Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jihadists must die, --- but our real enemies are the Qur’an and Bible.
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 39 of 375 (758890)
06-05-2015 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Greatest I am
03-19-2015 5:22 PM


The End of the End of Faith
their demented ideology
Things would hit the fan and just the conversation as to myth or reality of these mythical books would go a long way in reducing the number of religious literalists.
Facts tend to do that.
This is why I no longer identify as an atheist. I'm nonreligious, but I've been dismayed to see atheism turn from a freethought community into a hate group.
I blame Sam Harris more than anyone else. The End of Faith was the book that set the tone for millennial atheism. In it, Harris redefined religion as not a complex cultural construct that had a long and problematic history, but rather as a set of false beliefs people profess about reality. The manifesto was full of quotes designed to be used as ammunition by the millennial debate culture and discourage dialogue: "There is nothing more sacred than the facts." "Religion is what credulity becomes when it finally achieves escape velocity from the constraints of terrestrial discourse." "Presuming knowledge when one has only pious hope is a species of evil."
This was only a couple of years after 9/11, and there was plenty of trauma and resentment waiting to be exploited. Harris's ideas spread like wildfire among people who preferred such philosophically shallow rhetoric to a mature, reasonable understanding of the complex realities of religion. I was going through a nasty divorce at the time, and needed stability and order in uncertain economic and dismal political times. Harris (and the New Atheist ideologues who accompanied Harris) pandered to the narrow-minded aggression of online crusaders who had no problem stereotyping religious people as delusional, dangerous, and ignorant.
But sooner or later you have to grow out of this cartoon culture warrior mentality. The lack of empathy and the cheap scientism make for a very anti-humanistic viewpoint. The meretricious appeals to the plight of women and the LGBTQ community start to ring hollow in the absence of any real commitment to the empowerment of the marginalized. And making it sound like the greatest good in society is accomplished by mockery just shows how immature this impotent grandstanding is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Greatest I am, posted 03-19-2015 5:22 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Tangle, posted 06-05-2015 8:49 AM MrHambre has replied
 Message 44 by Greatest I am, posted 06-05-2015 8:06 PM MrHambre has replied
 Message 90 by saab93f, posted 06-08-2015 8:16 AM MrHambre has replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 41 of 375 (758894)
06-05-2015 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Tangle
06-05-2015 8:49 AM


Re: The End of the End of Faith
Tangle writes:
I think this is at least as big a caricature of the situation as you claim is being made of believers by atheists.
I think it applies to the organized, online, American Atheist community of nonbelief. They repudiate the opinions of the majority as delusions, then bemoan the fact that the majority doesn't respect them. They stereotype and demonize believers as bigoted, ignorant, and homicidal, and pretend that teh Science validates their prejudices. And they make it sound like only butthurt religious fanatics would object to such puerile behavior.
But these sorts of complaints are common enough from believers
Case in point.
Btw, when you say you're non-religious, does that mean you're a deist or have you just gone off the word atheist?
No, I'm not a deist or any such thing. I'm just sick of the A-word and all the passive-aggressive nonsense that is associated with it. There are very disturbing aspects of religion that deserve to be addressed. However, the digital sandbox and its associated media are just feeding a debate culture, not providing an informed critique.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Tangle, posted 06-05-2015 8:49 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Tangle, posted 06-05-2015 9:31 AM MrHambre has not replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 46 of 375 (758929)
06-05-2015 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Greatest I am
06-05-2015 8:06 PM


Re: The End of the End of Faith
The mainstream Western religions deserve no respect at all in my view as they show how useless and immoral they are by their institutionalized homophobia and misogyny.
If morals cannot be their prime objective then they are not worthy.
I have to say that there seems to be such a vast range of interpretation in modern religion that it's difficult-slash-impossible to determine with any degree of certainty what the meaning of such matters as jihad or the status of homosexuals is supposed to be. I objected to your stereotypes of religious believers because I'm not sure Western religion is the sole source of bigotry in our civilization, or that your ideas encapsulate the beliefs of mainstream Christians and Muslims in the USA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Greatest I am, posted 06-05-2015 8:06 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Greatest I am, posted 06-06-2015 10:21 AM MrHambre has replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 51 of 375 (758954)
06-06-2015 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Greatest I am
06-06-2015 10:21 AM


Re: The End of the End of Faith
I know that my brush is wide in the issues of homophobia and misogyny
Yeah, maybe just a little.
but in the West, Christianity has been the majority for many years and women and gays still go hungry for equality and justice and revues show clearly that Christianity is not a friend of equality, women and gays. Islam is worse.
"Revues"
Can I ask how dedicated you are to the cause of empowering the marginalized when you're not using their plight to bash religion? It seems to me that if you really considered gender parity and gay rights such important causes, you wouldn't simply exploit them for anti-theistic rants. I'm sure women and the LGBT community are glowing with admiration at being paid internet lip service by firebrand atheists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Greatest I am, posted 06-06-2015 10:21 AM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Greatest I am, posted 06-06-2015 11:30 AM MrHambre has not replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 91 of 375 (759039)
06-08-2015 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by saab93f
06-08-2015 8:16 AM


Flattening the Moral Landscape
I really do not see problems with calling spade a...spade.
Neither do I. That's why I mentioned that the hate-group tendencies of new atheism are annoying and counterproductive.
The central tenets of all Abrahamic religions are delusions and the adherents fortunately mostly benignly delusional. Then again I personally am struggling between respecting people's beliefs and the desire to tell how there is not a shred of evidence either way.
It sounds to me like respect might have lost the struggle. Does this stale rhetoric ever inspire constructive dialogue with believers? Is it intended to?
Back when I still believed internet slapfights could solve the world's problems (each to his own delusions), I spent a lot of time arguing with conspiracy theorists who would make declarations like, "There's not a shred of evidence that terrorists flew planes into the WTCs on 9/11!" Then they would handwave away whatever evidence people presented. Sorry if it's not a flattering comparison, but atheists are becoming the truthers of the culture wars; they're not interested in dialogue or understanding, they're just out to wind people up.
Sam Harris hurts a lot of theists because he does not sugar-coat things. Hurting people per se is not wise nor something that should be actively pursued IMHO but it cannot be completely avoided.
I mentioned in the post to which you're ostensibly replying that I have a problem with Sam Harris's oversimplified definition of religion, not his forthright tone. I think reducing religion to a mere set of literal beliefs people profess about the world is focusing exclusively on the least important aspect of religion; it makes no sense if he's trying to analyze and critique religion, but it makes perfect sense if he's pandering to a debate culture that likes things nice and simple.
I think that the main reason for outright hate towards atheists is because the vocal ones cause the theists to a total dichotomy - either the 4 Horsemen are right or theyre evil communists trying to take liberty away.
When we hate others, it's because we recognize their faults; when others hate us, it's because they resent our virtues. I'm not religious, but I have my reasons for finding fault with the new atheists, none of which have to do with their rightness. I deplore the bigotry, alarmism, and self-righteousness I hear coming from them as much as when I hear it coming from the religious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by saab93f, posted 06-08-2015 8:16 AM saab93f has not replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 101 of 375 (759054)
06-08-2015 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by jar
06-08-2015 9:40 AM


Re: respect vs tolerance
Beliefs do not deserve respect but I think they do deserve tolerance unless they infringe on others.
People should rethink the message board truism that "Beliefs don't deserve respect." At the end of the day, this is nothing more than a way to give oneself license to be as insulting and hurtful as possible, then dismiss any umbrage taken on the grounds that others shouldn't take criticism of their dearly held beliefs personally. There's something profoundly disingenuous about saying, "I wasn't ridiculing you, I was ridiculing everything you hold dear."
This isn't to say we shouldn't have discussions about politics, religion, sexuality, or any other subject that people take seriously. But we need to acknowledge that people identify strongly with these beliefs, and we don't need to pretend to be surprised when they react strongly against careless, unsympathetic criticism like being told their beliefs are delusions.
Edited by MrHambre, : Added last line

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by jar, posted 06-08-2015 9:40 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Greatest I am, posted 06-08-2015 12:50 PM MrHambre has replied
 Message 105 by Tangle, posted 06-08-2015 1:07 PM MrHambre has replied
 Message 111 by jar, posted 06-08-2015 1:55 PM MrHambre has replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 106 of 375 (759062)
06-08-2015 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Greatest I am
06-08-2015 12:50 PM


Re: respect vs tolerance
But what if delusion is what they have?
Well, you don't really know what each believer thinks, the way they interpret the dogma of their religion, or what the beliefs mean to them. Yet you want to make a specific psychiatric diagnosis for billions of people on Earth, based on your stereotypes and prejudices. So what did you say about telling the truth to the delusional?
If a believer, would that link insult you?
I'm not a believer, but I found that link insulting. Maybe you have a much higher threshold for fact-free speculation about religion's origins in "schizotypalism". And you're welcome to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Greatest I am, posted 06-08-2015 12:50 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Greatest I am, posted 06-09-2015 6:49 PM MrHambre has replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 108 of 375 (759066)
06-08-2015 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Tangle
06-08-2015 1:07 PM


Re: respect vs tolerance
Some beliefs don't deserve respect - like the belief that it's ok to discriminate against gays or fly into tall buildings. Those sorts beliefs should get pretty short shrift. Other less obviously harmful beliefs - like, say transubstantiation - need a more tolerant approach. But both types do need to be challenged if they are being pushed at us.
I agree. And that's why we're here in Plato's Digital Cave, to argue and challenge ideas and beliefs. But the way writers like Sam Harris have created the idea that vast cultural constructs can be reduced to sets of literal beliefs gives us the illusion that social progress in the real world can be accomplished by changing people's beliefs from the wrong ones to the right ones. The marginalization of the LGBTQ community involves a lot more than the widespread belief that it's okay to discriminate against them; what ends the marginalization is passing laws to make it illegal, not just convincing people to abandon their false beliefs. What causes and reinforces terrorism like the 9/11 attacks is a lot more complicated than a belief about the proper way to fly aircraft.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Tangle, posted 06-08-2015 1:07 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Tangle, posted 06-08-2015 1:48 PM MrHambre has seen this message but not replied
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 06-09-2015 6:05 AM MrHambre has replied
 Message 135 by Greatest I am, posted 06-09-2015 7:06 PM MrHambre has not replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 112 of 375 (759070)
06-08-2015 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by jar
06-08-2015 1:55 PM


Re: respect vs tolerance
I have no problem telling folk that Young Earth or that there was some Biblical Flood are simply delusions.
Sure, and that's because these are beliefs that ---if stated literally--- are very amenable to scientific analysis. The same can't be said for beliefs about meaning, purpose, community, and morality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by jar, posted 06-08-2015 1:55 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by jar, posted 06-08-2015 3:43 PM MrHambre has seen this message but not replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 116 of 375 (759112)
06-09-2015 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
06-09-2015 6:05 AM


"But the second stone, up for grabs."
There is no "widespread belief that it's okay to discriminate" against them, there is simply OUR obligation to obey God
Since Jesus said zip about gay marriage or homosexuality in general, it's all interpretation. I guess the brand of Christianity you favor is marketed to communities who find Christ's commands to love one another and withhold judgment less compelling than Old Testament admonitions against sodomy. I also assume that the Episcopal Church has been receiving much different instructions from The Big G concerning marriage equality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 06-09-2015 6:05 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Faith, posted 06-09-2015 6:43 AM MrHambre has not replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 149 of 375 (759256)
06-10-2015 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Greatest I am
06-09-2015 6:49 PM


Re: respect vs tolerance
Greatest I am writes:
I did not put that information into the university cariculum [sic] and if higher science insults fools then so be it.
"higher science"
Get a grip. This was a YouTube video of some kook professor ranting about "schizotypalism" being the foundation for religion. If you like the idea, that's just swell. But pretending that this is some sort of consensus belief among anthropologists or historians is pretty delusional in and of itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Greatest I am, posted 06-09-2015 6:49 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Greatest I am, posted 06-10-2015 1:18 PM MrHambre has not replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 274 of 375 (759995)
06-16-2015 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Theodoric
06-16-2015 12:46 PM


Re: The End of the End of Faith
That invasion of Iraq went so well for the people there it is surprising that all are not sending us gifts all the time.
It's such a shame that rebel gunfire keeps knocking our "You're Welcome!" signs off the poles.
The US government is responsible for the growth of Islamic radicals. Prior to the invasion of Iraq we had just a couple small groups that we had to worry about. Now we have radicalized millions.
Long before that, the State Department decided that moderate pan-Arab socialism in the Middle East was too docile and 70s. So they spiced things up by tooling up the mujaheedin in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, and that nationalist, fundamentalist warlord whackjobbery has been rockin' the house (and the Pentagon budget) ever since.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Theodoric, posted 06-16-2015 12:46 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by mikechell, posted 06-16-2015 2:51 PM MrHambre has replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 280 of 375 (760006)
06-16-2015 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by mikechell
06-16-2015 2:51 PM


Re: The End of the End of Faith
mikechell writes:
And people say my attitude is paranoid, conspiracy theorist !!!
Well, that may be. But the fact that the US chipped in to help the Afghan resistance against the Soviets is no conspiracy theory. It's all a matter of public record.
The US ambassador to Afghanistan was killed in 1979 when the Soviet-backed Afghani police botched his rescue from kidnappers. Needless to say, that didn't help relations between the Soviets' shaky puppet government in Kabul and the US State Department. The shit hit the fan for the Afghani government soon after that, and the Soviets sent troops to stabilize the situation. Throughout the early 80s, the mujaheedin got arms and aid from various countries, including the USA. Arab rich kid Osama bin Laden showed up and started networking with the intent of putting together a jihadist army. So the USA thought it was fighting the last battle of the Cold War, but what it was really doing was providing training for its next enemy.
Don't take my word for it, just read the 9/11 Commission Report.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by mikechell, posted 06-16-2015 2:51 PM mikechell has not replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 317 of 375 (761077)
06-27-2015 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by Tangle
06-27-2015 3:18 AM


Tangle writes:
You're attempting to equate knowledge with belief; they're polar opposites.
I wouldn't say they're opposites. There's a lot of overlap between belief and knowledge.
Edited by MrHambre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Tangle, posted 06-27-2015 3:18 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Tangle, posted 06-28-2015 6:37 AM MrHambre has replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1383 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 321 of 375 (761102)
06-28-2015 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 320 by Tangle
06-28-2015 6:37 AM


I don't see it - if we have knowledge about something we don't need belief. Belief only exists in the absense of knowledge. (Or the denial of knowledge.)
Philosophically speaking, all we have are beliefs. It's the extent of justification that allows us to characterize a body of beliefs as knowledge.
In the atheist blogosphere, the word 'belief' has a stigma that it doesn't deserve. Even when we're talking about scientific matters, the fact that we amateurs profess 'knowledge' of things that we only understand on an anecdotal level makes it nearly indistinguishable from revealed wisdom. I know it rankles us as freethinkers to be reminded that we justify the vast majority of our knowledge not through evidence, but simply by assuming (with good reason) that the consensus position of the scientific industry is probably correct. It's always helpful to remember how many blind men are standing between us and the alleged elephant, that's all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Tangle, posted 06-28-2015 6:37 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by Tangle, posted 06-28-2015 11:59 AM MrHambre 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