see, your irreligion has served you so well in not behaving like them.

Congratulations!


"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Rrhain, posted 09-13-2009 7:05 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-14-2009 3:34 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 118 by Rrhain, posted 09-18-2009 12:25 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1003 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 92 of 121 (524131)
09-14-2009 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by dwise1
09-14-2009 5:48 AM


Re: Benevolence
Dwise1,

Just a great post, you nailed just about exactly my frustration level when talking to some people. It is not just the hypocrisy that is frustration but the seeming inability to recognize it that is frustrating.

I have, on several occasions, had someone politely inform me that their deity demands that I worship and praise him or else he will burn me alive forever. But, of course, there is no malice or hatred implied in such a threat. Oftentimes such a statement is tempered with some version of "I am no better than you" or "We are all sinners" which translates to "You and I are no different except that I have the intelligence and wisdom to recognize and worship the architect of the universe and so will be embraced for eternity in His loving arms while you are tormented for eternity. Outside of that small thing we are alike"

The point is, some theists seem to think it is acceptable say really foul things then play innocent or even take offense when you do not agree.

About the claims made by some that people like Dawkins and Harris have become so anti-religion that they have become what they hate. I have now heard this identical claim made enough times now to figure out it is another of those cute little memes people pick up and repeat despite being empty and meaningless. Even the Dawkins quotes used to support it are far to consistent to be anything other than a cut and paste (i.e. the same few quotes are used in order too frequently to be coincidence).


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by dwise1, posted 09-14-2009 5:48 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1003 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 93 of 121 (524142)
09-14-2009 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Hyroglyphx
09-14-2009 1:41 PM


Re: Sanctimony
Hyroglyphyx writes:

Clearly you're not understanding the point of the exercise. I'm illustrating how if someone attacks religion it is socially acceptable, but is taboo for most anything else.

I have to disagree. In my experience (and as Dawkins notes repeatedly) religion is protected from attack far more than other opinions or institutions. We (unbelievers) are expected by society to accept that some people believe in things we do not. Mores dictate that we more or less let this go and do not force them to defend their belief. Certain theists, on the other hand, feel that they have the right to evangelize to just about anyone.

Several years ago we signed my oldest son up for a school sponsored extracurricular high school science class. The first day he came home, and said the teacher told him that the brain and nervous system is proof that there is a creator and life did not evolve. He told her that his dad was an evolutionary biologist, and she said (this is almost word for word) "Then your dad is a fool and doesn't know anything about science"

Long story short, I took legal action and got her contract with the district removed (she can still teach the class, but can no longer have it qualify for state funds). Now this was a fairly straight forward case. My issue with it is that so many of my friends and colleagues (some very liberal theists or atheists) thought I was too mean and made a bigger deal out of this than it deserved. One professor told me he understands that it was wrong of her to do this, but I really should not have injured her livelihood "just because I disagree with her worldview" (??!!!). Which is completely ridiculous. I have no issue with her view, except when she teaches it to my child using public resources.

What this shows is how much we have been conditioned to respect religion and treat it differently than other viewpoints.


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-14-2009 1:41 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2009 9:33 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 94 of 121 (524323)
09-15-2009 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by kbertsche
09-14-2009 10:33 AM


kbertsche writes:

quote:
Dawkins takes a few shots at Islam and Allah, but directs most of his salvo against Christianity and the God of the Bible.

Since he lives in a country that is overwhelmingly Christian and is speaking to an audience that is overwhelmingly Christian, is it really surprising that the specific examples he uses would be primarily Christian?

quote:
We've seen riots caused by cartoons which were much milder than Dawkins' rhetoric.

And yet, somehow it's Dawkins who is the militant....


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by kbertsche, posted 09-14-2009 10:33 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 95 of 121 (524324)
09-15-2009 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by kbertsche
09-14-2009 10:54 AM


kbertsche responds to me:

quote:
I'm not sure that I can give a convincing answer for why, but I believe it is true.

So if I accuse you of hatred, then that is sufficient to conclude that you actually do hate, no other justification is required? Your hurt feelings are sufficient to impugn someone else?

quote:
If one has a very deep emotional vesting in an idea or belief, especially one where persecution and hatred already exist

Hold it right there.

Where in the UK or the US does one find "persecution and hatred" for religion in general or the Christian version of it in particular? Oh, the UCLJ and Pat Robertson and the rest of them love to talk about how Christians are the most hated group, the one you can always pick on, never getting any respect, etc., but they never seem to be able to come up with any real examples.

In fact, the ACLU, the very organization they villify in order to raise money, fights for the rights of Christians here in this country. O'Reilly (he of the "War on Christmas" hallucination) likes to trot out a claim of a couple of kids who tried distributing candy canes that had Christian messages attached and were prevented from doing so by the principal.

What he neglects to mention is that the ACLU came to those kids' defense and successfully won the case.

Where is this "persecution and hatred" of the religious or Christian?

quote:
I believe we see that this is true regarding Christianity, Islam, and belief in the holocaust.

As I asked you previously:

Where is your evidence of god? We've got evidence of the Holocaust. Do you not understand the difference?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by kbertsche, posted 09-14-2009 10:54 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 96 of 121 (524325)
09-15-2009 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by kbertsche
09-14-2009 11:03 AM


kbertsche writes:

quote:
I want an agreed non-fiction analogy that generates very strong feelings and for which some have given their lives.

Do you not understand the difference? The reason why it is "non-fiction" is because we have actual evidence for its existence.

Where is your evidence for the existence of god? The Holocaust does not compare to Santa Claus with regard to evidence of existence, no matter how many children you get to come forward to say they do believe.

quote:
I can't think of any human individuals that fit this description.

People give their lives for all sorts of reasons. Let's take Jim Jones, for example. A bunch of people had very strong feelings for him and gave their lives for him.

Do you not understand the difference between Jim Jones and god when it comes to the question of existence?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by kbertsche, posted 09-14-2009 11:03 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 97 of 121 (524377)
09-16-2009 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Lithodid-Man
09-14-2009 3:34 PM


Re: Sanctimony
I have to disagree. In my experience (and as Dawkins notes repeatedly) religion is protected from attack far more than other opinions or institutions. We (unbelievers) are expected by society to accept that some people believe in things we do not. Mores dictate that we more or less let this go and do not force them to defend their belief. Certain theists, on the other hand, feel that they have the right to evangelize to just about anyone.

In the public sphere anyone is able to discuss freely their opinions. There really only exists questions of common courtesy, common sense, and civility. We are able to be as rude as we want to legally, but is it in everyone's best interest is a pertinent question?

We all know the evangelical type who do no favors to their position by angrily and uncompassionately get their message across. It has the opposite effect on the desired outcome. I see Dawkins in that same arena. Again, I think he makes a lot of interesting points, but he needs to work on his method of delivery, as he sounds antagonistic.


"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams
This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-14-2009 3:34 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by ochaye, posted 09-16-2009 9:58 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 99 by mark24, posted 09-16-2009 10:32 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
ochaye
Member (Idle past 3311 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 98 of 121 (524379)
09-16-2009 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Hyroglyphx
09-16-2009 9:33 AM


Re: Sanctimony
quote:
We all know the evangelical type who do no favors to their position by angrily and uncompassionately get their message across.

Some might say that such persons are hardly likely to be evangelicals, their experience being that those who get angry and show lack of compassion do not qualify as members of evangelical fellowships.

Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2009 9:33 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3268 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 99 of 121 (524387)
09-16-2009 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Hyroglyphx
09-16-2009 9:33 AM


Re: Sanctimony
Hyroglyphx,

We all know the evangelical type who do no favors to their position by angrily and uncompassionately get their message across. It has the opposite effect on the desired outcome. I see Dawkins in that same arena. Again, I think he makes a lot of interesting points, but he needs to work on his method of delivery, as he sounds antagonistic.

Even non-evangelicals see it as perfectly OK to indoctrinate the most vulnerable section of society; children. Dawkins doesn't do this, nor have I ever seen him angrily prosetylising atheism, neither to children or adults. What religion gets away with in society is outrageous compared to the standard any other strongly held ideal is held to.

Dawkins isn't in the same city, let alone the same arena.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2009 9:33 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2009 10:55 AM mark24 has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 100 of 121 (524400)
09-16-2009 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by mark24
09-16-2009 10:32 AM


Re: Sanctimony
Even non-evangelicals see it as perfectly OK to indoctrinate the most vulnerable section of society; children. Dawkins doesn't do this, nor have I ever seen him angrily prosetylising atheism, neither to children or adults. What religion gets away with in society is outrageous compared to the standard any other strongly held ideal is held to.

Dawkins isn't in the same city, let alone the same arena.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Your all-encompassing condemnation of all things religious make it seem as of you've lost all objectivity on the subject and are therefore, in my opinion, in the same arena and city which Dawkins resides.


"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams
This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by mark24, posted 09-16-2009 10:32 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by mark24, posted 09-16-2009 11:36 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 102 by Modulous, posted 09-16-2009 12:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3268 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 101 of 121 (524415)
09-16-2009 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Hyroglyphx
09-16-2009 10:55 AM


Re: Sanctimony
Hyroglyphx,

Your all-encompassing condemnation of all things religious make it seem as of you've lost all objectivity on the subject and are therefore, in my opinion, in the same arena and city which Dawkins resides.

The last refuge of a flimsy argument. What a silly thing to say!

Please show where you garnered the opinion of my "all-encompassing condemnation" of all things religious.

I've lost objectivity? The example I've consistently come up with where religion gets a free pass compared to anything else is in it's legal indoctrination of minors. Please show how I have lost objectivity in this observation.


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2009 10:55 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2009 12:32 PM mark24 has responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 177 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 102 of 121 (524424)
09-16-2009 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Hyroglyphx
09-16-2009 10:55 AM


objectivity
Your all-encompassing condemnation of all things religious make it seem as of you've lost all objectivity on the subject

I missed the part where Mark24 condemned all things religious.

...and are therefore, in my opinion, in the same arena and city which Dawkins resides.

And neither has Dawkins:

Dawkins in reply to the question about whether there might be community benefits to religion writes:

Yes there very possibly are. I should qualify that by saying that as a Darwinian, usefulness to communities is not what it's about. Darwinism is all about usefulness to individuals, or rather their genes, to be more precise. So usefulness to communities is an added benefit, and I'm sure you can list benefits to communities that accrue from religion.

{Source}

Dawkins concedes psychological benefits such as consolation and inspiration (but adds that other sources of the same things can be found through non-religious means) and also concedes that it is feasible that having a faith in certain religious ideas might have a health benefit (increased lifespan studies etc).

Maybe it is you that has 'lost all objectivity' on this subject?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2009 10:55 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 103 of 121 (524426)
09-16-2009 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by mark24
09-16-2009 11:36 AM


Re: Sanctimony
Please show where you garnered the opinion of my "all-encompassing condemnation" of all things religious.

Any number of your posts in this thread to point to your blanket statements. You say "religion" as if there some insidious plan for all its adherents. There are plenty of religious people who give all of religiosity a bad name. But there's no reason to indict one and all under that blanket statement.

I've lost objectivity? The example I've consistently come up with where religion gets a free pass compared to anything else is in it's legal indoctrination of minors.

On another more pertinent thread, I am condemning those that do indoctrinate children. You seem to be making sweeping allegations, as does Dawkins, as if indoctrination is a pre-requisite for religion. I'm simply clearing the air.

This all comes down to a matter of opinion. You think Dawkin's is perfectly within reason to make his criticisms, I see it as an unhealthy obsession that he has. I think to turn a non-belief in to something one devotes their every waking moment to kind of silly. The man is on a crusade and very much proselytizes in the name of atheism. Is he not "preaching" to people on his pulpit? Yes, that is exactly what he does. The ONLY thing that makes him any different from a religious zealot is that he doesn't ascribe to an official religion. The zealousy remains nonetheless, doesn't it? And even then, most pastors remain confined to their own private church. He travels the world preaching the "bad word" as opposed to the "Good Word," right? Does he not do all these things?

What ever would the man do with himself if he actually got his wish and saw religion eradicated from the planet?

That's just my own personal opinion. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.


"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams
This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by mark24, posted 09-16-2009 11:36 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Rahvin, posted 09-16-2009 1:25 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 105 by Modulous, posted 09-16-2009 1:42 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 109 by mark24, posted 09-16-2009 2:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1259 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 104 of 121 (524430)
09-16-2009 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Hyroglyphx
09-16-2009 12:32 PM


Re: Sanctimony
Any number of your posts in this thread to point to your blanket statements. You say "religion" as if there some insidious plan for all its adherents. There are plenty of religious people who give all of religiosity a bad name. But there's no reason to indict one and all under that blanket statement.

Quite to the contrary: "religion" by its very nature concerns the acceptance of subjective evidence and tradition over (or without) supporting objective evidence. It is possible to criticize religion in general, regardless of specific dogma, simply based on the irrational arguments that religion, by definition, must use.

It is that very irrationality that systemically causes the abuses and atrocities like the Crusades or the Salem Witch Trials. While it's wrong to paint all followers of religion as being just as bad as those who perpetrated such crimes against humanity, it is perfectly valid to criticize the mindset that almost inevitably allows such things to happen.

Consider it like criticizing racism. If one person believed that (Race A) is superior to all other races, he is not responsible for all of the atrocities that have been committed by racists. It is still, however, perfectly valid to criticize racism as the mindset from which those atrocities begin. So too is a given religious person or group not responsible for all of the evils committed by other religious people, but it is still valid to criticize the mindset that causes them.

Not all criticism of religion is based on evil act, though,a nd it's important to remember that. Dawkins criticism also revolves around the fact that religion's embracing of subjective, unverifiable, magic woo is an actual limiting factor in the progression of humanity as a species. Religion, in general, is responsible for the only significant obstacles to the acceptance of evolution and other scientific theories that have demonstrated undeniable accuracy. Religion has opposed stem cell research that could cure horrific diseases. Religion bears much responsibility for the AIDS epidemic in Africa - and not only the Catholic nonsense with condoms - indigenous religious beliefs support snake-oil cures, the rape of virgins, and the use of condoms as talismans instead of their intended use - all a result of the mindset of religion where subjective, unverifiable nonsense and tradition are accepted in contradiction or in the absence of objective evidence.

The religious mindset is worthy of severe criticism, even though not all religious people are. When objectivity is abandoned, it paves the way for irrational actions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2009 12:32 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2009 2:30 PM Rahvin has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 177 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 105 of 121 (524433)
09-16-2009 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Hyroglyphx
09-16-2009 12:32 PM


Dawkins' other work
Do you really think that all Dawkins does is criticize religion, the religious and religious ideas and 'proselytize for atheism?'

That is probably colouring your view of him considerably. I've seen him do plenty of other things, like helping with funding for scientific education where governments or normal private donations have failed.

Sure, he has helped some people 'come out' about their atheism and I believe he has worked with groups that help this process out - especially with regards to religions which ostracise non-believers from their family and community (such as a lot of Islam and some Christianity). And he is trying to help people understand that it is OK to not believe in God, and he does admit that there are several tactics to doing this and that his tactic isn't the universal ultimate best one.

Here is something that wasn't atheism that he spent his time and money on:

Given away free to the internet.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2009 12:32 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Parasomnium, posted 09-16-2009 2:32 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply
 Message 108 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2009 2:42 PM Modulous has responded

  
Prev1
...
456
7
89Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019