Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheist attitudes.
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 10 of 121 (521033)
08-25-2009 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
08-25-2009 7:30 AM


Mike, the internet has an interesting effect on otherwise perfectly sane individuals:
It's an unfortunate truth that anonymity and an audience frequently brings out the worst in people. You're seeing a combination of the Internet Tough Guy (the same guy who proposes horrible tortures as retribution for relatively minor offenses, thinks nuking the entire Middle East is a great way to solve all of the violence,and generally feels incapable of responding with anything not absolutely drenched in machismo and testosterone, typically covering the fact that he still lives with his mommy and has never touched a girl) and basic herd mentality (the individuals are trying to establish themselves in the atheist community, and somehow believe that posting the "toughest" response achieves this goal).
YouTube comments are always shit. When's the last time you looked at the comments for a popular Atheist video? "You'll burn in hell" is tame.
Here's my perspective:
I hate Christianity. It's not a mindless hate - I simply resent the fact that I was effectively brainwashed into the religion from the moment I could understand speech, and was not given the chance to make a decision for myself. I resent the social pressure provided by my friends and family, I resent the fact that even now I cannot tell my family that I'm an Atheist for fear of being disowned. Most of all I resent the utter bullshit that religion in general but Christianity most of all (simply by "virtue" of being one of the largest religions) thwarts humanitarian efforts at every turn; the AIDS crisis in Africa and even here in the US is in large part perpetuated by idiotic abstinence-only bullshit. Catholic representatives in Africa have told people that condoms cause AIDS, for fuck's sake, because contraceptives are evil and that justifies letting people contract a terminal illness. I resent the "end-times" bullshit that continually affects attitudes and even national policies towards environmentalism and the Middle East. I resent the typical Christian treatment of homosexuality, and the Fundamentalist insistence on invading secular schools. I despise "Faith healers" who actively con people into believing that their illnesses are healed, taking advantage of blind faith. I utterly hate those who let their children die rather than go to a hospital because they have faith that God will heal the child.
I have absolutely no respect whatsoever for the beliefs themselves. I think, to put it perfectly bluntly, that the concept that there is an invisible man in the sky who simultaneously loves everyone but also wants to put the vast majority of people into eternal burning torment and who sacrificed himself to himself to atone for a debt owed to himself is absolutely stupid. Idiotic. Moronic. Retarded.
I think the world will be much better off when the last brick of the last church falls on the head of the last priest.
All of the things I hate about Christianity are not simply things done by a few Christians - they're actually the very doctrine of the religion. I'm not targeting individuals - it's the beliefs themselves and the natural consequence of such things as "thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman, that is an abomination" and other doctrines that lead directly to bigotry and frequently to violence.
And yet I would never advocate violence towards a Christian, or anyone else. I wouldn't beat someone up just because I thought their beliefs were stupid; if I were to do that, I'd be in fistfights all day long every day for the rest of my life, and that's even disregarding Christianity.
I don't even go out of my way to argue with people about religion - I don't even get into verbal fights except for forums like this one that are designed for the purpose of debating religion and science. The only time I even talk about religion in the real world is when someone else brings it up first - especially when someone tries to convert me.
Does it disgust me that people can be dickwads on the internet? I find what they express to be repugnant. There are certainly some Christians that I'd consider guilty of child abuse and who should be locked up, but those people are a tiny minority and I'd feel the same regarding anyone who lets kids die solely based on their personal beliefs regardless of what those beliefs are.
The right to believe whatever your conscience dictates, even if I or everyone else in the world thinks that belief is stupid or even repugnant, is one of the core rights of civilized nations. Wherever that right is violated, tyranny follows. I've never met an actual adult Atheist who seriously advocates a violent response to religion. I've never heard of an Atheism-motivated killing or assault. The news has never opened with a story about a suicide bomber who screamed "there is no God!" before blowing himself up in a crowded marketplace. I've never heard of an Atheist screaming "Natural selection!" and shooting an abortion doctor.
Have you?
Of course, I've heard of religious people, Christians many of them, doing exactly those things in the name of their beliefs.
I find it curious that words, and usually not even violent words qualify Atheists as "militant," but it takes a bullet in the chest of a doctor to apply the label to a Christian.
Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 08-25-2009 7:30 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Theodoric, posted 08-25-2009 2:04 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 12 by bluescat48, posted 08-25-2009 3:29 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 13 by hooah212002, posted 08-25-2009 3:36 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 15 by Straggler, posted 08-25-2009 4:37 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 18 of 121 (521229)
08-26-2009 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by lyx2no
08-26-2009 1:53 PM


Re: Benevolence
The road to tyranny is paved with just such benevolence. I'd rather an enemy with a gun the a Bible: less insidious.
Wars of ideas are more difficult to fight than battles with guns, but there tend to be fewer casualties.
The problem isn't the Bible or the proselytizer alone, per se. The problem is the fundamentalist who decides he's going to use a gun after all. The problem is the extreme popularity of Christianity in general allowing public opinion to sway too many elected officials into acting in accordance with the majority rather than what the law says. The problem is the commonality of theistic beliefs making extreme views like Creationism sound reasonable to otherwise moderate people who in all other cases would just as soon leave science education to the scientists. The problem is a lack of education in critical thinking and logic allowing arguments from emotion to rule the day rather than considering even for a moment where the actual facts and evidence lie. The problem is a discomfort many people have with admitting that faith isn't based on evidence and that what is acceptable to one person may not be acceptable to others and neither sincere belief nor personal acceptance make something objectively true.
It's easy to forget that, for most of us, our parents were never taught about evolution until they took a college-level biology class - which means that many of them were never taught about evolution at all. Popular media like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Pokemon, and various other movies and TV shows, as well as religious leaders who've never spent a day in a biology classroom have provided more "education" on evolution than scientists have. Even many teachers in public schools don't have a better understanding of evolution than what TV presents.
It's not surprising that people have such skewed views on what the Theory of Evolution does and does not predict. Given that most people think that Leonardo, Raphael, Donatello, and Michelangelo are examples of "mutants," and that like in Pokemon organisms evolve into new organisms over the course of their own lifespans, is it any wonder we are confronted with questions like "why are there still monkeys around" or "why don't monkeys turn into people?"
Questions we find ridiculous are simply the result of the only education on the subject matter most people have received.
Issues over the attitudes of atheists and attitudes towards atheists suffer from similar problems: most Christians don't know any atheists...and if they do, they're almost always unaware of it. Their most significant exposure to atheism comes from their Bibles and pastors who teach them that atheists are people to be feared, that we're part of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy, and we're coming for their children. That we're godless heathens trying to ruin America/England/The World. Those fears are occasionally confirmed when they see comments on the Internet like what mike posted in the OP - remember, they're not looking for evidence or trying to understand, they're looking for confirmation of what they've already been told.
We seem "militant" to them because the concept of not having faith challenges their entire worldview, and that's justifiably frightening. We don't even have to say much - just say "I think your beliefs are a little crazy, because you can't support them with evidence," and we look like utter monsters. How dare we call their beliefs, which they have held and cherished since childhood and into which they have invested so much emotion and time and trust, "a little crazy?" How dare we imply that their beliefs might not be true, that they might not have all of the answers, that they might not have an afterlife in heaven waiting, that Grandma is just gone forever? That very basic challenge is a world-shattering weapon of mass destruction to a true believer, and what we would consider a slightly snarky but honest statement may as well be shitting in Baby Jesus' cheerios for the outrage and insult it causes.
They're not insidious. They see us as insidious, because they never know if their neighbor, their friend, their family member, their elected official, their postman, the cop that pulls them over, might be one of us, the ones who they honestly fear are working on behalf of Satan, the ones who think their core beliefs, part of what defines their lives, are "a little crazy." They aren't sneaking. It's hard for the overwhelming majority to be secretive. We know who and where they are, and while their attempts to invade secular education may seem underhanded to us, they're really just ill-informed, and convinced that their personal beliefs are facts being withheld from future generations by that Evil Atheist Conspiracy. Almost everything they've done has been in the public eye, out in the open. Only the real bastards, the "liars for Jesus" and the televangelist conmen like Peter Popoff count as insidious...and they're a tiny minority.
I'd much rather an opponent with a Bible. We both have a higher chance of walking away from any encounter, and I have a chance at convincing him that at the very least atheists aren't evil baby-eating Satanic monsters, like his pastor told him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by lyx2no, posted 08-26-2009 1:53 PM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by hooah212002, posted 08-26-2009 3:02 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 25 by Drosophilla, posted 09-09-2009 3:05 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 29 by kbertsche, posted 09-11-2009 2:14 AM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 26 of 121 (523342)
09-09-2009 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Drosophilla
09-09-2009 3:05 PM


Re: Benevolence
Hi Rahvin,
I'd just like to say both your posts (no.10 and no.18 in this thread) are superb. Post 10 says everthing i've felt myself re religion for years
Thanks!
- possibly the only extra thing i'd add is that i hate the way religion is used to indoctrinate children from a very young age to warp their rationalitly for ever - i think that is as worse (maybe even more so) than physical child abuse!
It's a very tough call. The formative years of childhood are so influential on our basic values and thought processes later in life that whatever you teach a child could be considered "indoctrination" from various points of view. It's difficult, however, to honestly say that parents should be prevented from raising their children in accordance with their own conscience. Were I to have children, I'd want to raise them according to my values and my beliefs and would resent the intrusion of anyone else into that process. I sympathize with religious parents at the same time that I abhor the results. I don't think there's an easy answer to this. I would agree that raising children in an atmosphere that stifles free thought and rationality to the degree that some religious teachings do does a massive disservice for those children later in life...but Christians for example would consider not teaching children about their faith an even greater disservice, as failure to adhere to their belief system results in eternal damnation.
It's quite a pickle.
And post 18 is very inspired - and i think dead on the mark. The sad thing is that once a religious belief has been internalized it is very difficult to get at that person.
Nearly impossible, in fact.
I am curious Rahvin. Your profile doesn't say where you are from but i'm guessing America where it almost impossible to escape the influence of christianity but you have emerged a rational thinking atheist despite their best efforts - that cannot have been easy. I'm from the UK where christianity is very much more in the periphery - and i had the added fortune of liberal parents who wanted me to think rather than be indoctrinated - so the only religous instruction i got was the one hour per week school compulsory lesson that was not in any way 'hard core'....
...yet I've still emerged with all those dislikes you list in post 10 and that's without the doctrine being forced upon me. I can only imagine what you have felt and fought against....congrats on coming out the right side - with your sanity and rationalism intact!
I was born in the Midwestern US to very conservative Christian parents. I was told Bible stories at bedtime rather than fairy tales, I was sent to Bible camp every summer, we prayed and read the Bible before and after every meal, etc. My maternal grandfather was an administrator at a Christian school in Michigan. Until my 20s, I was very much a faithful Christian who believed that I could speak directly with the creator of the Universe, believed that Jesus was the son of God who died for my sins, etc.
That said, my upbringing was not totally fundamentalist. My grandparents are more conservative in their beliefs than my parents, but that's to be expected to a degree. My parents did teach me to think for myself and to examine my sources, and encouraged questions. They were very accepting of my rather liberal interpretation of the Bible (ie, no literal 6-day Creation, etc) so long as I maintained belief in Jesus.
My deconversion was prompted by several wesites, including this one, that caused me to turn a critical eye to my own beliefs and their source. An absolutely necessary catalyst was moving away from home (by "away" I mean over 3000 miles), thus removing myself from the self-reinforcing social pressures of church and family. If I had remained at home or even nearby, the constant reinforcement and validation of my beliefs may have been enough to hold me.
For most people, that never happens. They remain close enough to family, or find a new religious social network after moving, and few people ever turn a critical eye to their own beliefs, especially ones as closely held as religion when one has been indoctrinated since birth.
In the end, it was a matter of evidence and the Bible itself that finalized my deconversion. The burden of proof was certainly not met by Christianity - "Faith" is supposed to replace evidence, and that no longer worked for me. The Bible also contained quite a bit that I, raised for over two decades as a Christian and reading the Bible all the time, was never even aware of - and things that repulsed me when I gave them a second thought. The slaying of the firstborn of Egypt, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Flood, Revelations, the killing of 3000 people after the 10 Commandments were given, the killing of children by bears of all things for insulting the baldness of a prophet, these were all things that I either never knew were in the Bible or never actually thought about beyond acceptance as a history lesson. Once I considered the ethical ramifications of all of these things (and others), I decided that even if the Christian God did exist, I could not worship such a monster.
Frankly, I was lucky. Given just a few different choices in my life, I would almost certainly remain a Christian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Drosophilla, posted 09-09-2009 3:05 PM Drosophilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Drosophilla, posted 09-09-2009 4:14 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 34 of 121 (523627)
09-11-2009 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by kbertsche
09-11-2009 2:14 AM


Re: Benevolence
quote:
We seem "militant" to them because the concept of not having faith challenges their entire worldview, and that's justifiably frightening. We don't even have to say much - just say "I think your beliefs are a little crazy, because you can't support them with evidence," and we look like utter monsters. How dare we call their beliefs, which they have held and cherished since childhood and into which they have invested so much emotion and time and trust, "a little crazy?" How dare we imply that their beliefs might not be true, that they might not have all of the answers, that they might not have an afterlife in heaven waiting, that Grandma is just gone forever? That very basic challenge is a world-shattering weapon of mass destruction to a true believer, and what we would consider a slightly snarky but honest statement may as well be shitting in Baby Jesus' cheerios for the outrage and insult it causes.
You words are very eloquent, but are also completely wrong. You describe a moderate atheist who respectfully disagrees with a theist or asks respectful questions. Virtually no-one would call this "militant atheism."
Quite to the contrary, from personal experience. Saying anything negative about religion and faith paints one as a "militant" atheist.
The term "militant atheist" is reserved for those who are especially aggressive against theism or specific forms of it, those who are engaged in a verbal battle to wipe out religious belief.
The first definition of "militant" from dictionary.com is:
1. vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause: militant reformers.
and this is how the term is used regarding "militant atheists" such as Richard Dawkins.
And yet it doesn't apply, even to Dawkins.
Dawkins doen't advocate making religion illegal, or rounding up the faithful. He says "your beliefs are absurd, and I think they do more harm than good. I think the world would be a better place without faith." That's a far cry from anything "militant," unless you intend to dilute the meaning of the word such that any strongly held opinion conveys militism.
The real issue is when the shoe is put on the other foot. If Dawkins is considered "militant," then so should every televangelist I've ever seen, along with every fire-and-brimstone preacher. Every Christian who actively protests against gay marriage should qualify as "militant." The school board in the Dover trial should qualify.
Yet they don't. Nobody identifies them as "militant."
To qualify as a "militant Christian," it's almost necessary to murderan abortion doctor. You could probably get away with only attempting the murder.
Calling for a Christian Theocracy doesn't get people labeled as "militant." Referring to the US as a "Chrsitian nation" and even activism to support such a position doesn't label one, either.
What Atheist actively seeks the abolition of religion? Even Dawkins doesn't do that.
The wikipedia article on militant atheism begins by saying:
Julian Baggini defines militant atheism as "Atheism which is actively hostile to religion" explaining that this "requires more than strong disagreement with religion - it requires something verging on hatred and is characterised by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious belief. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense and the second is that it is usually or always harmful"
Richard Dawkins is the prime example of a "militant atheist." Here are two Dawkins quotes from The God Delusion:
I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.
Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument.
This has a militant tone which is lacking from your description above. You describe a moderate atheist, but Dawkins is a militant atheist.
Saying that a belief is evil system now qualifies as being "militant?"
The KKK is an evil organization, and the world would be better off if every member dropped dead.
Am I "militant" agaisnt the KKK now?
I haven't made any active attack on them. I haven't tried to make their opinions and views illegal, or tried to have them arrested for assembling. By all observation, my hostility is quite passive because I believe they have the right to hold their own beliefs even if they are opposed to my own. I don't think I'm "militantly" anti-KKK.
(And yes, I would use the same adjective for creationists who try to wipe out all mention of evolution from libraries and schools. These are "militant creationists" just as Dawkins is a "militant atheist.")
Your usage of terms is irrelevant. Social perception identifies Atheists as "militant" while not applying the same label to significantly more extreme individuals. Even Dawkins doesn't meet your dictionary definition for "militant," and your Wikipedia entry is nothing more than an appeal to authority.
The disparity is the issue. Either all people who express "extreme" views while not taking active measures against their opposition are "militant," or none are. According tot eh dictionary, it would appear that actual action is necessary to qualify, not just words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by kbertsche, posted 09-11-2009 2:14 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by kbertsche, posted 09-11-2009 5:24 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 89 of 121 (524092)
09-14-2009 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by kbertsche
09-14-2009 11:03 AM


Re: Reaping what you sow
I agree that the analogy is not very good, but I couldn't find a better one. I want an agreed non-fiction analogy that generates very strong feelings and for which some have given their lives. I can't think of any human individuals that fit this description.
Any such analogy is nothing more than a red herring, anyway.
Your position requires that simple disagreement (and verbal, public expression of that disagreement) constitutes an active propagation of hatred - especially if the item of contention bears strong emotional connotations.
By such a loose standard for the term "militancy," nearly every matter of public discourse qualifies. Virtually all of politician and a fair number of religious leaders would qualify as "militants."
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would have qualified as a "militant" under your standard - his opposition to the racist policies of the day was active, and touched a subject that was of significant emotional and cultural import to both sides of the dispute.
The English language lends itself to inconsistency, with subjective "feelings" of magnitude determining our usageof labels. One person's extremism can be another person's moderation (see "conservative" and "liberal" in the US vs. in Canada or the UK - our "liberals" are pretty conservative by most other nations' standards, and our "conservatives" would be considered extremists).
In the case of the term "militancy," it seems from this thread and commentary elsewhere that public and impassioned disagreement with one's own views will be considered to be "militant." When Dawkins says that faith is by its very nature a harmful influence on human society, thoseto whom faith is an important part of their daily lives take offense and see Dawkins as directly attacking them, personally. When the shoe is put on the other foot and a Creationist directly or indirectly accuses scientists of lying in a massive conspiracy, or a preacher condemns all nonbelievers to Hell, or says that homosexuality/premarital sex/abortions/what have you are wicked and evil, the same person will not identify those active and frequently inflammatory stances against emotionally charged issues as "militant."
I would suggest that simply making inflammatory statements in the public eye are not indicative of militancy, for the simple reason that such a loose qualification dilutes the meaning of teh word and makes the term applicable to almost everyone.
I think that the term "militant" should only be applied when a person takes an active, nonverbal stance against a group or belief system. That means violence qualifies as militancy, as does actively seeking to persecute a group through legislation. The Black Panthers were militants, while MLK, Jr. was not; Islamic jihadis are militants, while Muslims who speak out against homosexuality or Christianity are not. Dawkins would not qualify as a militant any more than the preachers who condemn him and all other nonbelievers to eternal torment and suggest that we are wicked tools of the devil. If Dawkins should actively seek, beyond just using words in a book, to criminalize religion, or should organize a violent opposition to faith, then he would qualify as a militant.
Some people here would refer to me as a militant Atheist...and yet all I've ever done is post on web forums. I strongly disapprove of faith in general, and I make no secret of it. I point out its logical flaws, and I vigorously debate against those who try to apply faith to science or claim that their personal beliefs should override the objective, reproducible, and verifiably accurate results of the scientific method.
If simply expressing disagreement, even emotionally charged or possibly insulting disagreement, qualifies one as a "militant," who precisely is not a militant?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by kbertsche, posted 09-14-2009 11:03 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by kbertsche, posted 09-14-2009 1:18 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


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 replied

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

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 110 of 121 (524453)
09-16-2009 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Hyroglyphx
09-16-2009 2:30 PM


Re: Sanctimony
quote:
Quite to the contrary: "religion" by its very nature concerns the acceptance of subjective evidence and tradition over (or without) supporting objective evidence.
Even supposing it does, what of it?
Do you not agree that abandoning rationality has negative effects and should be discouraged?
Some people survive some catastrophe and look at the laws of physics to ascertain a reason why they survived. Some times in instances the answer defies physics, like how parachutists have survived falls from well beyond a point that would cause death. Some people attribute it to miracles from God.
Some people are also idiots who cannot distinguish "improbable" from "impossible," and apply the empty explanation of their choice to any situation they are not personally able to explain. A rational "I don't know" becomes an irrational "Goddidit."
It doesn't really matter to me what the person believes. Why are you so concerned with it?
For the most part I'm not. Don't mistake my participation in an online debate forum for my real-world behavior - I don't counter-evangelize or mock religious people I come across in my everyday life. In general, I don't talk about religion at all outside of this and one or two other forums, and the occasional Jehovah's Witness or other evangelist who approaches me on the subject.
I hold the opinion, backed with what appears to me to be sound logic, that religion in general is "bad" for society because it embraces irrational thinking. I consider some specific religions to be particularly "bad" because of their history, the specific instructions set down in their religious texts that encourage barbaric behavior (even if not all denominations of the same religion obey those instructions), and the authoritarian ethics system that I find morally abhorrent.
I also bear some resentment towards Christianity in particular because of my experience in breaking away from it, and the way the teachings of that particular religion cause stress in my familial life.
But in no way do I support taking any sort of overt action to penalize religion. The extent of my "concern" is to respond with my honest opinion when asked,a nd to participate in some light debate online. That doesn't strike me as very significant concern over other people's beliefs, Hyro.
Why not argue the specifics, instead of trying to crush "God" altogether?
Who's trying to crush god(s)? Not I. I argue against irrationality in very specific outlets; god(s) are simply one example, and one that comes up most frequently here.
See, I am not religious. If a person brings up a bible verse, for instance, that contradicts with another one, I let them know, and we'll debate that. You on other hand seem personally slighted if someone believes in God.
You seem to be able to psychically determine my emotional reaction.
I don't feel "slighted." I occasionally become frustrated when debating, but since debate is simply a formalized system of argument (and there's very little formality here), that's to be expected. Your analysis of my emotional state is lacking. Percy believes in God - I don't feel "slighted" by him. RAZD believes in God - I don't feel "slighted" by him despite the heated arguments we've had on the subject. In fact, I consider both to be among the most intelligent people I've spoken to.
My frustrations stem from miscommunication, repeatedly refuted statements, falsehoods, ethical issues, etc. Simply believing in god(s) or arguing for their existence doesn't "slight" me in the least.
With Dawkins, and possibly yourself, he seems to view it as his civic duty to tell people there is no God. Inversely the religious man feels that it is his civic duty to tell you about God's saving grace.
Dawkins simply doesn't feel an obligation to remain silent on his own opinions, since others are not required to remain silent on their own. Why are you so offended by a person expressing his opinion? It's not even what he talks aboutmost of the time, it's simply what he's most famous for because of the outrage it causes among many religious people when their beliefs are accused of being irrational.
Either way both ingratiate themselves and are very zealous for their beliefs. What then is the difference between the two, other than they believe in the opposite?
...the fact that one uses evidence and logic, while the other does not? The fact that one is widely hated and reviled, while the other is not? The fact that one says nothing more than "that's absurd, and probably harmful," while the other says "you deserve eternal torment?"
Your mindless-middle equation of religious proselytizing with the rejection of religion is absurd.
Is the person who speaks out against racism "just as bad" as the racist?
There isn't always a middle ground, Hyro. Compromise is not always the most accurate solution. Sometimes, one side is right, and the other is wrong. Making factual and logically supported statements about religion is not in any way the same as condemning a person to Hell because...because I don't like you and my book says so.
quote:
It is that very irrationality that systemically causes the abuses and atrocities like the Crusades or the Salem Witch Trials.
It is also the SAME irrationality that lead to Lenin and Stalin murdering anyone who was of religious faith.
Bullshit. Stalin tried to stomp out religion for completely rational (and also completely unethical) reasons: he didn't want a competing power structure.
He didn't decide that Christianity was bad because a magic toilet goblin told him so. He didn't decide that all Christians were aliens and burn them at the stake when they floated. He didn't even decide that religion was "evil."
He did it to centralize all power into the state.
Stalin was a monster, but it's really quite tiring to hear the same old argument that he was the same as religiously-motivated genocidal maniacs. It's quite simply factually incorrect.
People use all sorts of reasons to justify atrocity, but does not mean that one necessitates the other, otherwise ALL religious people would have done the same thing. Blaming religion or atheism as the sole factor is slanderous character assassination.
This isn't about justification, its about motivation. Specifically, it's about embracing irrationality as a valid means of determining reality. It's about confidence in the unverifiable. It's an argumetn compeltely separate from your silly red herring regarding Stalin.
quote:
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.
"Love your neighbor as yourself" doesn't give people a mindset to kill.
No, but "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" sure does.
Atheism on the other hand has specific tenet that can call upon, other than the ruthlessness of survival of the fittest and clearing away the competition. Even then, one can't assume that it be a reason, justification or mindset for murder.
You seem to have had some difficulty in sentence structure there.
Atheism has no ethical component to it; it can't. Atheism is the simple lack of belief in god(s). It says absolutely nothing whatsoever regarding morality or motivation; the closest it can get is saying that neither morality nor motivation can come from god(s) since they don't exist. "Survival of the fittest" is not an ethical mandate of atheism; "survival of the weakest" follows from "god(s) do not appear to exist" just as well, in that neither are specified or implied by a lack of belief in deities.
quote:
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
So are a lot of social things, like the glorifaction of all the things you listed in movies, music, and television. That obviously does not explain why he has such an aversion towards religion, otherwise his own crusade would encompass much more than religion.
Perhaps because nothing has had such a massive social impact as religion? Perhaps because even now decisions at the national level are influenced by an irrational belief system, and not in fact by last night's episode of Friends or The Dark Knight? Your argument would be better without so many red herrings.
For the ills he speaks about religion, there are incalculable acts of philanthropy associated with it. It therefore is presumptuous and unfair to only look at the negative aspects while denying the positive ones.
And the truth is "somewhere in the middle," right?
Your Golden Mean bullshit is tiring.
Simple, yes/no, binary questions:
Is the acceptance of irrationality as a valid means of describing reality a positive or negative effect on society?
Is it good that people believe in things without evidence, or even in opposition to evidence? Or is it bad?
Is it better for people to base their opinions and beliefs on objective evidence, or subjective "feelings?"
The "positive effects" of religion seem to be readily duplicated withotu religion. Philanthropy happens regardless of religious belief. It's yet another one of those red herrings you;re so fond of.
The relevant question is whether irrationality is praiseworthy or should be discouraged.
If Dawkin's really wanted to help humanity, he could go out and feed the poor. That he hides his intentions behind the false pretense of wanting to rid religion for the benefit of "humanity" is just as pathetic as the televangelist doing the same thing.
Are you so certain that he doesn't donate to charities? Is helping a class of citizens often reviled by their neighbors to find acceptance and validation not helping humanity? Is encouraging adherence to the scientific method over traditionalist bullshit not helping humanity?
Is being a professor, passing on knowledge to future generations, not helping humanity?
Your bullshit is thick, Hyro.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2009 2:30 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 115 of 121 (524546)
09-17-2009 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Modulous
09-17-2009 11:17 AM


Re: Dawkins getting tired of it
Hyro's just piling on the fallacies. Mentioning Occam's Razor is just another red herring to distract us from the fact that he's appealing to popularity.
Labels like "militant" and "extremist" are being applied inconsistently, which tends to be what happens when dealing with subjective judgment calls on matters that people will strongly agree or disagree with. The defensive reaction I feel when a preacher tells me I'm going to Hell is likely the same reaction a religious person feels when Dawkins suggests that religious thought is harmful and irrational. I think that emotional reaction has far more to do with the labels than any objective reasoning. It's really just a way of saying "you've offended me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Modulous, posted 09-17-2009 11:17 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-17-2009 1:30 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 117 by Modulous, posted 09-17-2009 3:12 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024