Is Anti-Theism Bigotry?

[viscousmemories]

I've been meaning to start this thread for a long time, and as such have gone through a million drafts in my head as I try to come up with exactly the right wording so as to express my viewpoint without seriously offending anyone. Alas I give up. There just isn't any easy way to do it so I'm just going to go ahead.

What's the difference, to you, between demeaning statements toward or about theists and demeaning statements toward or about ethnic minorities, homosexuals, women or any other group of people? Is there any significant difference? Because to me there isn't. It strikes me as bigotry, plain and simple, and I react to some comments about 'theists' or 'xtians' here as I would to people talking about "niggers" or "fags".

One of the defenses I expect right off the bat is the claim that people are attacking religion, not it's practitioners. Of course this is no different from the Christian claim that they hate the sin, not the sinner. And most of the non-theists I've met seem to think that justification doesn't wash. That hate is hate, and hate directed toward something fundamental to a person is effectively hate directed toward that person. In fact several people made that very argument in Helen's "House of Hate" thread.

Another defense I anticipate is that people choose their religion and not their ethnicity or sexual orientation. That's somewhat compelling in that I can understand being angry with someone for deliberately aligning themselves with something that you believe is anti-social. However, does that justify treating all religionists as though they aren't equals? I'm talking about little comments like, "He's pretty nice, for a theist" or "I don't have any problem with theists as long as they stay away from me". I mean really how are these kind of comments substantially different from the comments people make about black people and homosexuals?

For what it's worth I'm not passing any broad moral judgements here. Just because I find this particular behavior abhorrent doesn't mean I think anyone who does it is wholly morally deficient or anything. I've got my own share of hostility toward religion for various reasons, and I wrestle with same inclination to make assumptions and generalizations about people who adhere to religious principles. But I'm past the point of measuring everyone in accordance with my own values. I'm just genuinely interested in knowing how different people rationalize this behaviors.

So I guess the questions I'm asking are: Is making broad generalizations and/or derogatory comments about adherents to religion (in the general or specific) bigotry? If not, why not? If so, are you guilty of it? Why? Do you think others here and elsewhere are? Do you confront them? Why not?

[Goliath]

What's the difference, to you, between demeaning statements toward or about theists and demeaning statements toward or about ethnic minorities, homosexuals, women or any other group of people?


Simple: religion is one of the biggest--if not the biggest--causes of murder, rape, and mental abuse. The other things that you have listed are not.

In a nutshell: to me, religion is deserving of nothing but hatred.



One of the defenses I expect right off the bat is the claim that people are attacking religion, not it's practitioners. Of course this is no different from the Christian claim that they hate the sin, not the sinner.



Correct, and because of that, most xians probably do not hate me, although they probably hate atheism. There's a big difference.



hate directed toward something fundamental to a person is effectively hate directed toward that person.



The fact that I exist and that I hate xianity without hating many particular xians (including my mother) proves that you're wrong.



Another defense I anticipate is that people choose their religion and not their ethnicity or sexual orientation. That's somewhat compelling in that I can understand being angry with someone for deliberately aligning themselves with something that you believe is anti-social. However, does that justify treating all religionists as though they aren't equals?



"Aren't equals" in what sense? I certainly think that theists deserve the same civil rights as the rest of us, if that's what you mean.



I'm talking about little comments like, "He's pretty nice, for a theist" or "I don't have any problem with theists as long as they stay away from me". I mean really how are these kind of comments substantially different from the comments people make about black people and homosexuals?



Because they're targeting theists.



So I guess the questions I'm asking are: Is making broad generalizations and/or derogatory comments about adherents to religion (in the general or specific) bigotry?



No, for the reasons pointed out above.

[maddog]

Interesting questions, vm. I think the "choice" aspect could be significant. "Race" often isn't what we think it is, scientifically speaking, but it's a large social/cultural factor. "Sex" also seems to be different scientifically from what popular ideas are. Nonetheless, we treat these things as "immutable" or unchangeable characteristics about which the person has no choice. OTOH, "belief" is in a large sense not "chosen" either; if you don't find something convincing, I don't know any way to "force" your conscience to accept it as "believable."

Perhaps the difference lies not in belief, but in action. Some religions take actions only w/r/t its actual adherents. Proselytizing religions, however, or maybe ones that think they have a complete, and the only correct, view of the world, impose themselves on people aside from merely their own adherents. It's the inability to let others alone that makes it bothersome. If one person is Black, that doesn't make anyone else Black. If one person is gay, that doesn't make anyone else gay. The doctrines of Christianity, however, purport to apply to everyone, adherent or not, such that EVERYONE is "Christian" in jurisdiction, and EVERYONE is subject primarily to their God's "judgment," which they are adjured to carry out. The doctrine is antithetical to liberty of anyone else. THAT is action, and it doesn't allow itself to be circumscribed by the actions or liberties of others.
#35

[trendkill]

One of the defenses I expect right off the bat is the claim that people are attacking religion, not it's practitioners. Of course this is no different from the Christian claim that they hate the sin, not the sinner.What about politics--can you oppose a political position or platform without being bigoted toward anyone who agrees with it, then?

I know people who I believe honestly hate the sin while loving the sinner. The problem is not the people who hate the sin and love the sinner, the problem is people who hate the sin and the sinner (although they may claim otherwise). You can sometimes tell these people by the fact that they are willing to be tolerant of "sins" or sinners which are aligned culturally with them, while forsaking tolerance with those that fall outside their little atavistic boundaries (people who will tolerate their priest or pastor's sexual indiscretions while attacking or discriminating against gays, for instance).


However, does that justify treating all religionists as though they aren't equals? I'm talking about little comments like, "He's pretty nice, for a theist" or "I don't have any problem with theists as long as they stay away from me". I mean really how are these kind of comments substantially different from the comments people make about black people and homosexuals?Not very, but I don't think that kind of behavior is inherent in anti-theism. If just being anti-theistic is bigotry, then each and every religionist who thinks his religion is God's plan for human life, or approves of proselytizing, is a bigot as well. And I'm not willing to make that statement.


So I guess the questions I'm asking are: Is making broad generalizations and/or derogatory comments about adherents to religion (in the general or specific) bigotry?Generalizing too broadly and not taking individuals for who they are is pretty much always bigotry, I'd say. If that's how you define anti-theism, then yeah, it's bigotry. But if you define it as a philosophical position that theism is a bad thing (as I do), then it need not be defined as bigotry any more than religious belief is.

[seebs]

Okay, time for Defense In The Alternative.

1. Is not.
2. Even if it were, so what?

To draw an analogy: There is a very strong correlation, in the world today, between dark skin color, and violence, especially rape and murder.

When I meet a black man, though, I don't think "OMG he's corrolated with rape and murder". I think "I'm in Saint Paul, Minnesota, a place where the murder rate is low enough that I don't think anyone I know could name it. This man does not appear to be dressed in the camoflauge uniforms of any of the armies in sub-saharan Africa which appear to dominate worldwide rape and murder statistics, so he's probably not a part of those groups".

So, even if the overarching category of "religion" were found to be at fault in wars etcetera, I would think it reasonable to see if there were meaningful subdivisions.

In my own experience, theists who have found the Magic Cookie and learned to tolerate others are not merely not-dangerous, they are exceptionally safe people to be around. As someone on a mailing list I'm on pointed out, if they have an obvious Jesus fish in their Yellow Pages ad, the work will probably suck; they are trying to buy credibility by waving a religion at you... But the guys who are personally deeply religious, and don't make a big thing about it, are unusually likely to do the best work they can for reasonable prices.

Secondly... I do not believe religion to be a major source of violence. I believe religion is often an excuse, but I believe that, in most cases, the people involved would go out fighting anyway, with or without any religion. Furthermore, although it's harder than I'd like to find examples, I think there are clear-cut examples of benefits to the world from religious organizations.

But... I do think it is absolutely crucial to distinguish between groups. My church does things like "provide overflow for homeless shelters" and "campaigns to make people more aware of the dishonesty of military recruiters". I don't think these things are inimical to the lives of others.

I do think there's a real danger of religious groups isolating themselves, and ceasing to consider the wellbeing of those outside the religion. Curiously, Jesus taught against this, apparently having noticed early on how destructive it could be.

[copiae]

Simple: religion is one of the biggest--if not the biggest--causes of murder, rape, and mental abuse. The other things that you have listed are not.

In a nutshell: to me, religion is deserving of nothing but hatred.



I'm a bit pressed for time again, so I'll have to make this a quick post:


The questionable nature of that assertion aside... Though religion may be used a justification, it is the underlying mentality that commits the deed. By extension - a far greater cause of murder, rape, and mental abuse is the human spirit. Do you hate that as well? If you do, then why are you applying this criteria?

Incidentally, are you talking about the plethora of religions that have hitherto existed, or just one religion in particular?



Correct, and because of that, most xians probably do not hate me, although they probably hate atheism. There's a big difference.


How nice of you to generalise about 'most' christians. Perhaps some fundamentalists may feel that way, but I am inclined to think that the majority of christians feel that atheism is misguided, not hate it.

[Goliath]

By extension - a far greater cause of murder, rape, and mental abuse is the human spirit. Do you hate that as well?


I don't believe that any spirits of any kind exist. You're making as much sense as a xian asking "Why are you so angry at God?"



How nice of you to generalise about 'most' christians.



And how predictable that someone has not read what I've written. I said that most xians probably do not hate me, although they probably hate atheism.

I certainly don't know if that's true or not, but it seems that way. I could be wrong. Hence the "probably".


I am inclined to think that the majority of christians feel that atheism is misguided, not hate it.

That's certainly possible, but I'm not convinced.

[LadyShea]

I don't know that I correlate it with bigotry, per se. Well maybe. You can hate specific actions of specific Christians or groups of Christians (I hate the Southern Baptist hard line homophobia for example or groups trying to get Creationism taught in public schools) and hate certain things about the belief system as a whole (I hate the doctrine of Hell)...but to say "I hate Christianity" is basically meaningless because it's simply too broad a term, IMO.

[wildernesse]

By extension - a far greater cause of murder, rape, and mental abuse is the human spirit. Do you hate that as well?


I don't believe that any spirits of any kind exist. You're making as much sense as a xian asking "Why are you so angry at God?"



peer's comment means the same if you substitute spirit for nature. So, a far greater cause of murder, rape, and mental abuse is human nature. Do you hate that as well?

Of course, if peer doesn't agree with my substitution, he's free to correct me.

[Goliath]

a far greater cause of murder, rape, and mental abuse is human nature.


I'm not convinced of that at all.

[HelenM]

One of the defenses I expect right off the bat is the claim that people are attacking religion, not it's practitioners. Of course this is no different from the Christian claim that they hate the sin, not the sinner. And most of the non-theists I've met seem to think that justification doesn't wash. That hate is hate, and hate directed toward something fundamental to a person is effectively hate directed toward that person. In fact several people made that very argument in Helen's "House of Hate" thread.

This is to anyone, not just vm: think of a person you love. Or at least, someone you care deeply about. (Hopefully you can think of someone) Do you agree with every belief of theirs? Do they hold any belief you're opposed to? If so then, doesn't this demonstrate that it's possible to be against a belief someone holds without being against them; that those are two different things?

Helen

[HelenM]

For what it's worth: I think people are often victims of their beliefs. Beliefs can lead well-meaning decent people to cause unnecessary suffering to themselves and/or those around them.

I don't hate the people who hold those beliefs although I may be frustrated that such people are not more open to considering the basis for their beliefs.

Helen

[wildernesse]

Really? Most murders I've read about were based on: jealousy, drugs, insanity, trying to get away from the scene of the crime, etc. Very few were based in religion.

Rapes: combine "I was drunk" and "Forcing myself on a woman makes me feel powerful and in control" and that's a lot of it. As for religion, not many in the US appear to rape for religious reasons.

Mental abuse--I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Do you mean emotional abuse? If so, then I would say that religion can be a tool of those who abuse others emotionally, but that doesn't explain away people who terrorize their employees or subordinates through emotional manipulation.

Religion is a tool, and like other tools/technologies/methods can be used for good or bad. It's the user that determines the use.

[Goliath]

This is to anyone, not just vm: think of a person you love. Or at least, someone you care deeply about. (Hopefully you can think of someone) Do you agree with every belief of theirs? Do they hold any belief you're opposed to? If so then, doesn't this demonstrate that it's possible to be against a belief someone holds without being against them; that those are two different things?

Helen

Very well put, Helen.

Wait a minute.....didn't we once have a heated discussion on the difference between hating xianity and hating xians?

Wow...first, the all out BlitzKrieg, and now this...today has been positively surreal! :D :yup:

[Goliath]

Really? Most murders I've read about were based on: jealousy, drugs, insanity, trying to get away from the scene of the crime, etc. Very few were based in religion.


Haven't you heard of the witch burnings, crusades, the inquisition, the constant battling in the Middle East, Andrea Yates, 9/11, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc?



Rapes: combine "I was drunk" and "Forcing myself on a woman makes me feel powerful and in control" and that's a lot of it.



Haven't you heard of catholic priests?



Mental abuse--I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Do you mean emotional abuse?



Yes. Thank you for actually asking, rather than just assuming.



If so, then I would say that religion can be a tool of those who abuse others emotionally, but that doesn't explain away people who terrorize their employees or subordinates through emotional manipulation.



But I didn't exactly say that religion was responsible for all emotional abuse on the planet, now did I? *sigh* It'll never fucking end, will it? I'll be misunderstood until the day I fucking die, won't I?

[viscousmemories]

Interesting questions, vm. I think the "choice" aspect could be significant. "Race" often isn't what we think it is, scientifically speaking, but it's a large social/cultural factor. "Sex" also seems to be different scientifically from what popular ideas are. Nonetheless, we treat these things as "immutable" or unchangeable characteristics about which the person has no choice. OTOH, "belief" is in a large sense not "chosen" either; if you don't find something convincing, I don't know any way to "force" your conscience to accept it as "believable."
I completely agree. I don't choose to believe anything, I just find some data and/or arguments more convincing than other data and/or arguments, and of course I have all my biases as well. So I consider it ridiculous to hold someone's beliefs against them. Now if they are "willfully ignorant" (i.e. deliberately avoid education on a subject because it conflicts with their beliefs) that's one thing. But the mere fact that they have not been persuaded to the same conclusions as me obviously says nothing about their character. After all it may very well be that I'm the deficient one.

Perhaps the difference lies not in belief, but in action. Some religions take actions only w/r/t its actual adherents. Proselytizing religions, however, or maybe ones that think they have a complete, and the only correct, view of the world, impose themselves on people aside from merely their own adherents. It's the inability to let others alone that makes it bothersome.
I don't know if your last sentence necessarily follows from the previous ones. I guess it depends on what you mean by a "proselytizing religion". I mean for example, I know proselytizing is a standard Christian teaching, but I'm pretty sure I have met Christians who don't believe they have any obligation to proselytize. So should every avowed Christian get the same treatment as a proselytizer whether they do it or not, just because it's a traditional tenet of the religion?

If one person is Black, that doesn't make anyone else Black. If one person is gay, that doesn't make anyone else gay. The doctrines of Christianity, however, purport to apply to everyone, adherent or not, such that EVERYONE is "Christian" in jurisdiction, and EVERYONE is subject primarily to their God's "judgment," which they are adjured to carry out. The doctrine is antithetical to liberty of anyone else. THAT is action, and it doesn't allow itself to be circumscribed by the actions or liberties of others.
I think I'm a little confused by this comment. Is a doctrine really an action? I know it's a call to action, but is it an action? As I said in the last paragraph not every Christian I've met adheres to all the traditional tenets of the religion. So why should calling oneself a Christian earn a person criticism for everything in the Christian doctrine? Shouldn't people be judged on the basis of their own words and actions?

[beyelzu]

I know very few theists who I respect the reasons for their theism.

Seebs* happens to be one of them, but he has pointed out that the reasons that he is a theist would not be convincing to others it is of a personal nature.


Overall I question the religious worldview, the embracing of the supernatural and pseudo scientific.

I have particular problems with christianity because I dont like many of its inherent teachings.

Also, my time online has taught me that many xians say some fundamentally stupid shit.

Of course, atheists do as well, but most atheists accept a rational world view and dont really on faith.

That reliance on faith is what I hate about xianity and it is one of the reasons that so often there is a limit to meaningful dialogue between many theists and atheists/agnostics/diests.

as to the question of bigotry,

much as I temper statements to people in real life because I care about their fealings, I try not to piss on people's beliefs when I know that person. Not because I find their beliefs rational necesarily but because I dont want to hurt that person's feelings.

I think I have said that seebs is rational for a theist elsewhere.

iirc, I suppose that I did so because so many theists dont seem to be rational. I also think that the xians that post on this site arent really representative of xians at large. wildernesse, helenm, seebs
**beyelzu prays to some unnamed and probably nonexistent higher power that I didnt inadvertantly leave someone out
are all rational people that I have never seen attack someone else because of their religion. In general, this has not been my experience with xians.

I grew up in the deep south, rome by god rural fucking georgia, and I was attacked countless times for being a theistic evolutionist when I was 13-14, later when I deconverted it became worse.


I do have a bias against christianity, I do not believe that it is bigotry in that I really dont hate the xian even if I do hate their religion. Also, I dont let my religious differences cloud non religious topics of conversation.

*I picked him as an example because I know why he is a theist from previous interactions.

[viscousmemories]

One of the defenses I expect right off the bat is the claim that people are attacking religion, not it's practitioners. Of course this is no different from the Christian claim that they hate the sin, not the sinner.
What about politics--can you oppose a political position or platform without being bigoted toward anyone who agrees with it, then?

I know people who I believe honestly hate the sin while loving the sinner. The problem is not the people who hate the sin and love the sinner, the problem is people who hate the sin and the sinner (although they may claim otherwise). You can sometimes tell these people by the fact that they are willing to be tolerant of "sins" or sinners which are aligned culturally with them, while forsaking tolerance with those that fall outside their little atavistic boundaries (people who will tolerate their priest or pastor's sexual indiscretions while attacking or discriminating against gays, for instance).
Yes I agree that it's possible to hate the sin and love the sinner (or hate the theism and love the theist, or hate the political alignment and love the person) but that wasn't what I meant to ask. I don't think I phrased my title or OP well enough. As you say, it is possible that despite their claim to hate only the sin some people may in fact act in ways that strongly indicate hatred of the sinner. I have seen this same dynamic in how some people address theists. They claim only to hate theism or theistic influence in the world, while their comments to and about theists drip with what seems like an obvious contempt for them.

However, does that justify treating all religionists as though they aren't equals? I'm talking about little comments like, "He's pretty nice, for a theist" or "I don't have any problem with theists as long as they stay away from me". I mean really how are these kind of comments substantially different from the comments people make about black people and homosexuals?
Not very, but I don't think that kind of behavior is inherent in anti-theism. If just being anti-theistic is bigotry, then each and every religionist who thinks his religion is God's plan for human life, or approves of proselytizing, is a bigot as well. And I'm not willing to make that statement.
I agree. Again I should have been more careful in the wording of my OP. I didn't mean to ask if anti-theism is inherently bigotry, but if some of the common manifestations of anti-theism (as in my examples above) are. I've probably seen the phrase "He's a nice guy for a theist" about 100 times on various non-theist oriented boards. To me that belies a personal prejudice that isn't excused by claims to the contrary.

So I guess the questions I'm asking are: Is making broad generalizations and/or derogatory comments about adherents to religion (in the general or specific) bigotry?
Generalizing too broadly and not taking individuals for who they are is pretty much always bigotry, I'd say. If that's how you define anti-theism, then yeah, it's bigotry. But if you define it as a philosophical position that theism is a bad thing (as I do), then it need not be defined as bigotry any more than religious belief is.
And again, I think we are in agreement but I phrased my OP sloppily.

[Goliath]

As you say, it is possible that despite their claim to hate only the sin some people may in fact act in ways that strongly indicate hatred of the sinner. I have seen this same dynamic in how some people address theists. They claim only to hate theism or theistic influence in the world, while their comments to and about theists drip with what seems like an obvious contempt for them.


But is the contempt actually there? That is what's important.

[viscousmemories]

Okay, time for Defense In The Alternative.

1. Is not.
2. Even if it were, so what?
Seebs your post was very interesting to me, but are you saying anti-theism is not bigotry, and even if it were so what? Or are you replying to something someone else said in this thread? Because honestly I don't see how the rest of your post supports those statements.

[viscousmemories]

I don't know that I correlate it with bigotry, per se. Well maybe. You can hate specific actions of specific Christians or groups of Christians (I hate the Southern Baptist hard line homophobia for example or groups trying to get Creationism taught in public schools) and hate certain things about the belief system as a whole (I hate the doctrine of Hell)...but to say "I hate Christianity" is basically meaningless because it's simply too broad a term, IMO.
I agree with that for the reasons I mention in my replies above. As far as I know there are only a few components of Christian belief that all self-avowed Christians adhere to. Like for example I'm pretty sure all Christians believe Jesus Christ of Nazareth was the son of God. Of course I could be wrong about even that. So that's another reason dumping scorn on "Christians" as a group makes as much sense to me as dumping scorn on all homosexuals or all black people.

[wildernesse]

Really? Most murders I've read about were based on: jealousy, drugs, insanity, trying to get away from the scene of the crime, etc. Very few were based in religion.


Haven't you heard of the witch burnings, crusades, the inquisition, the constant battling in the Middle East, Andrea Yates, 9/11, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc?

Yes, I have heard of them. I'm not being clear--either I erased part of my explanation or I thought it and didn't write it down. Run of the mill USmurders are often based on the things I listed--every day, every town sorts of murders. (Yes, I realize that I'm being very casual with the idea of murder. My apologies.) Religion is often not a part of that at all.

Much of what you've listed, I would argue is not the result solely of religion, although I don't doubt that religion plays a (large) part in it. I also don't think that these are the majority of murders, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.




Rapes: combine "I was drunk" and "Forcing myself on a woman makes me feel powerful and in control" and that's a lot of it.



Haven't you heard of catholic priests?

Yes. I did say that my two reasons were a lot of it, and not the entirety. I also do not think that Catholic priests make up the majority of rapists in the world or the US, nor do I think that their religion causes rape--although the current structure and politics of the Catholic church allowed (and probably allow) for it to continue, and they bear that responsibility. I didn't grow up in a church with a hierarchy, so to me the idea that the hierarchy is part of the religion is difficult for me to grasp--so I probably am not giving "structure/politics" enough weight in my idea of religion.



Mental abuse--I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Do you mean emotional abuse?



Yes. Thank you for actually asking, rather than just assuming.

No problem.



If so, then I would say that religion can be a tool of those who abuse others emotionally, but that doesn't explain away people who terrorize their employees or subordinates through emotional manipulation.



But I didn't exactly say that religion was responsible for all emotional abuse on the planet, now did I? *sigh* It'll never fucking end, will it? I'll be misunderstood until the day I fucking die, won't I?

No, you didn't. But I thought from your earlier response that you weren't convinced that human nature was a far greater cause of emotional abuse than religion was. My argument is that human nature is a greater (and in this case, underlying) cause of emotional abuse (and murder and rape) than is religion. To make my argument, I tried to give examples of murder, rape, and emotional abuse that exist apart from religion. That humans are this way, regardless of religion--and my conclusion is that humans use religion in negative ways because they are human, not because religion is inherently bad.

I'm sorry if you thought I was putting words in your mouth; that wasn't my intention. I was trying to express my own views, not comment on yours. There probably was some inadvertent overlap.

[viscousmemories]

This is to anyone, not just vm: think of a person you love. Or at least, someone you care deeply about. (Hopefully you can think of someone) Do you agree with every belief of theirs? Do they hold any belief you're opposed to? If so then, doesn't this demonstrate that it's possible to be against a belief someone holds without being against them; that those are two different things?

Hopefully I've made myself more clear in my subsequent responses. I'm not a person who believes it's impossible to hate the sin and love the sinner, however I do think it's possible for someone to claim to hate the sin and love the sinner, yet act in ways that betray that claim. I would use an analogy but I'm afraid we'd get caught up discussing the analogy and not my main point, which I would prefer to avoid. So far this thread has been very interesting.

[HelenM]

This is to anyone, not just vm: think of a person you love. Or at least, someone you care deeply about. (Hopefully you can think of someone) Do you agree with every belief of theirs? Do they hold any belief you're opposed to? If so then, doesn't this demonstrate that it's possible to be against a belief someone holds without being against them; that those are two different things?

Helen

Very well put, Helen.

Wait a minute.....didn't we once have a heated discussion on the difference between hating xianity and hating xians?

I think so...evidently you convinced me! :D

Helen

[Goliath]

Yes, I have heard of them. I'm not being clear--either I erased part of my explanation or I thought it and didn't write it down. Run of the mill USmurders are often based on the things I listed--every day, every town sorts of murders. (Yes, I realize that I'm being very casual with the idea of murder. My apologies.) Religion is often not a part of that at all.



I'm talking about murder throughout history.



Much of what you've listed, I would argue is not the result solely of religion, although I don't doubt that religion plays a (large) part in it. I also don't think that these are the majority of murders, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.



I am so fucking tired of this shit, I could almost put a fist into this fucking monitor.

I didn't say that religion caused the majority of murder, and I suspect--but cannot prove--that you know it.

:deepsigh: :sadangel:

The Quizno's guy just got here with the sub that I ordered...this is one of the best things that has happened to me today.

God damn it, I'm tired of this shit.

[viscousmemories]

I didn't say that religion caused the majority of murder, and I suspect--but cannot prove--that you know it.
Jesus Goliath. Wildernesse wasn't making up shit. From your first post on this thread:

Simple: religion is one of the biggest--if not the biggest--causes of murder, rape, and mental abuse.

Are you going to claim that doesn't mean "religion caused the majority of murder" because you didn't use those exact words? What else does "one of the biggest--if not the biggest--causes of murder" mean?

[Goliath]

Are you going to claim that doesn't mean "religion caused the majority of murder" because you didn't use those exact words? What else does "one of the biggest--if not the biggest--causes of murder" mean?

It means precisely what it says--that religion is the biggest cause, not the cause of over 50% of murders.

As an example, if the top four causes of murder were:*

Religion: 36.2%
Jealousy: 32.8%
Rage: 18.2%
Territory: 12.1%

Then, guess what?! Religion would be the biggest cause of murder. However, that wouldn't mean that religion is the cause of the majority of murder.

Such a distinction is so obvious, I'm surprised that you missed it, and I'm also surprised that Wildernesse would, too.

* - Statistics are from my ass only. Please don't start bickering over these numbers, as, like I said, I picked them right out of my ass...they may or may not be at all accurate.

[viscousmemories]

Such a distinction is so obvious, I'm surprised that you missed it, and I'm also surprised that Wildernesse would, too.
Eh, I sucked at math before quitting school in Jr. High. I'm not surprised I missed it at all. :P

[Ymir's blood]

What's the difference, to you, between demeaning statements toward or about theists and demeaning statements toward or about ethnic minorities, homosexuals, women or any other group of people? Is there any significant difference? Because to me there isn't. It strikes me as bigotry, plain and simple, and I react to some comments about 'theists' or 'xtians' here as I would to people talking about "niggers" or "fags".
I agree. Attacking or insulting someone solely because of their beliefs is as bigoted as doing the same due to their ethnic origin or gender.
One of the defenses I expect right off the bat is the claim that people are attacking religion, not it's practitioners. Of course this is no different from the Christian claim that they hate the sin, not the sinner. And most of the non-theists I've met seem to think that justification doesn't wash. That hate is hate, and hate directed toward something fundamental to a person is effectively hate directed toward that person. In fact several people made that very argument in Helen's "House of Hate" thread.

I see no reason to not hate the believer along with the belief. However that's where it is important to recognize that not all beliefs, even under the same label, are equal and not all beliefs that we consider wrong are worthy of hatred. If a certain belief system inspires or demands from its followers actions which are considered odious, then by all means, hate both the action and those who commit it. In this however, it is the actions that the belief requires that make it odious as opposed to merely erroneous. A belief system which is otherwise similar but lacks the call to deplorable action would not deserve hatred of either it or its followers.

The key is to judge based on actions, not ideas. If the ideas lead to objectionable actions, then that is the real reason condemnation is deserved. Also note the Fallacy of Division (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#division). Not everyone who identifies themselves as a member of certain religion believes everything that is contained in its belief system. For instance, the Roman Catholic Church (AFAIK) has never apologized for or condemned the actions of medieval Inquisitions. That doesn't make individual Catholics liable for the actions of the inquisitors. (if they were to defend those actions as moral, it would be different.)
So I guess the questions I'm asking are: Is making broad generalizations and/or derogatory comments about adherents to religion (in the general or specific) bigotry? YesIf not, why not? If so, are you guilty of it? Why? I know I've been guilty of over generalizing. It is easy to fall into an 'us vs. them' mentality, especially when 'us' outnumbers 'them' in a given locale. It also seems to be human nature to distrust outsiders and project negative qualities on them. Both are things which can be avoided of course.Do you think others here and elsewhere are? I was mod in RR&P and ~Elsewhere~ for a long time, so yes, I'd say many others do it quite a bit.Do you confront them? Why not?I'm rather introverted and generally avoid confrontation when possible.

[livius drusus]

Such a distinction is so obvious, I'm surprised that you missed it, and I'm also surprised that Wildernesse would, too.
Eh, I sucked at math before quitting school in Jr. High. I'm not surprised I missed it at all. :P
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is this: Never go in against a Math PhD, when percentages are on the line!

:lol: :grave:

(With many apologies to The Princess Bride. And Farren.)

[Goliath]

I see no reason to not hate the believer along with the belief.

Well, such reasons exist. That fact shoots down the rest of your argument.

[Goliath]

Such a distinction is so obvious, I'm surprised that you missed it, and I'm also surprised that Wildernesse would, too.
Eh, I sucked at math before quitting school in Jr. High. I'm not surprised I missed it at all. :P
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is this: Never go in against a Math PhD, when percentages are on the line!

:lol: :grave:

(With many apologies to The Princess Bride. And Farren.)

:biglaugh:

[viscousmemories]

I know very few theists who I respect the reasons for their theism.

Seebs* happens to be one of them, but he has pointed out that the reasons that he is a theist would not be convincing to others it is of a personal nature.
Yeah, most of the theists I know personally say the same thing.

Overall I question the religious worldview, the embracing of the supernatural and pseudo scientific.

I have particular problems with christianity because I dont like many of its inherent teachings.
I'm not at all religious; I'm pretty much a pure naturalist. But I don't think I really disagree with most fundamental Christian teachings, as most of the teachings I'm aware of are pretty humanistic in nature. Do unto others, Love thy neighbor, etc. The things that I do have a big problem with, personally, are mostly borne of a specific religion: Catholicism. I don't even know much about any other religions.

Also, my time online has taught me that many xians say some fundamentally stupid shit.

Of course, atheists do as well, but most atheists accept a rational world view and dont really on faith.

That reliance on faith is what I hate about xianity and it is one of the reasons that so often there is a limit to meaningful dialogue between many theists and atheists/agnostics/diests.
Most atheists? Really? It seems to me that I've met as many atheists as theists who accept things on blind faith. I used to do it myself: Make bold statements and or snide remarks about philosophy and religion to whatever theist du jour happened to be around over at IIDB, then let the people who were far more knowledgeable and better at debating than me handle the actual arguments. And frankly I see that all the time there.

as to the question of bigotry,

much as I temper statements to people in real life because I care about their fealings, I try not to piss on people's beliefs when I know that person. Not because I find their beliefs rational necesarily but because I dont want to hurt that person's feelings.
Me too.

I think I have said that seebs is rational for a theist elsewhere.

iirc, I suppose that I did so because so many theists dont seem to be rational. I also think that the xians that post on this site arent really representative of xians at large. wildernesse, helenm, seebs
**beyelzu prays to some unnamed and probably nonexistent higher power that I didnt inadvertantly leave someone out
are all rational people that I have never seen attack someone else because of their religion. In general, this has not been my experience with xians.

I grew up in the deep south, rome by god rural fucking georgia, and I was attacked countless times for being a theistic evolutionist when I was 13-14, later when I deconverted it became worse.

I do have a bias against christianity, I do not believe that it is bigotry in that I really dont hate the xian even if I do hate their religion. Also, I dont let my religious differences cloud non religious topics of conversation.

*I picked him as an example because I know why he is a theist from previous interactions.
Fair enough. Thanks for the response.

I had to go to Rome on business for a few days in 1997 or so. I flew in to Atlanta, natch, and it was a really beautiful drive from Atlanta to Rome. :yup:

[trendkill]

I have seen this same dynamic in how some people address theists. They claim only to hate theism or theistic influence in the world, while their comments to and about theists drip with what seems like an obvious contempt for them.Yeah, me too.


I didn't mean to ask if anti-theism is inherently bigotry, but if some of the common manifestations of anti-theism (as in my examples above) are. I've probably seen the phrase "He's a nice guy for a theist" about 100 times on various non-theist oriented boards. To me that belies a personal prejudice that isn't excused by claims to the contrary.Agreed. These statements are obviously prejudiced. The fact that the sentiment may be based on real experiences doesn't change that, any more than it does the guy who has had nothing but bad experiences with blacks. Actually, this thread clarified my thinking on the issue.

[wildernesse]

Goliath,

I hope that your sub was mmmm...tasty. I did not get the distinction between majority and biggest--in fact, it took me several times re-reading your explanation to understand your point.

I think that it would be more helpful if you tried explaining your concept better than just being angry that I'm too dumb to understand your precise argument. At least it would be more helpful to me.

[seebs]

I'm even a math geek, and I casually connected "majority" with "biggest" until I saw the example.

But it's a good distinction.

[copiae]

peer's comment means the same if you substitute spirit for nature. So, a far greater cause of murder, rape, and mental abuse is human nature. Do you hate that as well?


yup, thats pretty much what I meant.


And how predictable that someone has not read what I've written.


"How nice of you to generalise about 'most' christians."

I trust you see the irony? =)

[Goliath]

"How nice of you to generalise about 'most' christians."


Nope, that's just as wrong now as when you said it before. Notice the two instances of "probably" that refute your claim of the existence of a generalization.


I trust you see the irony? =)

Not particularly, no.

[HelenM]

Goliath,

I hope that your sub was mmmm...tasty. I did not get the distinction between majority and biggest--in fact, it took me several times re-reading your explanation to understand your point.

I think that it would be more helpful if you tried explaining your concept better than just being angry that I'm too dumb to understand your precise argument. At least it would be more helpful to me.

I didn't see the 'biggest/majority' confusion until I also saw Goliath's example. I thought his example was very helpful and I understood right away from the example what the difference is. But then I am a math major.

Helen

[Ronin]

I think that Anti-Theism can certainly lead to bigotry and it can also promote interpersonal problems where there really should be none.

That, to me, is the core issue.

As for causes/motivations for murder...I have found that after fifteen years working violent crimes...it is the simple loss of self-control and not religion.

Most often these murderous events are stimulated by intoxicants of one sort or another and jealous rage, however, this does not imply causality...neither should "religion".

I wouldn't want anyone to continue to perpetuate such a false claim simply because it fits there own anti-theism leanings.

.02

[Goliath]

Goliath,

I hope that your sub was mmmm...tasty.



It was.


I think that it would be more helpful if you tried explaining your concept better than just being angry that I'm too dumb to understand your precise argument.

:eyebrow2: Please read through what I've said in this thread again, wildernesse.

[Ronin]

:eyebrow2: Please read through what I've said in this thread again, wildernesse.

Goliath, no offense meant, but that particular request has never made sense to me.

How often does one have to re-read a thread until they are suddenly met with some epiphany the other participant wants to grant them?

I think that a better approach would be to try to percieve her view and try to find common ground.

PS If you start cussing me, I'll understand.

PPS FYI ~ I'm playing the "Wrong" drinking game that I once picked up reading old Gurdur posts...so if you'd oblige, I'd appreciate it.

:quaff:

[viscousmemories]

The key is to judge based on actions, not ideas. If the ideas lead to objectionable actions, then that is the real reason condemnation is deserved. Also note the Fallacy of Division (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#division). Not everyone who identifies themselves as a member of certain religion believes everything that is contained in its belief system. For instance, the Roman Catholic Church (AFAIK) has never apologized for or condemned the actions of medieval Inquisitions. That doesn't make individual Catholics liable for the actions of the inquisitors. (if they were to defend those actions as moral, it would be different.)
You make some really good points, Ymir's Blood. I agree that people should be judged by their actions, not their beliefs. And thanks for the reference to the fallacy of division. I mentioned earlier that I didn't think every member of a particular religion necessarily adheres to every tenet of said religion, but I didn't realize there was a fancy Latin name for assuming they do. I always like learning new fancy Latin names for things. I wonder about your last sentence, though. Why would it be different if they were to defend those actions as moral? Wouldn't that still be a matter of belief vs. action?

If not, why not? If so, are you guilty of it? Why?
I know I've been guilty of over generalizing. It is easy to fall into an 'us vs. them' mentality, especially when 'us' outnumbers 'them' in a given locale. It also seems to be human nature to distrust outsiders and project negative qualities on them. Both are things which can be avoided of course.
I agree. Me too.

Do you think others here and elsewhere are?
I was mod in RR&P and ~Elsewhere~ for a long time, so yes, I'd say many others do it quite a bit.
Do you confront them? Why not?
I'm rather introverted and generally avoid confrontation when possible.

Fair enough. Thanks for your response. :yup:

[Goliath]

Goliath, no offense meant, but that particular request has never made sense to me.


It's a test to help me determine if she actually wants to have an honest discussion or if she'll continue to not read what I write.

Here's a hint for ya, wildernesse: I never said that you were too dumb to know the difference between religion being the biggest cause of murder and being the cause of the majority of murders.

[livius drusus]

Here's a hint for you, Goliath: wildy never said you said she was too dumb; she said you were angry about it.

Now, please, no more he said she said, reread the thread and tests of goodwill spooge. People are here because they want to have a discussion in good faith. That is my default assumption and even if I'm wrong that's the way I want people to treat each other here.

Blackmailing reminder: it's my birthday.

[Ronin]

It's a test to help me determine if she actually wants to have an honest discussion or if she'll continue to not read what I write.

Did you read what I wrote?

Here are the Cliff notes on it:

I think that a better approach would be to try to percieve her view and try to find common ground.

Now, will somebody please tell me that I'm wrong before this glorious buzz where's the hell off?!

[Goliath]

Here's a hint for you, Goliath: wildy never said you said she was too dumb; she said you were angry about it.

Now, please, no more he said she said, reread the thread and tests of goodwill spooge. People are here because they want to have a discussion in good faith. That is my default assumption and even if I'm wrong that's the way I want people to treat each other here.

Blackmailing reminder: it's my birthday.

Okay, fine. Wildy, I didn't think you were too dumb to understand the difference between the biggest cause and the cause of a majority of murders--in fact, I thought that you did understand the difference, hence my surprise that you didn't.

[Hugo Holbling]

Nice OP.

Is making broad generalizations and/or derogatory comments about adherents to religion (in the general or specific) bigotry?

The development of the term Bigot (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=bigot&searchmode=none) is interesting, but perhaps your argument would be better advised to use another to more accurately explain what you are driving at? It seems, stripped down, that your argument is a tu quoque (http://www.eblaforum.org/library/philosophy/intphi16.html#ad_hominem). Considering it again from that perspective might help you to clarify your thinking.

[wildernesse]

Goliath, I fail your test.

[Ymir's blood]

And thanks for the reference to the fallacy of division. I mentioned earlier that I didn't think every member of a particular religion necessarily adheres to every tenet of said religion, but I didn't realize there was a fancy Latin name for assuming they do. I always like learning new fancy Latin names for things. Hmm, Latin name? :(
I wonder about your last sentence, though. Why would it be different if they were to defend those actions as moral? Wouldn't that still be a matter of belief vs. action?
Defending something is pretty much the same as advocating it and is IMO, an action. To clarify, I don't mean if someone is simply arguing against condemnation* or playing Devil's advocate, but rather when someone seriously advocates an immoral or 'evil' act. To use another example: if someone argues that racial lynchings in the American South are justified, their belief is causing them to act in a way which is deplorable regardless of whether they are actually responsible for a crime. The same is true in the original example. A person who defends the actions of the Inquisition as being good would be worthy of disdain.


* To clarify this: Attacking an argument calling for condemnation due to finding its logic faulty.

[HelenM]

Blackmailing reminder: it's my birthday.

You mean, today's a good day to blackmail you because it's your birthday? :dunno2:

You sure have an unusual way of celebrating! :hahaha:

Helen

[beyelzu]

It's a test to help me determine if she actually wants to have an honest discussion or if she'll continue to not read what I write.

Did you read what I wrote?

Here are the Cliff notes on it:

I think that a better approach would be to try to percieve her view and try to find common ground.

Now, will somebody please tell me that I'm wrong before this glorious buzz where's the hell off?!
youre wrong you bastard, with your fancy experience and knowledge and logic.

ps. what are the rules to the drinking game??

[beyelzu]

vm,

you make a distinction between belief and action, what about beliefs that are morally repugnant?

holocaust deniers, neonazis, manboy love dipshits, etc...


In my opinion some flavors of xianity are almost equivalent,

and luckily not represented on this board. :)

[copiae]

Nope, that's just as wrong now as when you said it before. Notice the two instances of "probably" that refute your claim of the existence of a generalization.

I trust you see the irony? =)

Not particularly, no.

Sigh. It really does not matter that you indicated that you could be wrong, with the usage of 'probably'- what you did was still draw a generality, and hence, generalise.


Generalise (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=generalise): to speak or write in generalities.

Generalities (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=generalities): (the relevent entry): The state or quality of being general.

General (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=general): (the relevant entry): Affecting or characteristic of the majority of those involved; prevalent.


Correct, and because of that, most xians probably do not hate me, although they probably hate atheism. There's a big difference.
Quote:


Presumably you have not met 'most' christians, ergo what you are doing is generalising about something you cannot possibly know. No doubt you are aware of the problems with drawing widespread conclusions from a small sample...


Bluntly, if you still have a problem with my comment - I categorically apologise for 'misreading' you, and I will not waste any more time discussing this when there are more interesting discussions afoot.


Anyway, I understand you restrict yourself to literal interpretations of words. Fair enough, I'll restrict myself to the same. I am not used to doing ...this... so I may still fail to hit the mark. My original post is still largely unanswered, and believe it or not, I would like to understand your position to a greater detail, so I'll rewrite it.. Also, please note that the statement you made is what I would like to question/learn more about, and not the context within which it was made.


Religion may be used as a justification, but it is humans (and human nature) that commits deeds*. Extrapolating from this, a far greater cause of murder, rape and mental abuse is human nature. Do you hate human nature as well? If you do, seeing as all of the criteria you use cause pain to humans, should these criteria be used?


Finally, are you talking about all religions that have hitherto existed, or just one religion in particular?


* Its also fairly important to note the difference between what a religion says and what its practitioners do. If a priest is fucking boys, and this pederasty is not mandated by the religion, should the religion be held to blame? etc.

[viscousmemories]

Nice OP.
Thanks.

Is making broad generalizations and/or derogatory comments about adherents to religion (in the general or specific) bigotry?
The development of the term Bigot (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=bigot&searchmode=none) is interesting, but perhaps your argument would be better advised to use another to more accurately explain what you are driving at?
That is interesting. I knew nothing about the origins of the word 'bigot', and had only a rudimentary understanding of its current meaning. I argree that it probably isn't the right word for what I'm trying to address. Bias is likely more accurate, but it lacks the force of 'bigotry'. :D

It seems, stripped down, that your argument is a tu quoque (http://www.eblaforum.org/library/philosophy/intphi16.html#ad_hominem). Considering it again from that perspective might help you to clarify your thinking.
That does help me clarify my thinking. I realized as I was typing the above that I seem to have chosen the word 'bigotry' for its value as a blunt instrument, and not because it's the best word under the circumstances. I'll definitely keep that in mind going forward.

As a bit of an aside, I notice that in the definition of ad hominem tu quoque you linked to, you said it is "an acceptable move to make in any argument". Isn't that a contradiction? Isn't employing a fallacy by definition an unacceptable move?

[Hugo Holbling]

As a bit of an aside, I notice that in the definition of ad hominem tu quoque you linked to, you said it is "an acceptable move to make in any argument". Isn't that a contradiction? Isn't employing a fallacy by definition an unacceptable move?

I edited it slightly to clarify. The point was that certain so-called fallacies (tu quoque and appeals to authority, in particular) are moves in argument that are not always fallacious. It is not enough to merely say "that's an ad hom" or "you're appealing to authority", since both can be legitimate. The charge has to be expanded upon to make it stick.

In the case of your OP, i think you are suggesting that some forms of anti-theistic behaviour are hypocritical where the proponent also disavows racism or homophobia, say. The general complaint would then be that the analogy is close enough that the behaviour is inconsistent. That means that your argument can only demonstrate or point to this inconsistency and not show that anti-theism constitutes bigotry - hence my previous suggestion.

[viscousmemories]

And thanks for the reference to the fallacy of division. I mentioned earlier that I didn't think every member of a particular religion necessarily adheres to every tenet of said religion, but I didn't realize there was a fancy Latin name for assuming they do. I always like learning new fancy Latin names for things. Hmm, Latin name? :(
Oh, sorry. I just meant I didn't realize it was a named fallacy and named fallacies usually have Latin names, so I said I didn't know it had a Latin name when I meant I didn't know it was a named fallacy. Sorry for the confusion.

Defending something is pretty much the same as advocating it and is IMO, an action.
Interesting. I've heard (and used, at one point) this same argument in defense of hate speech legislation, but I was dissuaded from my position after a thread on the subject at another forum. If I had anything resembling a human memory I would tell you what the argument was that persuaded me, but I don't. I do have a hard copy of the thread, though, so I'll re-read it and get back to you. :D

[viscousmemories]

vm,

you make a distinction between belief and action, what about beliefs that are morally repugnant?

holocaust deniers, neonazis, manboy love dipshits, etc...

In my opinion some flavors of xianity are almost equivalent,

and luckily not represented on this board. :)
I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you basically saying the same thing Ymir's Blood is? i.e. that people who advocate these repugnant beliefs deserve scorn? Or are you saying that people deserve scorn just for having these beliefs?

[viscousmemories]

I edited it slightly to clarify. The point was that certain so-called fallacies (tu quoque and appeals to authority, in particular) are moves in argument that are not always fallacious. It is not enough to merely say "that's an ad hom" or "you're appealing to authority", since both can be legitimate. The charge has to be expanded upon to make it stick.
Ah, yes the revised version makes that much clearer to me.

In the case of your OP, i think you are suggesting that some forms of anti-theistic behaviour are hypocritical where the proponent also disavows racism or homophobia, say. The general complaint would then be that the analogy is close enough that the behaviour is inconsistent. That means that your argument can only demonstrate or point to this inconsistency and not show that anti-theism constitutes bigotry - hence my previous suggestion.
Ohh, okay I get that now. See all you have to do is write it in crayon and I can understand it without a problem. That's really an excellent point, thanks.

[Ymir's blood]

Defending something is pretty much the same as advocating it and is IMO, an action.
Interesting. I've heard (and used, at one point) this same argument in defense of hate speech legislation, but I was dissuaded from my position after a thread on the subject at another forum. If I had anything resembling a human memory I would tell you what the argument was that persuaded me, but I don't. I do have a hard copy of the thread, though, so I'll re-read it and get back to you. :D

There is a difference between what is moral/ethical and what is (or should be) legal. Nothing that I've said should be taken as advocating limiting Freedom of Speech. In the words of Beatrice Hall, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That a belief is repugnant doesn't mean that it should be illegal, nor should defending it be banned.

[Adora]

If it is, so what? I consider it natural revenge for the bullshit that gets flung my way because of who I am and how they judge that.

[Hugo Holbling]

See all you have to do is write it in crayon and I can understand it without a problem.

Don't sell yourself short.

[HelenM]

If it is, so what? I consider it natural revenge for the bullshit that gets flung my way because of who I am and how they judge that.

But lots of theists haven't done anything to you personally, have they? Why would you take revenge on them? That seems irrational to me.

Helen

[Adora]

I don't. But if they try and convert me, I will chew them out. If they say something I find offensive, I'm not about to sit and take it quietly. I have a grudge against Catholics which I justify (logically or not, I don't care) through my upbringing under the Catholic claw... I mean wing. Make of that what you will, but frankly, I'm not one to bullshit about with the "must be better than the other person by not being a bigot" crap. I'm as much of a bigot, a hypocrit and a predjudiced fella as the next person. If ther'es one thing I can't stand, it's holier/more-logical/more-benign-than-thou attitudes on both sides of the fence.

[Ronin]

If ther'es one thing I can't stand, it's holier/more-logical/more-benign-than-thou attitudes on both sides of the fence.

Then you can't stand the likes of me, a "benign" atheist...or Helen a "benign" theist.

And with such a view, you only self-create the illusion of having even more "enemies" when you really do not.

I simply find nothing comforting in such a view.

[wade-w]

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:

\Big"ot\, n. [F. bigot a bigot or hypocrite, a name once given to the Normans in France. Of unknown origin; possibly akin to Sp. bigote a whisker; hombre de bigote a man of spirit and vigor; cf. It. s-bigottire to terrify, to appall. Wedgwood and others maintain that bigot is from the same source as Beguine, Beghard.] 1. A hypocrite; esp., a superstitious hypocrite. [Obs.]

2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.


I must say that I have met a few anti-theists that fit this definition. Mostly while moderating GRD at II. That doesn't mean that all anti-theists are bigots.

To address the more general question vm asked, I think anti-theism paints with a very broad brush, far too broad in my opinion. I have no problem with theists in general. Most are decent sorts. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, their belief neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Even fundamentalists and evangelicals don't all bother me. Well, I get irritated when they come knocking on my door, but its really not that big a deal. I just tell them I'm not interested, and they leave.

What scares me are fanatics, be they religious or political or whatever else. The fanatic that wants to create a theocracy, or the one that wants a race war, are all basically of the same ilk. The particular ideology or theology may be different, but the end results are invariably the same: hate and death. Fanaticism is the real source of the terrorist, and the abortion clinic bomber. And the vast majority of theists are not fanatics. So label me as an anti-fanatic. Everyone else I try to take as an individual.

[HelenM]

frankly, I'm not one to bullshit about with the "must be better than the other person by not being a bigot" crap. I'm as much of a bigot, a hypocrit and a predjudiced fella as the next person. If ther'es one thing I can't stand, it's holier/more-logical/more-benign-than-thou attitudes on both sides of the fence.

I'm not sure what you mean. I try not to be bigoted but I don't tell others I'm better than them because I try not to be bigoted.

Anyway, I dislike comparisons of which person is "better" because I don't think they produce meaningful or helpful results.

Helen

[Adora]

Then you can't stand the likes of me, a "benign" atheist...or Helen a "benign" theist.

Difference between person and attitudes, not to mention the fact I said "more benign than thou", not just "benign". Read what I write.

[Goliath]

Goliath, I fail your test.

So then you're admitting that you didn't read what I wrote but responded anyway?

[Goliath]

Sigh. It really does not matter that you indicated that you could be wrong,

Wrong again. If I had said "Most xians hate atheism, although they do not hate me", then I would be making a generalization.

Although I generally despise Rush Limbaugh, I agree with him on this point: Words mean things.



Presumably you have not met 'most' christians, ergo what you are doing is generalising about something you cannot possibly know.



No, I am saying that most xians probably do not hate me, although they probably hate atheism. I didn't say that most xians do not hate me and that they do hate atheism. You're right in that I do not know. Hence the "probably"s, which you are still ignoring.



No doubt you are aware of the problems with drawing widespread conclusions from a small sample...



Yes, but I didn't draw any actual conclusions hence--guess what? you still lose.



Anyway, I understand you restrict yourself to literal interpretations of words.



If this were true, I would have no understanding of sarcasm. Since I do have such an understanding (and can be sarcastic at times), you are wrong yet again.


a far greater cause of murder, rape and mental abuse is human nature.


Unproven assertion.



Do you hate human nature as well?



Parts of it, yes. I guess a more precise answer would depend on exactly what you mean by "human nature".



Finally, are you talking about all religions that have hitherto existed, or just one religion in particular?



If I had meant one religion in particular, I would not have said what I said.




* Its also fairly important to note the difference between what a religion says and what its practitioners do.



Really? I've never seen anything resembling a good argument with which to back this assertion up. I'm personally undecided on the issue....I keep leaning back and forth between being neutral and disagreeing vehemently.

[beyelzu]

vm,

you make a distinction between belief and action, what about beliefs that are morally repugnant?

holocaust deniers, neonazis, manboy love dipshits, etc...

In my opinion some flavors of xianity are almost equivalent,

and luckily not represented on this board. :)
I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you basically saying the same thing Ymir's Blood is? i.e. that people who advocate these repugnant beliefs deserve scorn? Or are you saying that people deserve scorn just for having these beliefs?


sorry, I thought I was clear.

some thoughts perspectives are morally repugnant and deserve scorn. and no it is not necessary that someone goes out of the way to advocate .

the belief itself is damnable.

[seebs]

I think I'm with Goliath on this one.

As it happens, I disagree with his estimation of the probability, but he put in all the necessary qualifiers.

[copiae]

No doubt you are aware of the problems with drawing widespread conclusions from a small sample...


Yes, but I didn't draw any actual conclusions hence--guess what? you still lose.

Hey,

Heh. I never said you did. By the way, this is not a competition. I did not 'win', and nor did I 'lose'.




Anyway, I understand you restrict yourself to literal interpretations of words.

If this were true, I would have no understanding of sarcasm. Since I do have such an understanding (and can be sarcastic at times), you are wrong yet again.


I must say, I find you to be fascinating. Just out of an idle curiosity, (i.e. you do not need to respond), do you ever find it really difficult to communicate with other people? Not as a lecturer in mathematics (I am sure you are quite talented in that area), just as a person.

Incidentally, should you choose to reply to this thread, longer replies, whilst perhaps lacking the curt efficiency of your previous posts, would be greatly appreciated. :)



a far greater cause of murder, rape and mental abuse is human nature.

Unproven assertion.


See below.



Do you hate human nature as well?

Parts of it, yes. I guess a more precise answer would depend on exactly what you mean by

"human nature".




Ah, a notoriously difficult question to answer. I'll start off by defining it as human behaviour stripped of all cultural influences. It is impossible (due to moral, not physical, constraints) to create an experiment that lets us see this (the so-called Forbidden Experiment), as in order to do so, we need to take a child in infancy, lock the child away in an isolated area with no human contact... and observe the childs behaviour and progress over the developmental years. However, if we are prepared to accept a certain degree of non-idealness in the experiment, we can look towards recorded cases of feral children (www.feralchildren.com) for possibilities:


Feral children are kids who, for whatever reason, were abandoned from greater humanity, and left to fend for themselves. Historically, there have been cases of kids with very long periods of isolation from human contact, thus the records of thier development (or lack thereof) may reveal what a human behaves like with little to no cultural influence during his or her developmental years. To quote from the site:


"Quite simply, feral children are usually entirely unaware of the needs and desires and others. The concepts of morals, property and possessions are alien to them, and they can't show empathy with other people. If brought up by animals, they don't even identify themselves as human, but probably regard humans as "the enemy"."


Of course, it can be argued that this definition of human nature is inherently flawed, because there is plenty of research that indicates that humanity is a 'tribal' species - contact with another human is a prerequisite for a child to develop psychologically, linguisitically, and, intriguingly, physiologically as well (see the site for more info). With this in mind, would a human without the benefits of culture still be considered a human? or merely humanoid?


So, then, if we define human nature to be the cultural scope within which a human exists, immediately, the problem becomes apparent: The specifics of culture are not universal: e.g. differing opinions through the ages over incest, slavery, honor, shame, etc. However, perhaps the problem is merely that our scope is too broad: What if we were to look instead for any constants exhibited in human behaviour? From this perspective, we can find several such constants: lust, love, murder, greed and theft (and of course, thier antitheses). Documented history offers enough evidence that these constants exist independently of any arbitrary construct thrown over them: Murder is murder, irrespective if the motivations for it are based on religions or greed.


Hm... I sidetracked myself badly in that. Oh well.




Finally, are you talking about all religions that have hitherto existed, or just one religion in particular?

If I had meant one religion in particular, I would not have said what I said.


So, religions that do not have a 'history of murder, rape and abuse', such as, say, Buddhism, or the Bahai religion, or ancient fertility cults... are they deserving of your hatred? What of the various sects of Christianity that have no history of suffering? (n.b.: Monks starving themselves and other such voluntarily self-inflicted acts really should not count as a form of abuse, regardless of how misguided it may seem to us).




* Its also fairly important to note the difference between what a religion says and what its practitioners do.

Really? I've never seen anything resembling a good argument with which to back this assertion up. I'm personally undecided on the issue....I keep leaning back and forth between being neutral and disagreeing vehemently.


There is an important distinction between a religion and its practitioners. A cursory glance at the history of Christianity reveals many conflicts over its interpretation, from the Arian heresy to the questions of transubstantiation and iconoclasm, and many more. The interpretations, for the most part (excluding the Mormons, Muslims and a few others) was based on the same works, yet Arianism is such as far cry from modern Christianity, it would most probably not be recognised as Christianity at all today.


So, religion (the interpretation of it) changes with time, or, changes with use. Sometimes, people interpret it for 'selfish' reasons (such as Pope Urbans 'get out of hell free' incentive campaign for fighting in the crusades)... Sometimes it is interpreted for more or less altruistic purposes (such as the Bahai faith), but at all times, it is interpreted by the people. It is people who are the interpreters, and people who commit acts for/from the interpretations. If the religion says nothing about a particular act, or condemns it, but the interpreter deliberately or inadvertantly skewers the message, why should the religion be held accountable for the actions of the interpreter?

[Ronin]

Then you can't stand the likes of me, a "benign" atheist...or Helen a "benign" theist.

Difference between person and attitudes, not to mention the fact I said "more benign than thou", not just "benign". Read what I write.

Let me re-phrase to conform to exactly what you wrote then (though it does not change the overall meaning):

Then you can't stand the attitude of the likes of me a "more benign atheist than thou"...or Helen a "more benign theist than thou".

And with such a view, you only self-create the illusion of having even more "enemies" when you really do not.

I simply find nothing comforting in such a view.

originally posted by peer

So, religion (the interpretation of it) changes with time, or, changes with use. Sometimes, people interpret it for 'selfish' reasons (such as Pope Urbans 'get out of hell free' incentive campaign for fighting in the crusades)... Sometimes it is interpreted for more or less altruistic purposes (such as the Bahai faith), but at all times, it is interpreted by the people. It is people who are the interpreters, and people who commit acts for/from the interpretations. If the religion says nothing about a particular act, or condemns it, but the interpreter deliberately or inadvertantly skewers the message, why should the religion be held accountable for the actions of the interpreter?

Very well put, peer.

:bow:

[Adora]

Let me re-phrase to conform to exactly what you wrote then (though it does not change the overall meaning)

Yes, actually, it does.

What you originally said was "Helen and I are benign, therefore you're making us enemies for no reason".

And I said, "No, it's the "more benign than thou" attitude I don't like, which is a far cry from just being benign.

But the fact you're using such patronising bullshit lines such as "And with such a view, you only self-create the illusion of having even more "enemies" when you really do not." makes me glad I can consider you an enemy, and not a friend, and will tell you to suck my cock. You just proved my entire point with that line. Nice.

[Goliath]

Heh. I never said you did.

True. However, if you aren't saying anything about me drawing conclusions, then why did you say "No doubt you are aware of the problems with drawing widespread conclusions from a small sample... "?



By the way, this is not a competition. I did not 'win', and nor did I 'lose'.



Of course this is a competition. The purpose of debate is to convince others (be they lurkers or the opposition) to agree with you on the topic at hand.



I must say, I find you to be fascinating.


I don't know whether to take that as an insult or a compliment.



Just out of an idle curiosity, (i.e. you do not need to respond), do you ever find it really difficult to communicate with other people? Not as a lecturer in mathematics (I am sure you are quite talented in that area), just as a person.



Communication in real life can sometimes be difficult, but not as difficult as it can be with people on this board.



Incidentally, should you choose to reply to this thread, longer replies, whilst perhaps lacking the curt efficiency of your previous posts, would be greatly appreciated. :)



I say what needs to be said: no more, no less. I don't like filling up empty space with empty rhetoric--that's why I wasn't an English major. :D (see? I am capable of sarcasm).



Ah, a notoriously difficult question to answer. I'll start off by defining it as human behaviour stripped of all cultural influences.



This definition seems rather useless, as it is then impossible to tell whether or not a given behavior is part of human nature or not (as I believe you alluded to).



What if we were to look instead for any constants exhibited in human behaviour? From this perspective, we can find several such constants: lust, love, murder, greed and theft (and of course, thier antitheses). Documented history offers enough evidence that these constants exist independently of any arbitrary construct thrown over them: Murder is murder, irrespective if the motivations for it are based on religions or greed.



This still, however, does not prove that any of those things are part of human nature, as documented history is not proof...unless you wish to talk about human nature in a much more unrigorous manner?



So, religions that do not have a 'history of murder, rape and abuse', such as, say, Buddhism, or the Bahai religion, or ancient fertility cults... are they deserving of your hatred?



That's a complicated question. In reality, no, I don't hate those religions that you mentioned. However, in a more ideal world, I would hate all religions equally. The fact that I hate xianity more than the religions you mention above is due to the fact--as I'm sure you know--that xianity forces its way into nearly every crevice of modern American society.



Monks starving themselves and other such voluntarily self-inflicted acts really should not count as a form of abuse, regardless of how misguided it may seem to us).



So say you. Perhaps in your world, self abuse is not abuse. But here in this world it is.



There is an important distinction between a religion and its practitioners.
<snip large 2 paragraph rant about how religion changes>


The only important and obvious distinction that I can see is that practitioners of a religion are people, and hence not religions. That's it.

What you've done is give back the same tired arguments that I've seen before, summed up as "yeah, but religions change, therefore we can't blame people who subscribe to a religion for the evils of their religion!" I'm right with you until you get the "therefore". Perhaps you could do what no xian that I have encountered has ever bothered to do: explain why the implication in the "therefore" is valid?

[livius drusus]

You can't blame a person for something they didn't do or think or subscribe to. Christianity may be one big amorphous mass to you, but it's not to me or, presumably, to Christians. I would no sooner blame a Quaker for the Crusades than I would a Buddhist.

[Goliath]

You can't blame a person for something they didn't do or think or subscribe to. Christianity may be one big amorphous mass to you, but it's not to me or, presumably, to Christians. I would no sooner blame a Quaker for the Crusades than I would a Buddhist.

Perhaps I'm not being clear.

I wouldn't blame a modern day xian for the crusades, either, since the crusades happened hundreds of years ago. When I was talking about the arguments of the atrocities of a religion having to do with their practitioners, I was referring to things that are going on right now (or have gone on in very recent times).

[livius drusus]

Oh, okay. That makes more sense, but I still wouldn't blame a Quaker for Fred Phelps either.

[Goliath]

Oh, okay. That makes more sense, but I still wouldn't blame a Quaker for Fred Phelps either.

I'm not sure that I would, either, but I would blame Fred Phelps for Fred Phelps.

But that's a bad example--of both a person and an abomination within xianity. :D

[Ronin]

Let me re-phrase to conform to exactly what you wrote then (though it does not change the overall meaning)

Yes, actually, it does.

What you originally said was "Helen and I are benign, therefore you're making us enemies for no reason".

And I said, "No, it's the "more benign than thou" attitude I don't like, which is a far cry from just being benign.

But the fact you're using such patronising bullshit lines such as "And with such a view, you only self-create the illusion of having even more "enemies" when you really do not." makes me glad I can consider you an enemy, and not a friend, and will tell you to suck my cock. You just proved my entire point with that line. Nice.

As I have already re-phrased it to more precisely meet with your language and since the meaning obviously produces precisely the same incorrect result, your "far cry" assessment has simply become moot.

That said, the fact remains that I am still not your enemy...though you are free to believe in such a thing.

[Ronin]

I'm not sure that I would, either, but I would blame Fred Phelps for Fred Phelps.



That is the entire point.

We are all responsible for our own will and behavior, regardless of the ideologies or dogmas or tools that we happen to come across and use to support our own deeds...for good or ill.

[seebs]

I'm not sure that I would, either, but I would blame Fred Phelps for Fred Phelps.

But that's a bad example--of both a person and an abomination within xianity. :D

Maybe. But... I think there's a tendency for distance from a group to make it easier to lump them all together, but it doesn't necessarily make it accurate to do so.

I am regularly stunned and outraged by the unthinkable, evil, bullshit I see coming from Christians over on ChristianForums. That's Christians, and it's happening today... But I don't think it would be fair to generalize very much from it.

There's a guy on ChristianForums who got raped by a priest when he was 11. Another poster asked him, in another thread, whether maybe he "hadn't gotten enough from that priest". He's one kind of Christian.

There's a local brotherhood who have taken vows of poverty and spend all their time and effort feeding the poor. They coordinate donations, they go to stores to pick up food that's gonna get thrown out and give it to people who will eat it today, they do all sorts of stuff. They don't preach at people, they don't make people listen to sermons to get fed; they just feed the fucking hungry. No strings attached. They're another kind of Christian.

These people are not the same. Yeah, there's a word that includes them all, but we've reached a level of generalization comparable to "American" or "Spaniard". Moreso; there are about two billion people worldwide who are in some way "Christian", and they are all very different.

So, the straightforward judgment - "person X is a theist, and therefore bad, because of these things theists do" - is pretty much dead in the water. If you narrow it to "Christian", it's still useless. If you start looking at individual denominations, it's no longer quite so crazy... But, for all that the Southern Baptists produced kooks like Phelps, they also produced Joshua Villines, who has been seen out picketing in front of a porn store -- defending them.

I think there may come a point where, although a stereotype is not always accurate, it's good enough that acting on it isn't purely bigotry. However, you'd have to use fairly narrow definitions to get much milage out of religious groups, from my experience. There are very few religious groups whose members are consistently nasty. It's not impossible, but it's a bit rare.

I guess... Anti-theism probably isn't bigotry. Anti-theistism probably is.

[copiae]

Heh. I never said you did.
True. However, if you aren't saying anything about me drawing conclusions, then why did you say "No doubt you are aware of the problems with drawing widespread conclusions from a small sample... "?

Hey,

As a gentle reminder, nothing more. =)



Of course this is a competition. The purpose of debate is to convince others (be they lurkers or the opposition) to agree with you on the topic at hand.



If we were to treat this as a competition, lets say that you get me to agree with your position: Do you win and I lose? If your position is the 'right' one to have, don't we both win? Or, if, my position was the 'right' one, don't we both lose? What if I agree with your position, but in doing so, cause you to alter your position? Are there still winners and losers?


I prefer to see this as a discussion. In a discussion, there are no winners or losers. There are just participants, offering thoughts and ideas (or lurking). Regarding participation, personally, I enjoy learning about different perspectives and ideas. I hope that the feeling is reciprocated...



I don't know whether to take that as an insult or a compliment.



Take it as neither, or either. Its up to you.



I say what needs to be said: no more, no less. I don't like filling up empty space with empty rhetoric--that's why I wasn't an English major. :D (see? I am capable of sarcasm).



Hehe. :) It seems that you did increase your overall comment lengths though, so thank you.



This definition seems rather useless, as it is then impossible to tell whether or not a given behavior is part of human nature or not (as I believe you alluded to).



Yup. The other problem is that if we do not exist naturally without culture, then how can we define human nature as behaviour with no culture?



This still, however, does not prove that any of those things are part of human nature, as documented history is not proof...unless you wish to talk about human nature in a much more unrigorous manner?


Yeah. I've always considered rigorous proof (if by that you mean formal, axiomatic, proof?) to be a bit of a non sequitur when it comes to things like these...


That's a complicated question. In reality, no, I don't hate those religions that you mentioned. However, in a more ideal world, I would hate all religions equally.


If, in an more ideal world, all religions are hated equally, then it follows that the content - the message - of the religion, its followers, and thier actions become irrelevant (after all, all religions are hated equally). Perhaps, then, what is hated is not religion per se, but what religion represents?



The fact that I hate xianity more than the religions you mention above is due to the fact--as I'm sure you know--that xianity forces its way into nearly every crevice of modern American society.



I'm not American. Could you elaborate more on this invasive xianity? Do you mean fundamentalism?




So say you. Perhaps in your world, self abuse is not abuse. But here in this world it is.



Ah, another interesting subdiscussion. Before I attempt to justify my perspective, allow me some gratuitous sidetracking action (unlike yourself, as you no doubt have guessed, I am quite fond of empty rhetoric :)).


Lets delve into pain. I must profess selfish motivations here - I went paintballing on Saturday, and was subsequently in a world of pain all night, so this matter is close to heart. Anyway, why pain? A biologist may answer that it is an evolutionary mechanism that tries to stop an organism from doing something bloody stupid (anything that diminishes an organisms likelihood of reproduction). A fundamentalist may waffle on about God and tests. A masochist may reply with "so that I can gain pleasure".


Et Cetera, et cetera. Pain is inherently subjective, so it makes perfect sense that we receive as many different replies as there are people. The mechanism that allows us to bridge this subjective divide is empathy: one of the most basic control mechanisms that exist in humanity. Empathy, and its moral corollarly, the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself) may be found to be at the base of many moral tables, and, apart from the implicit assumption that any adherent is a 'man of reasonable prudence', to borrow some old legal-talk (Otherwise, scenarios like "I like being raped, therefore I will go rape people" become permissable), seems to work reasonably well.


Empathy is very much a product of culture (for some unrigorous proof, see the (lack of) empathizing capabilities of feral children), and this leads us to the problem of cross cultural interpretation. Empathy is pretty universal, but the cultural framework within which it exists is mostly not. As an example, we see primitive witch doctors as being 'barbaric', but in reality, all we are doing are applying our cultural norms onto another culture. Sometimes, we can get away with it... particularly with respect to the universal constants mentioned before, but the vast majority of times, we do not. If further elaboration is desired or required, let me know.


Anyway, from this, we can come to those monks who did 'crazy' stuff like starve themselves or beat themselves to within an inch of thier life, presumably as doing so gave them happiness / the end justified the means. Though it may seem misguided, calling what they did to themselves 'abuse' is merely applying our existing cultural norms to them.



What you've done is give back the same tired arguments that I've seen before, summed up as "yeah, but religions change, therefore we can't blame people who subscribe to a religion for the evils of their religion!" I'm right with you until you get the "therefore". Perhaps you could do what no xian that I have encountered has ever bothered to do: explain why the implication in the "therefore" is valid?


I've done no such thing :(. No matter. What Ronin and seebs said in thier latest posts, basically.


Cheers,

[beyelzu]

alright,

I will attempt to bring up an issue that I posted on earlier in this thread that not one fucking person bothered to respond to.


a thought or idea can be inherently evil/fuckedup/vile/degenerate/etc enough that it is necessary to oppose the carriers of that thought or idea, and this is why I oppose all xianity other than the most liberal examples there of.


I find the core teachings of heaven and hell, eternal punishment or reward, the doctrine of original sin, the idea that man cannot achieve certain things (in some cases anything) without god's grace to be reprehensible and evil.

[seebs]

alright,

I will attempt to bring up an issue that I posted on earlier in this thread that not one fucking person bothered to respond to.

Didn't have anything to say about it.

a thought or idea can be inherently evil/fuckedup/vile/degenerate/etc enough that it is necessary to oppose the carriers of that thought or idea

Hmm. Is this really the case? I am not sure.

I find the core teachings of heaven and hell, eternal punishment or reward, the doctrine of original sin, the idea that man cannot achieve certain things (in some cases anything) without god's grace to be reprehensible and evil.

Hmm. It might be fun to try debating these sometimes. I have come up with a set of premises which do not seem inherently evil to me, but which logically imply some kind of heaven and hell. However, they turn out to be neither reward nor punishment, merely consequences.

As to the grace thing... Depending on how it's meant, it can be anything from common sense ("if you'd never been made, how would you do anything") to a recognition of limitations ("I cannot fully understand moral questions, but I can seek guidance") to purest blasphemy and evil (say, some varieties of Calvinism).

[livius drusus]

a thought or idea can be inherently evil/fuckedup/vile/degenerate/etc enough that it is necessary to oppose the carriers of that thought or idea, and this is why I oppose all xianity other than the most liberal examples there of.

Even the illiberal examples of Christianity contains ideas that are not in any way evil, fuckedup, vile or degenerate, so why does the bad shit win out over the good shit in your ethical standards?

Also, which denominations do you oppose based on the reprehensible ideas standards and which get a pass? Is it not possible that even the ideas you reject so vehemently might take a completely benign form in one denomination or school of thought and not in another?

[viscousmemories]

alright,

I will attempt to bring up an issue that I posted on earlier in this thread that not one fucking person bothered to respond to.
I responded by asking you to clarify your point, and you did. Once you clarified your point I was pretty sure I didn't agree with it, but I've been mulling over other points that have been raised as well as not being around here much this weekend. I find this whole issue pretty complex and nuanced, and therefore my opinions are not remotely definitive or set in stone. But these are my thoughts today.

a thought or idea can be inherently evil/fuckedup/vile/degenerate/etc enough that it is necessary to oppose the carriers of that thought or idea, and this is why I oppose all xianity other than the most liberal examples there of.
I completely disagree that any thought or idea is inherently evil. I think some thoughts and ideas are sufficiently anti-social that they deserve to be reviled, but I don't believe the ideas or thoughts are evil in themselves. For example I think the idea that white people are superior to non-white people is wrong, the people who believe it are misguided and the propagation of the idea is potentially very dangerous. However I don't think the idea itself is evil nor the people who believe it.

I find the core teachings of heaven and hell, eternal punishment or reward, the doctrine of original sin, the idea that man cannot achieve certain things (in some cases anything) without god's grace to be reprehensible and evil.
I don't personally find any of those ideas any more evil than astrology, ghost stories, Scientology, Buddhism, etc. They're just ideas. IMHO they are probably incorrect, and I know a lot of people have suffered everything from guilt to torture and death for them. However IMHO that isn't the fault of the ideas, but of some of the people who subscribe to them. I think it's entirely possible to believe in those ideas and not behave in a way that's detrimental to society. Just as possible as it is to not believe those things and be anti-social.

In all seriousness if you believe that some ideas are inherently so evil that the people who hold them deserve condemnation, do you think it should be illegal to hold certain ideas? If not, why not?

[beyelzu]

alright,

I will attempt to bring up an issue that I posted on earlier in this thread that not one fucking person bothered to respond to.
I responded by asking you to clarify your point, and you did. Once you clarified your point I was pretty sure I didn't agree with it, but I've been mulling over other points that have been raised as well as not being around here much this weekend. I find this whole issue pretty complex and nuanced, and therefore my opinions are not remotely definitive or set in stone. But these are my thoughts today.

well, there you go.


a thought or idea can be inherently evil/fuckedup/vile/degenerate/etc enough that it is necessary to oppose the carriers of that thought or idea, and this is why I oppose all xianity other than the most liberal examples there of.
I completely disagree that any thought or idea is inherently evil. I think some thoughts and ideas are sufficiently anti-social that they deserve to be reviled, but I don't believe the ideas or thoughts are evil in themselves. For example I think the idea that white people are superior to non-white people is wrong, the people who believe it are misguided and the propagation of the idea is potentially very dangerous. However I don't think the idea itself is evil nor the people who believe it. I tried to actually take back the evil part, I couldnt think of a better word. but I stand by the statement that some thoughts and ideas should be reviled.

I find the core teachings of heaven and hell, eternal punishment or reward, the doctrine of original sin, the idea that man cannot achieve certain things (in some cases anything) without god's grace to be reprehensible and evil.
I don't personally find any of those ideas any more evil than astrology, ghost stories, Scientology, Buddhism, etc. They're just ideas. IMHO they are probably incorrect, and I know a lot of people have suffered everything from guilt to torture and death for them. However IMHO that isn't the fault of the ideas, but of some of the people who subscribe to them. I think it's entirely possible to believe in those ideas and not behave in a way that's detrimental to society. Just as possible as it is to not believe those things and be anti-social. yeah, but a reliance on an interventionist god and/or the supernatural leads to things like refusing blood donations and being against genetic engineering etc..

I think that a fundamentalist view of the bible leads to antisocial behavior like opposing civil liberties for groups of people such as homosexuals.

In all seriousness if you believe that some ideas are inherently so evil that the people who hold them deserve condemnation, do you think it should be illegal to hold certain ideas? If not, why not?I think people should be allowed self expression, it is a fundamental human right and just because I think that their belief is reprehensible I dont think that they should be denied that right.

[Farren]

alright,

I will attempt to bring up an issue that I posted on earlier in this thread that not one fucking person bothered to respond to.

a thought or idea can be inherently evil/fuckedup/vile/degenerate/etc enough that it is necessary to oppose the carriers of that thought or idea, and this is why I oppose all xianity other than the most liberal examples there of.

I find the core teachings of heaven and hell, eternal punishment or reward, the doctrine of original sin, the idea that man cannot achieve certain things (in some cases anything) without god's grace to be reprehensible and evil.

I agree with the general principle you've articulated, but would draw the lines elsewhere. For instance, I only object to the idea of hell and then only when it is coupled with other, specific ideas.

Hell acts as a stick in a carrot and stick act, effectively creating a mental ratchet mechanism. You'll suffer if you turn left and be rewarded if you turn right, so move in a clockwise fashion. To me the very existence of hell in Christian thinking makes the entire edifice suspect. What essentially true belief needs a ratchet mechanism? Its almost like it was set up in anticipation of Pascals wager.

Heaven, on it's own isn't problematic for me. Without the concept of Hell, it doesn't threaten a non-theistic outlook. I know a minister and his wife who have both formally studied theology who outright disagree with the concept of Hell (or, more accurately, believe it is simply the state of not enjoying God's grace, of death being death and nothing further) based on liberal readings of the bible, which I applaud.

Further, the ratchet mechanism isn't a problem when dealing with Christians who don't subscribe to "tough love". Any Christian who says "Hey, it's your choice. I'm not going to force you to subscribe to my belief in any way" is 100% fine with me.

The ratchet, to me, is undesirable only insofar as it furthers other undesirable philosophies. In and of itself it is not inherently wrongheaded.

I think those kinds of distinctions are important. But I think your underlying principle - that seeing an ideology as hateful because you are repulsed by its values - is fundamentally sound. That is not bigotry. Bigotry is an irrational phobia or hatred based on arbitrary and logically indefensible values ascribed to a particular group of people.

If opposition to a system of thought or set of ideas is defined as bigotry, with all the attendant connotations of automatic badness, we might as well cease all political and social discourse from this moment forward. I do think, however that the distinctions and refinements of what we are actually objecting to, which have been ably pointed out by others here, are necessary for such opposition to be fair.

[beyelzu]

a thought or idea can be inherently evil/fuckedup/vile/degenerate/etc enough that it is necessary to oppose the carriers of that thought or idea, and this is why I oppose all xianity other than the most liberal examples there of.

Even the illiberal examples of Christianity contains ideas that are not in any way evil, fuckedup, vile or degenerate, so why does the bad shit win out over the good shit in your ethical standards? I think that belief in an omnipotent, omniscient interventionist god is unhealthy as it seems to lead to a rejection of science. I have a problem with that world view.

Also, which denominations do you oppose based on the reprehensible ideas standards and which get a pass? Is it not possible that even the ideas you reject so vehemently might take a completely benign form in one denomination or school of thought and not in another?
quakers seem to be pretty cool as represented by seebs.

and yes I suppose that it is possible that an idea that I hate could be benign in some other form. I fail to see how a belief in the supernatural could be a particularly good thing.

i guess when it comes down to it, I think that the good in christianity is pretty much accepted morality, found in any secular humanist's belief system.

The bad shit though is different, if you take away all the bad shit, you are left with something that isnt really xianity.

[beyelzu]

I agree with the general principle you've articulated, but would draw the lines elsewhere. For instance, I only object to the idea of hell and then only when it is coupled with other, specific ideas.

Hell acts as a stick in a carrot and stick act, effectively creating a mental ratchet mechanism. You'll suffer if you turn left and be rewarded if you turn right, so move in a clockwise fashion. To me the very existence of hell in Christian thinking makes the entire edifice suspect. What essentially true belief needs a ratchet mechanism? Its almost like it was set up in anticipation of Pascals wager.

Heaven, on it's own isn't problematic for me. Without the concept of Hell, it doesn't threaten a non-theistic outlook. I know a minister and his wife who have both formally studied theology who outright disagree with the concept of Hell (or, more accurately, believe it is simply the state of not enjoying God's grace, of death being death and nothing further) based on liberal readings of the bible, which I applaud.

Further, the ratchet mechanism isn't a problem when dealing with Christians who don't subscribe to "tough love". Any Christian who says "Hey, it's your choice. I'm not going to force you to subscribe to my belief in any way" is 100% fine with me.

The ratchet, to me, is undesirable only insofar as it furthers other undesirable philosophies. In and of itself it is not inherently wrongheaded.

I think those kinds of distinctions are important. But I think your underlying principle - that seeing an ideology as hateful because you are repulsed by its values - is fundamentally sound. That is not bigotry. Bigotry is an irrational phobia or hatred based on arbitrary and logically indefensible values ascribed to a particular group of people.

If opposition to a system of thought or set of ideas is defined as bigotry, with all the attendant connotations of automatic badness, we might as well cease all political and social discourse from this moment forward. I do think, however that the distinctions and refinements of what we are actually objecting to, which have been ably pointed out by others here, are necessary for such opposition to be fair.

farren, thanks for your response.
I enjoyed reading your post and thought that it was pretty dead on.

I would like to point out, however, that I do not have a problem with liberal christians. I applaud them because often it seems to go against the general climate of christianity, particularly in the southern united states.

[livius drusus]

I think that belief in an omnipotent, omniscient interventionist god is unhealthy as it seems to lead to a rejection of science. I have a problem with that world view.

There are huge multitudes of people who believe in an omni-all god who don't reject science, including oodles of scientists themselves throughout the ages. If that's your sole objection to the belief, I don't think it's a very strong one. Certainly not enough to reject a priori any believer on the grounds that they might reject science.


quakers seem to be pretty cool as represented by seebs.

Quakers have a history of social activism that puts pretty much everyone else to shame, and yet, they certainly hold some of the doctrines you despise. The same goes for other liberal Christian denominations: they believe in an omni-God, heaven/hell, divine grace and more. If you can just condemn in part, then why say you Christian beliefs should be condemned instead of just pointing to the parts you don't like and eschewing generalizations of all kinds?

and yes I suppose that it is possible that an idea that I hate could be benign in some other form. I fail to see how a belief in the supernatural could be a particularly good thing.

A belief in the supernatural can be soothing, fascinating, creative, metaphoric, brilliant, productive, revolutionary, instinctual and anything else a thought or idea can be.

i guess when it comes down to it, I think that the good in christianity is pretty much accepted morality, found in any secular humanist's belief system.

Libertarians might beg to differ that those elements are accepted morality.

The bad shit though is different, if you take away all the bad shit, you are left with something that isnt really xianity.

To me that looks like little more than a No True Scotsman fallacy applied in the other direction.

[HelenM]

alright,

I will attempt to bring up an issue that I posted on earlier in this thread that not one fucking person bothered to respond to.


a thought or idea can be inherently evil/fuckedup/vile/degenerate/etc enough that it is necessary to oppose the carriers of that thought or idea, and this is why I oppose all xianity other than the most liberal examples there of.

I find the core teachings of heaven and hell, eternal punishment or reward, the doctrine of original sin, the idea that man cannot achieve certain things (in some cases anything) without god's grace to be reprehensible and evil.

But - if I asked you to explain why you think those teachings are evil, wouldn't you say it's because of what people do, that they say they do because of those teachings?

Would you really say those teachings are evil if you had no justification for associating peoples behavior you dislike with the teachings?

Anyway, a lot of people find hope, peace, a purpose, etc. through Christian teaching. I've seen people motivated to do all kinds of good things through Christian teaching. Seeing that, I can't write off Christian teaching as all evil.

Helen

[beyelzu]

alright,

I will attempt to bring up an issue that I posted on earlier in this thread that not one fucking person bothered to respond to.


a thought or idea can be inherently evil/fuckedup/vile/degenerate/etc enough that it is necessary to oppose the carriers of that thought or idea, and this is why I oppose all xianity other than the most liberal examples there of.

I find the core teachings of heaven and hell, eternal punishment or reward, the doctrine of original sin, the idea that man cannot achieve certain things (in some cases anything) without god's grace to be reprehensible and evil.

But - if I asked you to explain why you think those teachings are evil, wouldn't you say it's because of what people do, that they say they do because of those teachings?

Would you really say those teachings are evil if you had no justification for associating peoples behavior you dislike with the teachings?

Anyway, a lot of people find hope, peace, a purpose, etc. through Christian teaching. I've seen people motivated to do all kinds of good things through Christian teaching. Seeing that, I can't write off Christian teaching as all evil.

Helen


on the one hand,

I have to say that I have seen xianity motivate lots of people for good and bad things,

but finding biblical support for racism, sexism, bigotry seems to embolden the fuckers. and in that regard, I dont think any atheist creed has the ability to give instacredibility to fucked up thoughts and ideas. Many christians take the bible literaly, else we wouldnt have creationism.

Also, it seems to me that liberal xians are hesitant to oppose the evil shit that people do in xianity's name making many liberal xians part of the problem.

[beyelzu]

I think that belief in an omnipotent, omniscient interventionist god is unhealthy as it seems to lead to a rejection of science. I have a problem with that world view.

There are huge multitudes of people who believe in an omni-all god who don't reject science, including oodles of scientists themselves throughout the ages. If that's your sole objection to the belief, I don't think it's a very strong one. Certainly not enough to reject a priori any believer on the grounds that they might reject science.
really, while I accept that plenty of scientists are theists how many really believe in an omnimax god. in short, proof please.


quakers seem to be pretty cool as represented by seebs.

Quakers have a history of social activism that puts pretty much everyone else to shame, and yet, they certainly hold some of the doctrines you despise. The same goes for other liberal Christian denominations: they believe in an omni-God, heaven/hell, divine grace and more. If you can just condemn in part, then why say you Christian beliefs should be condemned instead of just pointing to the parts you don't like and eschewing generalizations of all kinds? interesting. when I have a problem with what a group of people say often, I start to assume that that group is full of shit. I dont see the need to avoid generalizations, so long as I recognize the need for evaluating each person on a case by case basis. In short, I can despise xianity without hating all xians.



and yes I suppose that it is possible that an idea that I hate could be benign in some other form. I fail to see how a belief in the supernatural could be a particularly good thing.

A belief in the supernatural can be soothing, fascinating, creative, metaphoric, brilliant, productive, revolutionary, instinctual and anything else a thought or idea can be. so can doing herion without all the hate baggage in the case of xianity.

i guess when it comes down to it, I think that the good in christianity is pretty much accepted morality, found in any secular humanist's belief system.

Libertarians might beg to differ that those elements are accepted morality. actually, I am a libertarian little l variety, but I accept the point, obviously some secular humanists would even dislike the core moral teachings of xianity.

The bad shit though is different, if you take away all the bad shit, you are left with something that isnt really xianity.

To me that looks like little more than a No True Scotsman fallacy applied in the other direction. I fail to see how one could be a christian without accepting original sin and the resurrection bodily of jesus christ. Considering I have defined belief in the supernatural as part of the bad shit in xianity, how can a christian be a metaphsyical naturalist. In short, no true scotsman fallacy needed. its just no scotsman.

[livius drusus]

Also, it seems to me that liberal xians are hesitant to oppose the evil shit that people do in xianity's name making many liberal xians part of the problem.

I see people say this, but so far I've seen exactly zero evidence for it. Here's some evidence to the contrary just from the US:

Board of Trustees, Americans United for Separation of Church and State (http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_board)
Board of Directors, People for the American Way (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=3686)
PFAW's Faith Action Network (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12453)
Amnesty International's Interfaith Network (http://www.amnestyusa.org/interfaith/index.do)
Friends Committee on National Legislation on Bush's Faith-Based Initiative (http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=440&issue_id=90)

[Ronin]

The gun is neither good nor bad.

What is done with it by the human is the only thing that matters.

The same applies to ideologies and worldviews, in my opinion.

[HelenM]

I dont think any atheist creed has the ability to give instacredibility to fucked up thoughts and ideas.

Correct me if I'm wrong, because my Russian history is very weak, but weren't Lenin and Stalin atheists?

I think that reasonable people apply a kind of 'reasonability' test to their creeds and unreasonable people don't. Which means that both reasonable and unreasonable people point to their creeds as justifying their behavior, showing that it is not as simple as "this creed justifies abominations and this one doesn't". The resulting behavior depends whose hands the creeds are in.

Helen

[Ronin]

You left out Pol Pot (http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pot.htm), dear.

:wink:

[HelenM]

You left out Pol Pot (http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pot.htm), dear.

:wink:

Thanks. :)

Yes, him too, assuming he was an atheist. A quote at the end of the page makes him sound somewhat of a pantheist:

"Pol Pot does not believe in God but he thinks that heaven, destiny, wants him to guide Cambodia in the way he thinks it the best for Cambodia, that is to say, the worst. "

Helen

[beyelzu]

Also, it seems to me that liberal xians are hesitant to oppose the evil shit that people do in xianity's name making many liberal xians part of the problem.

I see people say this, but so far I've seen exactly zero evidence for it. Here's some evidence to the contrary just from the US:

Board of Trustees, Americans United for Separation of Church and State (http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_board)
Board of Directors, People for the American Way (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=3686)
PFAW's Faith Action Network (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12453)
Amnesty International's Interfaith Network (http://www.amnestyusa.org/interfaith/index.do)
Friends Committee on National Legislation on Bush's Faith-Based Initiative (http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=440&issue_id=90)



your right I dont have proof, I have only my own experience, but I dont see evidence of widespread opposition by organized xians against people like phelps either.

also I had a whole post that you didnt respond to, can I then assume that you agree with the rest?

[beyelzu]

I dont think any atheist creed has the ability to give instacredibility to fucked up thoughts and ideas.

Correct me if I'm wrong, because my Russian history is very weak, but weren't Lenin and Stalin atheists?

I think that reasonable people apply a kind of 'reasonability' test to their creeds and unreasonable people don't. Which means that both reasonable and unreasonable people point to their creeds as justifying their behavior, showing that it is not as simple as "this creed justifies abominations and this one doesn't". The resulting behavior depends whose hands the creeds are in.

Helen
I am afraid that you misunderstood me at some point, I didnt say atheists are better than xians. that is a different point.

which I will make right fucking now.

atheists in particular metaphysical naturalists are more moral than xians because they must do what they think is right because it is right and have no pusnishment for sin and no reward for good acts.

[viscousmemories]

a thought or idea can be inherently evil/fuckedup/vile/degenerate/etc enough that it is necessary to oppose the carriers of that thought or idea, and this is why I oppose all xianity other than the most liberal examples there of.
I completely disagree that any thought or idea is inherently evil. I think some thoughts and ideas are sufficiently anti-social that they deserve to be reviled, but I don't believe the ideas or thoughts are evil in themselves. For example I think the idea that white people are superior to non-white people is wrong, the people who believe it are misguided and the propagation of the idea is potentially very dangerous. However I don't think the idea itself is evil nor the people who believe it. I tried to actually take back the evil part, I couldnt think of a better word. but I stand by the statement that some thoughts and ideas should be reviled.
I wasn't honing in on the word evil in your post, I was just using it as an abbreviated version of your evil/fuckedup/vile/degenerate/etc. In my opinion it is impossible for an idea to be any of those things, which are all moral judgments, because I don't believe ideas have a moral component.

To refer to my example again: I believe that the idea that white people are superior to non-white people is incorrect, that people who believe it are misguided, and that many atrocious actions have happened as a result of the idea. However I don't believe the idea is morally deficient because I don't believe you can apply a moral standard to an idea. I believe it is simply wrong. Nor do I think believing a wrong idea to be right is an indication of moral deficiency on the part of a person. I think they're simply misguided.

Honestly I'm used to hearing religious people promote the idea that certain thoughts or ideas are inherently immoral, but I'm not used to hearing it from an atheist. Which isn't meant to be an insult or anything, it's just that I've seen the subject discussed a million times at IIDB and atheists almost invariably say there is no such thing as an immoral thought, just immoral actions. Which is what I believe too.

I don't personally find any of those ideas any more evil than astrology, ghost stories, Scientology, Buddhism, etc. They're just ideas. IMHO they are probably incorrect, and I know a lot of people have suffered everything from guilt to torture and death for them. However IMHO that isn't the fault of the ideas, but of some of the people who subscribe to them. I think it's entirely possible to believe in those ideas and not behave in a way that's detrimental to society. Just as possible as it is to not believe those things and be anti-social. yeah, but a reliance on an interventionist god and/or the supernatural leads to things like refusing blood donations and being against genetic engineering etc..
You mean it can lead to those things, but obviously not every religious person rejects blood donations or opposes genetic engineering. So again that would be a particular action that results from a particular interpretation of the ideas that you oppose, which is not an indictment of the ideas themselves.

I think that a fundamentalist view of the bible leads to antisocial behavior like opposing civil liberties for groups of people such as homosexuals.
Again though you're talking about actions that only result sometimes from a particular interpretation of those ideas. This is not evidence that the ideas themselves are somehow morally deficient.

In all seriousness if you believe that some ideas are inherently so evil that the people who hold them deserve condemnation, do you think it should be illegal to hold certain ideas? If not, why not?I think people should be allowed self expression, it is a fundamental human right and just because I think that their belief is reprehensible I dont think that they should be denied that right.
Why do you think self-expression is a fundamental human right? I mean if you believe that ideas have a moral component and that anyone who holds certain ideas is as immoral as the idea itself – and (and forgive me if this is too much of a reach from what you are saying) that such ideas are inherently damaging to society – why should people be allowed to express them?

[Ronin]

Yes, him too, assuming he was an atheist. A quote at the end of the page makes him sound somewhat of a pantheist

I think that was more Sihanouk's opinion.

from the article ~

Pol Pot declares 'Year Zero' and directs a ruthless program to "purify" Cambodian society of capitalism, Western culture, religion and all foreign influences in favour of an isolated and totally self-sufficient Maoist agrarian state. No opposition is tolerated.

Foreigners are expelled, embassies closed, and the currency abolished. Markets, schools, newspapers, religious practices and private property are outlawed.

Members of the Lon Nol government, public servants, police, military officers, teachers, ethnic Vietnamese, Christian clergy, Muslim leaders, members of the Cham Muslim minority, members of the middle-class and the educated are identified and executed.

<snip>

An estimated 1.5 million are worked or starved to death, die of disease or exposure, or are summarily executed for infringements of camp discipline. Infringements punishable by death include not working hard enough, complaining about living conditions, collecting or stealing food for personal consumption, wearing jewellery, engaging in sexual relations, grieving over the loss of relatives or friends and expressing religious sentiments.

[Adora]

As I have already re-phrased it to more precisely meet with your language and since the meaning obviously produces precisely the same incorrect result, your "far cry" assessment has simply become moot.

Since when does pointing out a mistake in comprehension and declaring outright dislike count as "the same result"?

I'll repeat this just again, for the idiots in the audience.

I have no problem with benign theists. Frankly, I could care less about HelenM since she's not being a patronising wanker about this like you are Ronin, so I suggest you leave her out of this mess until she steps in herself.

What I do have a problem with is those who take the "more benign than thou" route, such as you are doing.

This was my original statement. Just to make this clear, I shall repeat myself again...
If ther'es one thing I can't stand, it's holier/more-logical/more-benign-than-thou attitudes on both sides of the fence.

Emphasis added, in case your glasses are blurry.

Then you said...

Then you can't stand the likes of me, a "benign" atheist...or Helen a "benign" theist.

I pointed out that if you only consider yourself benign, then no, that's not the case, also because I make a difference between attitudes and people. You must have missed this bit as well, so I'll highlight it again, for ease of reading, again.

Difference between person and attitudes, not to mention the fact I said "more benign than thou", not just "benign". Read what I write.

Then you said

Then you can't stand the attitude of the likes of me a "more benign atheist than thou"...or Helen a "more benign theist than thou". And with such a view, you only self-create the illusion of having even more "enemies" when you really do not.
I simply find nothing comforting in such a view.

Well, newsflash, I find nothing comforting in patronising bastards, and especially not with you speaking for Helen in this thing.

Now, my next reaction is hostile, because you're just proving my point. Now how a hostile response is somehow "the same result" as simply pointing out what I said in my first statement, I don't know. How a hostile response is the same as pointing out the difference between "benign" and "more benign than thou", I don't know either. But I'm sure it works in your happy little universe, somehow.

[Adora]

The gun is neither good nor bad.
What is done with it by the human is the only thing that matters.
The same applies to ideologies and worldviews, in my opinion.

Crap.

A gun is made with the intent of harming, wounding or destroying something somehow. You can't pot a pot-plant with a gun, flip eggs, brush your hair, paint a picture very well with it, because it is made with intent not for these things. Even if you are using it to "protect your family" or "liberate" a country or whatever, it is still intended to harm and maim.

The intentioned world-view that a woman is a man's property & is below him is bad, because it is designed with the intent of subjugation of another human being under another for power, property and abuse. No good can come from this ideology.

The intentioned world-view that all sex is bad (connected, of course, to issues of gender inequality) and dirty and only to be done when necessary for reproduction in marriage is bad, because it seeks to subjugate human beings under a sexless, corrupt and warped theocracy that knows about as much about human sexuality as I know about nuclear physics. (Edit: and spelling...)

The intentioned world-view that it is okay to enslave one race economically, physically or any other way to another is bad, because it is the intent of the destruction of basic human rights and equalities. I don't care if you're enslaving them so that the other 90% of the world can live in luxury and happiness and relative ease, it still shoves a large amount of "very very bad" into the judgement-value equation.

The intended world-view that Jerusalem is up-for-grabs by whoever has the biggest guns and most devoted canon-fodder, and biggest-dicked-God has hung around for a very long time. There is very very little which is "good" about this ideology.

[Ronin]

As I have already re-phrased it to more precisely meet with your language and since the meaning obviously produces precisely the same incorrect result, your "far cry" assessment has simply become moot.

Since when does pointing out a mistake in comprehension and declaring outright dislike count as "the same result"?

I'll repeat this just again, for the idiots in the audience.

I have no problem with benign theists. Frankly, I could care less about HelenM since she's not being a patronising wanker about this like you are Ronin, so I suggest you leave her out of this mess until she steps in herself.

What I do have a problem with is those who take the "more benign than thou" route, such as you are doing.

This was my original statement. Just to make this clear, I shall repeat myself again...
If ther'es one thing I can't stand, it's holier/more-logical/more-benign-than-thou attitudes on both sides of the fence.

Emphasis added, in case your glasses are blurry.

Then you said...

Then you can't stand the likes of me, a "benign" atheist...or Helen a "benign" theist.

I pointed out that if you only consider yourself benign, then no, that's not the case, also because I make a difference between attitudes and people. You must have missed this bit as well, so I'll highlight it again, for ease of reading, again.

Difference between person and attitudes, not to mention the fact I said "more benign than thou", not just "benign". Read what I write.

Then you said

Then you can't stand the attitude of the likes of me a "more benign atheist than thou"...or Helen a "more benign theist than thou". And with such a view, you only self-create the illusion of having even more "enemies" when you really do not.
I simply find nothing comforting in such a view.

Well, newsflash, I find nothing comforting in patronising bastards, and especially not with you speaking for Helen in this thing.

Because it was not a mistake in comprehension, just in interpretation.

I simply used "benign" because using "more benign than thou" is strictly up to your own personal interpretation.

The resulting expressions of anger that you have directed against me for saying so only serve to enhance my point.

I included Helen in our exchanges as it has been my experience that she has faded quite a bit of heat from atheists (over the years I have known her) for being interpretively "more benign than thou".

In any event, I was not and have never intentionally tried to come across as patronising to you.

Now, my next reaction is hostile, because you're just proving my point. Now how a hostile response is somehow "the same result" as simply pointing out what I said in my first statement, I don't know. How a hostile response is the same as pointing out the difference between "benign" and "more benign than thou", I don't know either. But I'm sure it works in your happy little universe, somehow.

Because I am still simply a benign atheist and you are still interpreting me as the enemy who was too easily interpreted as being "more benign than thou".

As an aside, I think that it is our own personal responsibility to give as much benefit of the doubt to others participating in any thread to react with less threatening and abusive language in order to reach as close a consensus as possible.

[HelenM]

The intentioned world-view that a woman is a man's property & is below him is bad, because it is designed with the intent of subjugation of another human being under another for power, property and abuse. No good can come from this ideology.

That's not what the Christians I know believe.

The intentioned world-view that all sex is bad (connected, of course, to issues of gender inequality) and dirty and only to be done when necessary for reproduction in marriage is bad, because it seeks to subjugate human beings under a sexless, corrupt and warped theocracy that knows about as much about human sexuality as I know about nuclear physics. (Edit: and spelling...)

That's not what the Christians I know believe.

The intentioned world-view that it is okay to enslave one race economically, physically or any other way to another is bad, because it is the intent of the destruction of basic human rights and equalities. I don't care if you're enslaving them so that the other 90% of the world can live in luxury and happiness and relative ease, it still shoves a large amount of "very very bad" into the judgement-value equation.

That's not what the Christians I know believe.

The intended world-view that Jerusalem is up-for-grabs by whoever has the biggest guns and most devoted canon-fodder, and biggest-dicked-God has hung around for a very long time. There is very very little which is "good" about this ideology.

That's not what the Christians I know believe.

Helen

[seebs]

A gun is made with the intent of harming, wounding or destroying something somehow. You can't pot a pot-plant with a gun, flip eggs, brush your hair, paint a picture very well with it, because it is made with intent not for these things. Even if you are using it to "protect your family" or "liberate" a country or whatever, it is still intended to harm and maim.

And yet, most people have accepted the theory that some amount of "harming" or "maiming" may have net-positive moral effects. (Admittedly, this is mostly because of the presumed deterrent value; the cost/benefit in a single case is not so good.)

But, for instance, the majority of defenesive "use" of guns is purely as a deterrent or threat; they are not actually fired, let alone fired at anyone.

The intentioned world-view that a woman is a man's property & is below him is bad, because it is designed with the intent of subjugation of another human being under another for power, property and abuse. No good can come from this ideology.

I don't think it's designed with an intent. I think it's a conclusion people drew from observing the world. I don't think there was any conscious intent; it was just an early social structure, observed, written down, and imitated.

The intentioned world-view that all sex is bad (connected, of course, to issues of gender inequality) and dirty and only to be done when necessary for reproduction in marriage is bad, because it seeks to subjugate human beings under a sexless, corrupt and warped theocracy that knows about as much about human sexuality as I know about nuclear physics. (Edit: and spelling...)

Once again, you're presuming that the practical effects are intentional, and I don't think that holds up, especially given the diversity of views on this topic within the religions that hold views something along these lines.

The intentioned world-view that it is okay to enslave one race economically, physically or any other way to another is bad, because it is the intent of the destruction of basic human rights and equalities. I don't care if you're enslaving them so that the other 90% of the world can live in luxury and happiness and relative ease, it still shoves a large amount of "very very bad" into the judgement-value equation.

I tend to agree... But once again, why do you presume intent? I think there's ample suggestion that it's stupidity, not intent.

You seem to be presuming that beliefs are carefully planned out to achieve goals; in fact, normally, they are attempts to model and described the world, and are free of the careful planning or intent that you ascribe to them.

[HelenM]

atheists in particular metaphysical naturalists are more moral than xians because they must do what they think is right because it is right and have no pusnishment for sin and no reward for good acts.

I don't see why metaphysical naturalists have to do what they think is right, or even if they do, why what they think is right necessarily coincides with what you think is right.

I also don't know how you can claim to know that Christians do what they think is right solely to avoid punishment and gain rewards.

Helen

[Ronin]

Crap.

A gun is made with the intent of harming, wounding or destroying something somehow. You can't pot a pot-plant with a gun, flip eggs, brush your hair, paint a picture very well with it, because it is made with intent not for these things. Even if you are using it to "protect your family" or "liberate" a country or whatever, it is still intended to harm and maim.

It was simply used in my post as a symbol to indicate that a tool is present and can be used by the human for good or ill.

I also said:

The same applies to ideologies and worldviews, in my opinion.

Do you agree/disagree?

[livius drusus]

really, while I accept that plenty of scientists are theists how many really believe in an omnimax god. in short, proof please.

Well, in all fairness, you started it. Still, I'll spare you the impossibility of providing evidence that theist scientists are somehow exempt from omni-max beliefs. From two surveys done by Larson and Witham and described in "Scientists and Religion in America" (a fascinating article very much worth downloading for $4.99 at Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00006BNPH/104-0468532-8150307?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance)), 40% of scientists surveyed said yes when asked if they believe in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with man ... to whom one may pray in expectation of receiving an answer", and "personal immortality."

interesting. when I have a problem with what a group of people say often, I start to assume that that group is full of shit. I dont see the need to avoid generalizations, so long as I recognize the need for evaluating each person on a case by case basis. In short, I can despise xianity without hating all xians.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you can't say you despise Christianity when what you really mean is you despise certain specific doctrines and even those only when applied in a nefarious manner. Unless you actually are saying that you despise Quakerism because they believe in the resurrection of Christ, notwithstanding their enormous committment to social justice which is entirely rooted in their Christianity. Seems unlikely to me, though.

A belief in the supernatural can be soothing, fascinating, creative, metaphoric, brilliant, productive, revolutionary, instinctual and anything else a thought or idea can be. so can doing herion without all the hate baggage in the case of xianity.

Stick to the terms, beyelzu. We weren't talking about Christianity in this passage. You said you couldn't see how a belief in the supernatural could be a particularly good thing. I replied that such beliefs can encompass the entire glory of human thought just like any other idea. Heroin making you feel good is hardly an apt analogy.

I fail to see how one could be a christian without accepting original sin and the resurrection bodily of jesus christ.

Meet the Rev. W. Robert Martin III (http://www.layman.org/layman/news/2003-news-articles/heresy-charge-raises.htm). There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio...

Considering I have defined belief in the supernatural as part of the bad shit in xianity,

You've defined it as such, but you haven't defended your definition except to reassert it. What is so bad about the plain ol' belief in the supernatural?

how can a christian be a metaphsyical naturalist.

How can you be one? See Clutch's OP here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=65962) for the reason I'm not.

your right I dont have proof, I have only my own experience, but I dont see evidence of widespread opposition by organized xians against people like phelps either.

You're shifting the goalposts here a little. I've provided you with multiple examples of Christians on the front lines of CSS, human rights, anti-religious right activism. These liberal Christians fighting are clearly not "hesitant to oppose the evil shit that people do in xianity's name" and therefore not part of the problem. So it seems to me your argument is already on pretty rickety grounds.

However, if it's specifically organized Christians against people like Phelps you seek, here are just a few of them:

The Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists (http://www.wabaptists.org/)
Beyond Inclusion (http://www.beyondinclusion.org/)
Brethren/Mennonite Council for Lesbian and Gay Concerns (http://www.bmclgbt.org/)
Clergy United for the Equality of Homosexuals (http://www.clergyunited.com/)
Interfaith Working Group (http://www.iwgonline.org/)
Lutherans Concerned (http://www.lcna.org/)

There are a shitload more.

also I had a whole post that you didnt respond to, can I then assume that you agree with the rest?

You know what happens when you assume, beyelzu m'dear. ;) I was at work, had my first response up on a screen for an hour and didn't even see your post until after mine submitted.

[Goliath]

<snip long irrelvant post...>

What is your point? If I had said that all xians are alike, then you might have had something that might have in some alternate universe been a point. Maybe.

Are you people misreading me on purpose, or is communicating with you almost literally impossible?


I hope that the feeling is reciprocated...


Well, you can just keep on hoping, then.


The other problem is that if we do not exist naturally without culture, then how can we define human nature as behaviour with no culture?


Well, I'm not convinced that we cannot exist naturally without culture. Would our lives be unbelievably different (and quite possibly much worse) without culture? Sure. But that doesn't mean that we cannot exist without it.

However, with some rare exceptions (feral children, as you mentioned), we seem to exist with culture.

But even if we ignore the feral children, etc, for the moment, the fact that we don't live without culture doesn't mean that the definition of human nature that you gave isn't nonsensical.


Yeah. I've always considered rigorous proof (if by that you mean formal, axiomatic, proof?) to be a bit of a non sequitur when it comes to things like these...


I mean formal proof, yes. I understand that such a standard is difficult in topics like this, but that shouldn't prevent you from reaching for the stars, so to speak.


If, in an more ideal world, all religions are hated equally, then it follows that the content - the message - of the religion, its followers, and thier actions become irrelevant (after all, all religions are hated equally).


Not necessarily so. Religion A could be hated for one reason, religion B for another, etc...that wouldn't make the distinctions between the religions irrelevant. Not even close.


I'm not American. Could you elaborate more on this invasive xianity? Do you mean fundamentalism?


Fundies have a lot to do with it, yes, but I put some of the culpability on many of the liberal xians who don't stand up against the fundies.

I could rant about the situation in the US for a long time, but basically the Wall of Separation between state and church is being systematically torn down, brick by brick. The process has been going on for years, now.

Right after 9/11, if you were to ask any xian if they thought America was united, they'd probably tell you that the country has been more united than it probably ever was. But the fact is that the country wasn't united. The xians were united, waving their banner of "Gawd Bless America!" and deriding atheists as being unpatriotic (in fact, I was personally threatened with violence for not buying a "Gawd Bless America!" sticker a few days after 9/11). Our fuckstick of a president had the chance to actually unite our country. But what did that fucker do? He chose to rape our country with the strap-on of religion.

Here, atheists are generally perceived as being immoral and evil. I honestly have no doubt that if this country ever becomes a theocracy, the xians will capture atheists and bring them to death camps by the hundreds of thousands...

Well, that was a little bleak, wasn't it? Anyways, if you want more ranting on that topic, let me know.


<snip long rant...>
Though it may seem misguided, calling what they did to themselves 'abuse' is merely applying our existing cultural norms to them.


Yes, it is. And you know what? I can apply my existing cultural norms to them, I have applied my existing cultural norms to them, and I shall continue to do so. After all, my culture is my culture. What other norms would I apply? Any answer other than "my own" is purely ridiculous, IMO.

[livius drusus]

Are you people misreading me on purpose, or is communicating with you almost literally impossible?

Speaking strictly for myself, I find your posts on religion almost without exception rude, hostile, with little to no appreciation of nuance, and I actually know you think you're being nothing but nice. On the whole, I prefer to avoid them and respond to people who are more interested in constructive interaction than (so-called) victory.

[Goliath]

Speaking strictly for myself, I find your posts on religion almost without exception rude, hostile, with little to no appreciation of nuance, and I actually know you think you're being nothing but nice.


*sigh* Funny, the exact same could probably be said of some of my xian interlocutors.


On the whole, I prefer to avoid them and respond to people who are more interested in constructive interaction than (so-called) victory.

Hmmm...I guess within the scope of religious discussions, I gave up at one point even trying constructive interaction with the xians (or those who would defend them). And the funny thing is, I didn't even realize it.

Thanks, liv. You've given me a bit to think about.

[livius drusus]

Speaking strictly for myself, I find your posts on religion almost without exception rude, hostile, with little to no appreciation of nuance, and I actually know you think you're being nothing but nice.


*sigh* Funny, the exact same could probably be said of some of my xian interlocutors.

I can't say the same about them at all. I have seen no examples of any Christians in this thread or any other FF thread treating you with anything like the default aggression and dismissiveness you present them. Some have even agreed with you.


On the whole, I prefer to avoid them and respond to people who are more interested in constructive interaction than (so-called) victory.

Hmmm...I guess within the scope of religious discussions, I gave up at one point even trying constructive interaction with the xians (or those who would defend them). And the funny thing is, I didn't even realize it.

Thanks, liv. You've given me a bit to think about.

I'm glad, Goliath. I think the IIDB house sport of cobra vs. mongoose can linger long after both parties have been stuffed and mounted. I've often wondered why you still seemed drawn to discussions that almost inevitably make you and the people trying to engage you feel like shit. I'm sure peer hasn't exactly been drinking Mimosas from the cleavages of toney call-girls during y'all's exchange either, if you know what I mean.

[Adora]

In any event, I was not and have never intentionally tried to come across as patronising to you.

Doesn't change the fact you are.

That's not what the Christians I know believe.

Um, when did I say anything about Christians? The different examples I gave can be applied to many different religions. I thought we were talking about religion and theism, not "Christianity"?

It was simply used in my post as a symbol to indicate that a tool is present and can be used by the human for good or ill.
I also said:
The same applies to ideologies and worldviews, in my opinion.
Do you agree/disagree?

Disagree, obviously, because this works with the strange idea that all ideologies, tools, worldviews etc are created neutral and are born spontaneously into the universe without intent or human involvement and desire in their creation. Which is totally wrong. You can't use the words "I hate your stinking guts" as a tool to mean "I love you and want to spend the rest of my life with you" unless a shared intention is there and a matrix of language-meaning connection is there. This all goes into creating intent, just as all ideologies, tools and worldviews are. A gun is created with intent within a system of communication, actions, and human society. An ideology is created within a system of desire, intent, human existence, predjudices, symbolism etc etc. It is not born neautral, and so, from the moment of its creation, is predisposed to certain things and reactions, because of the system it exists in.

As an aside, I think that it is our own personal responsibility to give as much benefit of the doubt to others participating in any thread to react with less threatening and abusive language in order to reach as close a consensus as possible.

Well, turns out I disagree with you 180% on most things, then doesn't it?

And yet, most people have accepted the theory that some amount of "harming" or "maiming" may have net-positive moral effects.

Who are these "most people", exactly? Because I'm not talking about US Gun laws here. I'm talking about *gasp* Teh Rest Of The World, where all those lovely weapons get exported to, and used.

I don't think it's designed with an intent. I think it's a conclusion people drew from observing the world. I don't think there was any conscious intent; it was just an early social structure, observed, written down, and imitated.

... But something just doesn't happen "jus cos". How did that early social structure start? I'm not talking about just Christianity and Judaism and the Bible. I'm talking about the world over. The paradigm shift that led from Matriachal ideaologies to Patriachal was massive and not just caused spontenaously (sp? I teh speel gud). It was a counter-reaction to discoveries about the world, sociology, environmental factors, migration, cultural mixing etc etc. To simply use the Judaistic one as an example (but not the entire limited argument) the misogynistic ideology was a lashback against the threat of Nature-Goddess tribes who were competing for resources with the Hebrews up to about 7000 years ago. "Don't be like them because they are the enemy" and all. It was created with intent and context which, though it may become lost in history, it can never really truly escape. The sciences that allow us to study history in all its forms are the ones that allow us to understand these intents and contexts, and how they shape our world today.

You seem to be presuming that beliefs are carefully planned out to achieve goals; in fact, normally, they are attempts to model and described the world, and are free of the careful planning or intent that you ascribe to them.

I think beliefs are this way totally and completely. They are not just attempts to model and describe the world, because they are filtered through human experience, and in most cases, exceedingly limited human experience. You write the words "the tree is green" on a piece of paper, and that is your observation of the world. And yet this observation only works in the context of the world, human society, human language of the culture you're from and specifically written-language, meaning-matrixes of colours and sight and definition etc etc. When you write it down, it is with an intent, conscious or unconscious, even if that intent to you seems to just be "I wanted to write it down".

Minorities can achieve goals quite easily in our globally-connected world, even with the ability people have to access a diverse range of information on almost any product or idea. Imagine how easy it was back when there wasn't that opportunity? When you didn't know you had a choice? When you weren't educated? We still have this problem in places where people don't have a choice, aren't educated and don't know anything except the ideologies fed to them by a controlling minority. You can say, "But they see the world and observe their own version of it", but they are seeing it through eyes and with a brain that has been trained to believe and see certain things, and will record what it sees within this network.

I'm not saying everything in this world is a top-down Marxist method of communication. Quite the opposite in fact. If there's one this cultural studies has taught me, it's that you can't force a person to believe or want or think something, but you can quite easily seduce them to, if you know how. If you are a consumer who knows that because companies and organisations (such as political groups) rarely receive independant feedback and communication outside of Marketing & Audience Research areas, you'll know that letter-writing is actually a pretty damn effective way to tell them what you want. If you're a producer or a belief-controller that knows Mr Satir & his small tribe over on the hill Asmayeda are having problems with irrigation, you'll know you can seduce him to buy your product, pray to your rain god or want your water if the price is right. This is what producers mean when they say "We just give the people what they want". What they leave off is the last part of the phrase that says "And they give us what we want as well".

And now I've wasted my italics and quote mark quota for the day, I'll leave this big messy feedback loop at that. It's not toally arbitrary & evil, but it's also not totally systemised innocent.

[wade-w]

The gun is neither good nor bad.
What is done with it by the human is the only thing that matters.
The same applies to ideologies and worldviews, in my opinion.

Crap.

A gun is made with the intent of harming, wounding or destroying something somehow. You can't pot a pot-plant with a gun, flip eggs, brush your hair, paint a picture very well with it, because it is made with intent not for these things. Even if you are using it to "protect your family" or "liberate" a country or whatever, it is still intended to harm and maim.



True, but when you live in an area with at least 4 mountain lions living within a few miles, and regularly find bear scat on your property owning a gun is not a bad idea.

[Ronin]

originally posted by Ronin ~

In any event, I was not and have never intentionally tried to come across as patronising to you.

originally posted by Adora ~

Doesn't change the fact you are.

We'll simply have to agree to disagree then, Adora, and just let our exchange stand as is.

originally posted by Ronin ~`

It was simply used in my post as a symbol to indicate that a tool is present and can be used by the human for good or ill.
I also said:
The same applies to ideologies and worldviews, in my opinion.
Do you agree/disagree?

originally posted by Adora ~

Disagree, obviously, because this works with the strange idea that all ideologies, tools, worldviews etc are created neutral and are born spontaneously into the universe without intent or human involvement and desire in their creation. Which is totally wrong. You can't use the words "I hate your stinking guts" as a tool to mean "I love you and want to spend the rest of my life with you" unless a shared intention is there and a matrix of language-meaning connection is there. This all goes into creating intent, just as all ideologies, tools and worldviews are. A gun is created with intent within a system of communication, actions, and human society. An ideology is created within a system of desire, intent, human existence, predjudices, symbolism etc etc. It is not born neautral, and so, from the moment of its creation, is predisposed to certain things and reactions, because of the system it exists in.

But, again, the "intent" is derived by the individual human and used for good or ill based upon their own will and not the "created" ideology/worldview.

The same ability (you recognize) that is used to apply human intent and desire to their creation also applies to the interpretation and usage of these tools.

Also, I disagree that ideologies/worldviews are "predisposed to certain things and reactions because of the system it exists in" on the grounds that individual interpretation and human will intervene.

This is apparent by many of the links provided by livius drusus in the conversation she is having with Goliath.

originally posted by Ronin ~

As an aside, I think that it is our own personal responsibility to give as much benefit of the doubt to others participating in any thread to react with less threatening and abusive language in order to reach as close a consensus as possible.

originally posted by Adora ~

Well, turns out I disagree with you 180% on most things, then doesn't it?

I have no real considerate pool of topics from which to make an assessment of your claim.

It may be that we can agree on many things.

In any event, I see no productive reason in assuming negatively.

[Adora]

But, again, the "intent" is derived by the individual human and used for good or ill based upon their own will and not the "created" ideology/worldview.

But their own will is partly a product of the world-view and ideology, and how this has impacted their life. Once you enter the "event horizon" of the system, it is practically impossible to escape its influences, and it takes a lot of external help to get you out. This is why we have welfare. This is why the greatest cure for poverty is the education of women. This is why it takes education of certain things to undo fundamentalist brainwashing children grow up with in certain families. Some people are, unfortunately, born already past the "event horizon" (just using this phrase as a metaphor, of course) and in all likelihood never manage to understand anything beyond the confined local culture in their direct vicinity.

The same ability (you recognize) that is used to apply human intent and desire to their creation also applies to the interpretation and usage of these tools.

Only if you assume equal social footing of the creator and the receptor/human tool who follows the ideologies, which is very rarely the case.

Also, I disagree that ideologies/worldviews are "predisposed to certain things and reactions because of the system it exists in" on the grounds that individual interpretation and human will intervene.

They only intervene if they know they can. The will only exists if someone knows there is a choice. If there is no experience within the system or a knowledge of without the system, then there is know choice, and no will.

In any event, I see no productive reason in assuming negatively.

It's more entertaining.

[beyelzu]

a thought or idea can be inherently evil/fuckedup/vile/degenerate/etc enough that it is necessary to oppose the carriers of that thought or idea, and this is why I oppose all xianity other than the most liberal examples there of.
I completely disagree that any thought or idea is inherently evil. I think some thoughts and ideas are sufficiently anti-social that they deserve to be reviled, but I don't believe the ideas or thoughts are evil in themselves. For example I think the idea that white people are superior to non-white people is wrong, the people who believe it are misguided and the propagation of the idea is potentially very dangerous. However I don't think the idea itself is evil nor the people who believe it. I tried to actually take back the evil part, I couldnt think of a better word. but I stand by the statement that some thoughts and ideas should be reviled.
I wasn't honing in on the word evil in your post, I was just using it as an abbreviated version of your evil/fuckedup/vile/degenerate/etc. no problem, I thought you were, my bad, it works just fine as shorthand I suppose.

In my opinion it is impossible for an idea to be any of those things, which are all moral judgments, because I don't believe ideas have a moral component.

To refer to my example again: I believe that the idea that white people are superior to non-white people is incorrect, that people who believe it are misguided, and that many atrocious actions have happened as a result of the idea. However I don't believe the idea is morally deficient because I don't believe you can apply a moral standard to an idea. I believe it is simply wrong. Nor do I think believing a wrong idea to be right is an indication of moral deficiency on the part of a person. I think they're simply misguided.

Honestly I'm used to hearing religious people promote the idea that certain thoughts or ideas are inherently immoral, but I'm not used to hearing it from an atheist. Which isn't meant to be an insult or anything, it's just that I've seen the subject discussed a million times at IIDB and atheists almost invariably say there is no such thing as an immoral thought, just immoral actions. Which is what I believe too.I guess I disagree here. I think something can be immoral without causing damage. In truth I hadnt thought too much about it before this thread.


You mean it can lead to those things, but obviously not every religious person rejects blood donations or opposes genetic engineering. So again that would be a particular action that results from a particular interpretation of the ideas that you oppose, which is not an indictment of the ideas themselves. I think that faith based belief systems inevitably lead to a rejection of science on some level and thus do indeed leads to thinks like I mentioned.

I think that a fundamentalist view of the bible leads to antisocial behavior like opposing civil liberties for groups of people such as homosexuals.
Again though you're talking about actions that only result sometimes from a particular interpretation of those ideas. This is not evidence that the ideas themselves are somehow morally deficient. see above.


Why do you think self-expression is a fundamental human right? I mean if you believe that ideas have a moral component and that anyone who holds certain ideas is as immoral as the idea itself – and (and forgive me if this is too much of a reach from what you are saying) that such ideas are inherently damaging to society – why should people be allowed to express them?I think that they are immoral because of what they lead to, I do not think that they are as immoral as the actions. Lots of actions are probably inherently damaging to society and arent immoral or should be outlawed. Like watching tv or not recycling.

I think we use words differently, my friend.

[beyelzu]

atheists in particular metaphysical naturalists are more moral than xians because they must do what they think is right because it is right and have no pusnishment for sin and no reward for good acts.

I don't see why metaphysical naturalists have to do what they think is right, or even if they do, why what they think is right necessarily coincides with what you think is right.

I also don't know how you can claim to know that Christians do what they think is right solely to avoid punishment and gain rewards.

Helen
I dont see how you could miss my point, but here it is again.
an atheist who doesnt believe in the supernatural or life after death, ie a metaphysical naturalist has no expectation of being rewarded for those deeds in the afterlife and thus selfless acts by such a person are more selfless when the same actions are performed by someone who does have an expectation of reward in an afterlife.

this would also apply to hindu's who believe in reincarnation.

[beyelzu]

really, while I accept that plenty of scientists are theists how many really believe in an omnimax god. in short, proof please.

Well, in all fairness, you started it. Still, I'll spare you the impossibility of providing evidence that theist scientists are somehow exempt from omni-max beliefs. From two surveys done by Larson and Witham and described in "Scientists and Religion in America" (a fascinating article very much worth downloading for $4.99 at Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00006BNPH/104-0468532-8150307?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance)), 40% of scientists surveyed said yes when asked if they believe in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with man ... to whom one may pray in expectation of receiving an answer", and "personal immortality."

and yet it is important to note that scientists are less likely to believe in such things than the general populace
Only about 5 percent of the natural scientists we polled -- some 4,000 such professionals -- think that God created humans "pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." While rare among scientists, this is the view held by nearly half of all Americans -- a striking figure, considering that fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals make up only a quarter to a third of the population.and We repeated his survey in the 1990s and found similar results. Far fewer scientists than members of the general pubic believe in a personal God. The natural scientists, especially the elite group who are members of the National Association of Scientists, have taken Einstein's advice that a personal God could not intervene in a world of "ordered regularity of all events" and that "religion should give up a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." from http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=824


interesting. when I have a problem with what a group of people say often, I start to assume that that group is full of shit. I dont see the need to avoid generalizations, so long as I recognize the need for evaluating each person on a case by case basis. In short, I can despise xianity without hating all xians.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you can't say you despise Christianity when what you really mean is you despise certain specific doctrines and even those only when applied in a nefarious manner. Unless you actually are saying that you despise Quakerism because they believe in the resurrection of Christ, notwithstanding their enormous committment to social justice which is entirely rooted in their Christianity. Seems unlikely to me, though. I admit that I am biased as hell against xians from growing up where I did. I also would like to point out that I treat xians with the same respect that I show everyone else, which admittedly aint much. I will avoid making the statement that I despise xianity in the future, point taken.


Stick to the terms, beyelzu. We weren't talking about Christianity in this passage. You said you couldn't see how a belief in the supernatural could be a particularly good thing. I replied that such beliefs can encompass the entire glory of human thought just like any other idea. Heroin making you feel good is hardly an apt analogy.
how about I would rather face the hard brutal uncaring universe then to believe some fucked up bokonist soma, harmless little lies, to quote vonnegut. and I was trying to point out that belief in the supernatural, however uplifting, fulfilling, etc.. is joined with a belief in a falsehood or at least something that can not be proven. Not so with heroin.
I fail to see how one could be a christian without accepting original sin and the resurrection bodily of jesus christ.

Meet the Rev. W. Robert Martin III (http://www.layman.org/layman/news/2003-news-articles/heresy-charge-raises.htm). There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio...[/quote]
I stand corrected. and I wont even engage in any no true scotsman action.

Considering I have defined belief in the supernatural as part of the bad shit in xianity,

You've defined it as such, but you haven't defended your definition except to reassert it. What is so bad about the plain ol' belief in the supernatural? it is a rejection of reality. ouija boards and horoscopes and psychic hotlines and believe me this is a short random list are all symptoms of a basic inability or unwillingness of people to be rational and skeptical, a great societal failing in my ever so not humble opinion. Maybe, I am just blaming the symptoms of human nature. cuz human's seem to need to believe in some whacky shit :shrug:



How can you be one? See Clutch's OP here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=65962) for the reason I'm not. I remain unimpressed. I read through the thread you linked to, and I remain a metaphysical naturalist. I will explain in another thread if you like, I dont want to get too sidetracked.

your right I dont have proof, I have only my own experience, but I dont see evidence of widespread opposition by organized xians against people like phelps either.

You're shifting the goalposts here a little. I've provided you with multiple examples of Christians on the front lines of CSS, human rights, anti-religious right activism. These liberal Christians fighting are clearly not "hesitant to oppose the evil shit that people do in xianity's name" and therefore not part of the problem. So it seems to me your argument is already on pretty rickety grounds.

However, if it's specifically organized Christians against people like Phelps you seek, here are just a few of them:

The Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists (http://www.wabaptists.org/)
Beyond Inclusion (http://www.beyondinclusion.org/)
Brethren/Mennonite Council for Lesbian and Gay Concerns (http://www.bmclgbt.org/)
Clergy United for the Equality of Homosexuals (http://www.clergyunited.com/)
Interfaith Working Group (http://www.iwgonline.org/)
Lutherans Concerned (http://www.lcna.org/)

There are a shitload more. again I am going to just have to say that this hasnt been my personal experience, maybe my experience is atypical. btw, I didnt intend to shift goalposts on you.


You know what happens when you assume, beyelzu m'dear. ;) I was at work, had my first response up on a screen for an hour and didn't even see your post until after mine submitted.
likely story :D

[HelenM]

I dont see how you could miss my point, but here it is again.
an atheist who doesnt believe in the supernatural or life after death, ie a metaphysical naturalist has no expectation of being rewarded for those deeds in the afterlife and thus selfless acts by such a person are more selfless when the same actions are performed by someone who does have an expectation of reward in an afterlife.

The atheist is only more selfless if the theist does the selfless act because of the reward.

And my experience is that theists on the whole do not do selfless acts only because they believe God will reward those acts one day.

If you can prove that's the only reason theists do selfless acts, go ahead.

Moreover, you could argue that an atheist feels good when he/she does something selfless, so that feeling, in effect, is a 'reward'. So the atheist is perhaps not as selfless as you imagine, either.

Helen

[livius drusus]

really, while I accept that plenty of scientists are theists how many really believe in an omnimax god. in short, proof please.

Well, in all fairness, you started it. Still, I'll spare you the impossibility of providing evidence that theist scientists are somehow exempt from omni-max beliefs. From two surveys done by Larson and Witham and described in "Scientists and Religion in America" (a fascinating article very much worth downloading for $4.99 at Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00006BNPH/104-0468532-8150307?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance)), 40% of scientists surveyed said yes when asked if they believe in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with man ... to whom one may pray in expectation of receiving an answer", and "personal immortality."

and yet it is important to note that scientists are less likely to believe in such things than the general populace

It's actually not germane to your point -stated originally to me and reiterated just a couple of posts ago to vm despite having been handily rebutted by the statistisics - which was that belief in the omni God of Chrisitianity leads to a rejection of science. It very clearly doesn't.

I admit that I am biased as hell against xians from growing up where I did. I also would like to point out that I treat xians with the same respect that I show everyone else, which admittedly aint much. I will avoid making the statement that I despise xianity in the future, point taken.

Ah, the beyelzu special. One of my favorite things in the world. Thank you. I was very fortunate to go to an international school and be exposed to a wonderland of religious plurality even in the capital of Catholicism. I think that's at the root of my appreciation for just how many sets and subsets of belief are out there.


Stick to the terms, beyelzu. We weren't talking about Christianity in this passage. You said you couldn't see how a belief in the supernatural could be a particularly good thing. I replied that such beliefs can encompass the entire glory of human thought just like any other idea. Heroin making you feel good is hardly an apt analogy.

how about I would rather face the hard brutal uncaring universe then to believe some fucked up bokonist soma, harmless little lies, to quote vonnegut. and I was trying to point out that belief in the supernatural, however uplifting, fulfilling, etc.. is joined with a belief in a falsehood or at least something that can not be proven. Not so with heroin.

What's wrong with things that cannot be proven? What's so evil about falsehood? I love fiction. I love art. I love ideas like the existence of the atom that seem like groundless, crazy bullshit and turn out to make sense 2000 years later. I love ghost stories and menhirs and the dome of the Pantheon.

It's not about self-medication with bedtime stories about a God who'll take care of everything for me; it's about appreciating the full range of human creativity and dedication. Do you ever think about what it means in human terms that people spent almost 400 years building the Duomo (http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/milancath/duomo.html) in Milan? The immensity of that vision, grounded entirely in the belief in God, just blows me away. I can seriously cry if I think about it for more than a minute.

it is a rejection of reality. ouija boards and horoscopes and psychic hotlines and believe me this is a short random list are all symptoms of a basic inability or unwillingness of people to be rational and skeptical, a great societal failing in my ever so not humble opinion. Maybe, I am just blaming the symptoms of human nature. cuz human's seem to need to believe in some whacky shit :shrug:

See above. I love wacky shit. I don't want to see people scammed and abused and taken advantage of either, but the solution to that is not eliminating belief, imo: it's opening eyes, seeing everything out there for what it's worth.

I remain unimpressed. I read through the thread you linked to, and I remain a metaphysical naturalist. I will explain in another thread if you like, I dont want to get too sidetracked.

Good call. I actually hesitated even to respond to that out of fear of an endless derailment.


your right I dont have proof, I have only my own experience, but I dont see evidence of widespread opposition by organized xians against people like phelps either.

You're shifting the goalposts here a little. I've provided you with multiple examples of Christians on the front lines of CSS, human rights, anti-religious right activism. These liberal Christians fighting are clearly not "hesitant to oppose the evil shit that people do in xianity's name" and therefore not part of the problem. So it seems to me your argument is already on pretty rickety grounds.

However, if it's specifically organized Christians against people like Phelps you seek, here are just a few of them:

<snip list of theist gay rights organizations>

There are a shitload more. again I am going to just have to say that this hasnt been my personal experience, maybe my experience is atypical.

Your personal experience is just limited is all. You asked for evidence of widespread opposition to fundamentalist excesses from organized Christian groups. I've provided you with extensive evidence of just that. The fact that you haven't encountered these groups in your small circle of experience doesn't really mean anything. They exist, lots of them.

btw, I didnt intend to shift goalposts on you.

Of course you didn't, beyelzu. You're one of the most honest debaters I've ever encountered.


You know what happens when you assume, beyelzu m'dear. ;) I was at work, had my first response up on a screen for an hour and didn't even see your post until after mine submitted.
likely story :D

Oh ye of little faith... :P

[beyelzu]

Moreover, you could argue that an atheist feels good when he/she does something selfless, so that feeling, in effect, is a 'reward'. So the atheist is perhaps not as selfless as you imagine, either.

Helen
ah, but all things being equal, a xian would have the same good feelings and thus the theist would have more net rewards for any good act.

[HelenM]

Moreover, you could argue that an atheist feels good when he/she does something selfless, so that feeling, in effect, is a 'reward'. So the atheist is perhaps not as selfless as you imagine, either.

Helen
ah, but all things being equal, a xian would have the same good feelings and thus the theist would have more net rewards for any good act.

More rewards, yes, but as I said earlier, I don't see why the existence of a reward makes an act less selfless unless the person doing the act does it because of the reward.

Helen

[beyelzu]

It's actually not germane to your point -stated originally to me and reiterated just a couple of posts ago to vm despite having been handily rebutted by the statistisics - which was that belief in the omni God of Chrisitianity leads to a rejection of science. It very clearly doesn't. maybe I need a revised point. I look back at the past in america, and sometimes in the present, and I fear what religion or really any dogmatic belief system leads to. I worry that children who are taught ID or worse yet creation science :qugh: wont grow up to be biologists having been taught from a young age to disregard evolution as just a theory. now while the following quote does give me hope

Catholic schools made up the largest proportion of those at which theistic evolution dominates (50 percent). As recently as 1996 the pope stated that evolution was "more than a hypothesis," as long as one accepts that God intervenes to create the soul. Slightly over a third of the Protestant schools and nearly a fifth of the nondenominational enclaves also were thoroughly evolutionist. again from http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=824 What I love about the catholic schools teaching theistic evolution is that earlier this year the State Superindent of Schools(I think that was her title I could be wrong) here in the the peach state briefly decreed that the word evolution will no longer be used in ga schools, and the state government is supposed to be secular in nature.

this also gives me hope.


"We regret that certain minority factions of the PCUSA continue to sow division through their ongoing campaign of litigation against Presbyterians who don't conform to certain 19th-century conceptions of orthodoxy," said Swanson. from your link on the honorable Rev. Martin.

It seems to me that there is a disconnect between science and the world at large. I know that I am judging xians by the worst of their group and I would hate it if the same was done to atheists, as it was in the fifties. Maybe, I am fighting against the xianity that dominated america in earlier times :shrug: I dont know. It still seems to me that religion often hinders science and that bothers me. I think that any doctrine of faith which holds faith as a method for understanding the universe lessens the importance of science.



Ah, the beyelzu special. One of my favorite things in the world. Thank you. I was very fortunate to go to an international school and be exposed to a wonderland of religious plurality even in the capital of Catholicism. I think that's at the root of my appreciation for just how many sets and subsets of belief are out there.

you kow the funny thing is, I absolutely hate admitting I am wrong, I dont know if I have ever told you this or not. I refuse to be deliberately obtuse, however, so sometimes I have to admit being wrong sometimes :D In truth, as hard as I debate and sometimes I can be pretty fucking rancorous, I like debates because it helps me form my own thoughts and ideas. If I dont admit I am wrong when it is obvious that I am, then talking about issues is pretty much intellectual masturbation. // offtopic semirant.


What's wrong with things that cannot be proven? What's so evil about falsehood? I love fiction. I love art. I love ideas like the existence of the atom that seem like groundless, crazy bullshit and turn out to make sense 2000 years later. I love ghost stories and menhirs and the dome of the Pantheon.

It's not about self-medication with bedtime stories about a God who'll take care of everything for me; it's about appreciating the full range of human creativity and dedication. Do you ever think about what it means in human terms that people spent almost 400 years building the Duomo (http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/milancath/duomo.html) in Milan? The immensity of that vision, grounded entirely in the belief in God, just blows me away. I can seriously cry if I think about it for more than a minute. uhh, liv, the site said it was started in 1380 and finished in the 19th century so isnt that more than 400 years? but ignoring my irritating little nitpick, I have always been a great fan of what human beings can accomplish when they are highly motivated, but I find things like the shuttle and the mars rover and the human genome project and seti to be grander accomplishments because they are grounded in the real world. btw, duomo is fucking gorgeous, have you seen it irl, it must be breathtaking.



See above. I love wacky shit. I don't want to see people scammed and abused and taken advantage of either, but the solution to that is not eliminating belief, imo: it's opening eyes, seeing everything out there for what it's worth. is it possible to open someone's eyes when they have a belief that is simply taken on faith and resistant to skeptical inquiry? This is my problem with the wacky shit.

I remain unimpressed. I read through the thread you linked to, and I remain a metaphysical naturalist. I will explain in another thread if you like, I dont want to get too sidetracked.

Good call. I actually hesitated even to respond to that out of fear of an endless derailment. I will start one today or tomorrow.


Your personal experience is just limited is all. You asked for evidence of widespread opposition to fundamentalist excesses from organized Christian groups. I've provided you with extensive evidence of just that. The fact that you haven't encountered these groups in your small circle of experience doesn't really mean anything. They exist, lots of them. again, point taken, you know you are robbing me of whole diatribes against xianity. :D

btw, I didnt intend to shift goalposts on you.

Of course you didn't, beyelzu. You're one of the most honest debaters I've ever encountered. :blush: thank you.



Oh ye of little faith... :P
this is true on many fucking levels. :rofl:

but not in regards to you.

[livius drusus]

maybe I need a revised point. I look back at the past in america, and sometimes in the present, and I fear what religion or really any dogmatic belief system leads to. I worry that children who are taught ID or worse yet creation science :qugh: wont grow up to be biologists having been taught from a young age to disregard evolution as just a theory.

It is a scary prospect, to be sure, but the drive to teach ID/creationism is a localized phenomenon and one countered by all kinds of theists like the Catholics you cite and the flock of people even in Bible Belt Georgia who told Kathy Cox to blow it out her ass.

It seems to me that there is a disconnect between science and the world at large. I know that I am judging xians by the worst of their group and I would hate it if the same was done to atheists, as it was in the fifties. Maybe, I am fighting against the xianity that dominated america in earlier times :shrug: I dont know. It still seems to me that religion often hinders science and that bothers me. I think that any doctrine of faith which holds faith as a method for understanding the universe lessens the importance of science.

It all depends, ya know. A lot of devout theists have sought to understand the universe specifically because they believed in a divine plan instead of chaotic randomness. Scientists who saw God's work in nature are truly an eminent collection of luminaries, from Newton to Kepler to Georges Lemaître of Big Bang fame, who was a Catholic priest.

you kow the funny thing is, I absolutely hate admitting I am wrong, I dont know if I have ever told you this or not. I refuse to be deliberately obtuse, however, so sometimes I have to admit being wrong sometimes :D In truth, as hard as I debate and sometimes I can be pretty fucking rancorous, I like debates because it helps me form my own thoughts and ideas. If I dont admit I am wrong when it is obvious that I am, then talking about issues is pretty much intellectual masturbation. // offtopic semirant.

I'm right behind you, my brother. I hate admitting to error, but I hate the I'm right nomatter what style of argumentation even more. The truth is, I never learned shit from clinging to rightness, which can only mean that I was wrong to cling to it. Does that make sense?

uhh, liv, the site said it was started in 1380 and finished in the 19th century so isnt that more than 400 years?

Hey I never said I was a scientician. :giggle: I just picked the late 18th c because that's when the characteristic main spire was finished. The last spire went up and the west facade was worked on until the mid-19th c. I think there are still a couple of blocks of uncarved marble here and there.

but ignoring my irritating little nitpick, I have always been a great fan of what human beings can accomplish when they are highly motivated, but I find things like the shuttle and the mars rover and the human genome project and seti to be grander accomplishments because they are grounded in the real world.

But all those projects are within the reach of a human memory. Something like the Duomo, built by people who had basically little more than pulleys at their disposal all of whom knew they'd be long, long dead before it was through, requires a sense of eternity or nobody would ever even have bothered to start it.

btw, duomo is fucking gorgeous, have you seen it irl, it must be breathtaking.

I have indeed. I used to live outside of Milan when I was a little girl. It is bar none my favorite church in Europe, and that's saying a huge hell of a lot.

You can walk on the roof, beyelzu, and this is the view.

http://www.freethought-forum.com/images/duomo3.jpgHere's what Mark Twain had to say about it in Innocents Abroad:

"What a wonder it is! So grand, so solemn, so vast! And yet so delicate, so airy, so graceful! A very world of solid weight, and yet it seems ...a delusion of frostwork that might vanish with a breath!...The central one of its five great doors is bordered with a bas-relief of birds and fruits and beasts and insects, which have been so ingeniously carved out of the marble that they seem like living creatures--and the figures are so numerous and the design so complex, that one might study it a week without exhausting its interest...everywhere that a niche or a perch can be found about the enormous building, from summit to base, there is a marble statue, and every statue is a study in itself...

Away above, on the lofty roof, rank on rank of carved and fretted spires spring high in the air, and through their rich tracery one sees the sky beyond. ...(Up on) the roof...springing from its broad marble flagstones, were the long files of spires, looking very tall close at hand, but diminishing in the distance...We could see, now, that the statue on the top of each was the size of a large man, though they all looked like dolls from the street... They say that the Cathedral of Milan is second only to St. Peter's at Rome. I cannot understand how it can be second to anything made by human hands."

is it possible to open someone's eyes when they have a belief that is simply taken on faith and resistant to skeptical inquiry? This is my problem with the wacky shit.

I think it is. It seems to me secular types would make great mediators because we could theoretically be relatively neutral parties. I don't think that can happen, however, if we treat belief with contempt.

again, point taken, you know you are robbing me of whole diatribes against xianity. :D

/me grins
Wait til I start my religious art thread. Oh, and the one about how Christianity was liberating for patrician Roman women. :didi:

Oh ye of little faith... :P
this is true on many fucking levels. :rofl:

but not in regards to you.

Now it's my turn to :blush:. Thank you, beyelzu, for the wonderful compliment and a wonderful discussion. :hug:

[beyelzu]

It is a scary prospect, to be sure, but the drive to teach ID/creationism is a localized phenomenon and one countered by all kinds of theists like the Catholics you cite and the flock of people even in Bible Belt Georgia who told Kathy Cox to blow it out her ass.
and I was proud to see it happen, but I think the point is eternal vigilance is necessary. We live in a time that an elected official in GA thinks that its a good idea to ban science in the name of religion as long as the religion isnt mentioned directly. Furthermore, do you think dubya would have been elected without the fundy vote. I realize that in the last 50 years, a number chosen arbitrarily, religion has become less "fundified" but I worry that the trend has been reversing in the last few years. I will oppose rabid xianity the only way I know how, I will be an open atheist, I never lie about my beliefs, and when applicable call others on their bullshit. I am constantly surprised by how liberal most catholics I have known are.

It all depends, ya know. A lot of devout theists have sought to understand the universe specifically because they believed in a divine plan instead of chaotic randomness. Scientists who saw God's work in nature are truly an eminent collection of luminaries, from Newton to Kepler to Georges Lemaître of Big Bang fame, who was a Catholic priest. I know, but to quote some unremembered poster at II, just think of how much more Newton could have accomplished if he hadnt been so caught up in religion. I suppose that on reflection, I dont think that xianity always leads to a resistance to science and knowledge, but I remain concerned about the dominance of a belief system that often includes faith as a reasonable method of exploring the universe.



I'm right behind you, my brother. I hate admitting to error, but I hate the I'm right nomatter what style of argumentation even more. The truth is, I never learned shit from clinging to rightness, which can only mean that I was wrong to cling to it. Does that make sense? yep, exactly. I have seen the Im right no matter what (irnmw) style many times at II and it never leads to an exchange of knowledge or growth for the participants. Honestly, it is just tiresome. From now on though when people disagree with me, I think I will post IRNMW for shits and giggles.



Hey I never said I was a scientician. :giggle: I just picked the late 18th c because that's when the characteristic main spire was finished. The last spire went up and the west facade was worked on until the mid-19th c. I think there are still a couple of blocks of uncarved marble here and there. you know I would find the chunks of uncarved marble to be almost as interesting as the building. Unfinished remains, some artisan obviously intended to do something with them. Plus the idea that such a beautiful, majestic building is actually unfinished is enthralling.



But all those projects are within the reach of a human memory. Something like the Duomo, built by people who had basically little more than pulleys at their disposal all of whom knew they'd be long, long dead before it was through, requires a sense of eternity or nobody would ever even have bothered to start it. Have you ever read Pillars of the Earth, iirc, it is about the construction of a cathedral, historical fiction. I read it when I was about 10, it is not a child's book, I never read those.


I have indeed. I used to live outside of Milan when I was a little girl. It is bar none my favorite church in Europe, and that's saying a huge hell of a lot.

You can walk on the roof, beyelzu, and this is the view.

You know, I have made fun of people who wanted to visit europe to see old buildings and ruins, I realize that I have been mistaken. I think the view from the top of the duomo would be worth the trip.



I think it is. It seems to me secular types would make great mediators because we could theoretically be relatively neutral parties. I don't think that can happen, however, if we treat belief with contempt. the problem I have is that it is hard to treat silly beliefs seriously. and I dont know how neutral sceptics can be as we have a vested interest in science, proof, sceptiscism which kind of opposes silly beliefs.


* livius drusus grins
Wait til I start my religious art thread. Oh, and the one about how Christianity was liberating for patrician Roman women. :didi:

cant wait.


Now it's my turn to :blush:. Thank you, beyelzu, for the wonderful compliment and a wonderful discussion. :hug:

est nihil. from my latin days, I always used it as your'e welcome.

but really, the pleasure is mine.

:bow:

[Ronin]

But their own will is partly a product of the world-view and ideology, and how this has impacted their life. Once you enter the "event horizon" of the system, it is practically impossible to escape its influences, and it takes a lot of external help to get you out.

This is why we have welfare. This is why the greatest cure for poverty is the education of women. This is why it takes education of certain things to undo fundamentalist brainwashing children grow up with in certain families. Some people are, unfortunately, born already past the "event horizon" (just using this phrase as a metaphor, of course) and in all likelihood never manage to understand anything beyond the confined local culture in their direct vicinity.


Yet, as atheists, we seemed to have rebuffed many of these ideologies by simply rejecting their claims.

In this way, we have chosen which world-view best suits us and not the other way around.

It seems we, as humans, do have the ability to make our own choices and exert our own will in doing so.

I wonder if it would be acceptable for a theist to claim that atheists are merely imprisoned by their own worldview due to this same claim of entering a particular “event horizon” which is practically impossible to escape from without a lot of external help.

In any event, this is leading us to near redundancy.


Only if you assume equal social footing of the creator and the receptor/human tool who follows the ideologies, which is very rarely the case.

Only if you assume that human ideologies exist in a vacuum and that humans, regardless of their “social footing” (?), are not exposed to a variety of other worldviews...especially in this age of global communication.

It also assumes that ideologies remain “fixed” in concept from point of originator (if locatable). I do not find them to be so.


They only intervene if they know they can. The will only exists if someone knows there is a choice. If there is no experience within the system or a knowledge of without the system, then there is know choice, and no will.

Well, I think the world is a large enough place and filled with observable diversity to counter this implication that “systems” exist in an inviolable vacuum.

It's more entertaining.

Well, you certainly got me there, Adora.

I have spent so much missionary zeal proseletyzing my own brand of more benign than thou atheism that I thoroughly abandoned a core component of my own unspoken creed.

Curse you...curse you right to chemistry class.

:shakefist:

[Adora]

Yet, as atheists, we seemed to have rebuffed many of these ideologies by simply rejecting their claims.

By "their" claims, I take it you mean "religions"? And I don't understand about the rebuffing/rejecting thing. You can't simply rebuff something by saying "I reject it". To rebuff something you need to present evidence and argument and reasons ie- knowledge of events & exceptions of choice outside the proposed system.

In this way, we have chosen which world-view best suits us and not the other way around.

But how do we choose? How do we come to be a certain shape and form that allows us to be predisposed to one system over another? Only through being formed and influenced and shown choices in other systems.

I wonder if it would be acceptable for a theist to claim that atheists are merely imprisoned by their own worldview due to this same claim of entering a particular “event horizon” which is practically impossible to escape from without a lot of external help.

I don't doubt it. They'd claim we're missing the ultimate life choice of accepting "the divine into our lives" *gag*.

In any event, this is leading us to near redundancy.

Why do you say that?


Only if you assume that human ideologies exist in a vacuum and that humans, regardless of their “social footing” (?), are not exposed to a variety of other worldviews...especially in this age of global communication.

Not really. They don't have to be in a vacumm, only in an environment where they're not likely to be exposed to potential choices. You think a sheep-village in rural India has teh web?

It also assumes that ideologies remain “fixed” in concept from point of originator (if locatable).

If the originator is smart, and is purposely trying to seduce the target, she/he will work exceedingly hard to guarantee the retention of most of the ideologies that come across in their message. And I believe most messages in this world do retain the intended connotations originally pushed by the creator. It's that small 0.1% that don't that allow for change and diversity/evolution in the ideologies. We couldn't function in society without it. Just imagine what would happen each day if, say, even just 20% of all messages sent by human beings all around the world were badly intepreted on the other end?

Well, you certainly got me there, Adora.
I have spent so much missionary zeal proseletyzing my own brand of more benign than thou atheism that I thoroughly abandoned a core component of my own unspoken creed.
Curse you...curse you right to chemistry class.
:shakefist:

Er, I don't get this... chemistry class? What? I am really not geek enough for this...

[Ronin]

By "their" claims, I take it you mean "religions"? And I don't understand about the rebuffing/rejecting thing. You can't simply rebuff something by saying "I reject it". To rebuff something you need to present evidence and argument and reasons ie- knowledge of events & exceptions of choice outside the proposed system.

Precisely.

But how do we choose? How do we come to be a certain shape and form that allows us to be predisposed to one system over another? Only through being formed and influenced and shown choices in other systems.

Precisely.

I don't doubt it. They'd claim we're missing the ultimate life choice of accepting "the divine into our lives" *gag*.

Precisely.

Why do you say that?

Because we're starting to go back over the same things...over and over again...repeatedly...ad infinitum...um...etc.

Not really. They don't have to be in a vacumm, only in an environment where they're not likely to be exposed to potential choices. You think a sheep-village in rural India has teh web?

I think there are extreme rural areas where people can still find alternative points of view.

There are no utopian villages bereft of diversity of opinion.

If the originator is smart, and is purposely trying to seduce the target, she/he will work exceedingly hard to guarantee the retention of most of the ideologies that come across in their message. And I believe most messages in this world do retain the intended connotations originally pushed by the creator. It's that small 0.1% that don't that allow for change and diversity/evolution in the ideologies. We couldn't function in society without it. Just imagine what would happen each day if, say, even just 20% of all messages sent by human beings all around the world were badly intepreted on the other end?

We will just have to agree to disagree here as well.


Er, I don't get this... chemistry class? What? I am really not geek enough for this...

um...atheist's commonly trust in science...and I was drawing an equivalent between the theist's tortuous domain (Hell) with...ah...something an atheist would consider as...oh, nevermind.

:sadnana:

[copiae]

I hope that the feeling is reciprocated...


Well, you can just keep on hoping, then.


Hey,

I will.


Well, I'm not convinced that we cannot exist naturally without culture. Would our lives be unbelievably different (and quite possibly much worse) without culture? Sure. But that doesn't mean that we cannot exist without it.



I went and thought about what you were saying here... Firstly, are we agreed that existing naturally without culture means exisiting without any people around you - as if there is any transmission of ideas or experience, culture exists? If we then examine human development: Unlike some other species, the human baby is inherently dependent on some sort of care-giver, as a human baby is totally incapable of defending itself, and finding food/water.


In the gap between being a baby and adulthood, the child becomes increasingly less dependent on a care-giver, but, nonetheless is still dependent (to learn what to eat, how to eat it, how to catch it/find it, etc). At adulthood, the human can presumably survive by himself/herself, although it makes more sense to stick together, and pass on any ideas/experiences to the next generation so that they can be more successful.


If you define exist as any transitory period of life, then yeah, a human from any developmental stage can exist without culture. But for any long-term survival, I will venture that some culture is pretty well essential.



However, with some rare exceptions (feral children, as you mentioned), we seem to exist with culture.

But even if we ignore the feral children, etc, for the moment, the fact that we don't live without culture doesn't mean that the definition of human nature that you gave isn't nonsensical.



True. However, if we don't live without culture, then it follows that living within culture is our natural ... habitat. If that is the case, cross-cultural universals, especially those that stem from geographically divergent groups of people, may serve to be representative of human nature.



I mean formal proof, yes. I understand that such a standard is difficult in topics like this, but that shouldn't prevent you from reaching for the stars, so to speak.



Heh. Formal proofs are nice when you are working within a constrained environment, but arguably not as useful (or practical) in the real world (tm).



Not necessarily so. Religion A could be hated for one reason, religion B for another, etc...that wouldn't make the distinctions between the religions irrelevant. Not even close.



Ah. Assuming a more ideal world, why would you hate the three religions that I mentioned above?



Well, that was a little bleak, wasn't it? Anyways, if you want more ranting on that topic, let me know.



Yeah, sure. Rant away.



Yes, it is. And you know what? I can apply my existing cultural norms to them, I have applied my existing cultural norms to them, and I shall continue to do so. After all, my culture is my culture. What other norms would I apply? Any answer other than "my own" is purely ridiculous, IMO.


So, would you consider your culture to be the 'right' one? Why/Why not? Is this answer a personal one, or a universal one? I know this is somewhat tangential to what you are saying, I am trying to establish a scope for your answer.

Finally, is there a need to apply any norms at all? Is there a need to judge?



Cheers,

[Adora]

I think there are extreme rural areas where people can still find alternative points of view. There are no utopian villages bereft of diversity of opinion.

Agreed. But there are villages where, if diversity of opinion is voiced, it quickly gets smothered physically, socially or mentally.

um...atheist's commonly trust in science...and I was drawing an equivalent between the theist's tortuous domain (Hell) with...ah...something an atheist would consider as...oh, nevermind.

I don't "trust" in science, because it's a human school of study as flawed as as suspect to social systems of influence as much as any other area.

My hellish class was PE, actually.

[seebs]

I think an informed faith is a very good thing for scientists, or anyone else; understanding what faith is and isn't is a way to make more informed decisions about which things to accept on faith and which things we doubt.

[Goliath]

I think an informed faith is a very good thing for scientists, or anyone else;

How unbelievably insulting. I have no faith, and I very much doubt that I will ever have faith.

[Goliath]

Hey,

I will.



Good for you, I guess. How is that "hoping" thing going?


Heh. Formal proofs are nice when you are working within a constrained environment, but arguably not as useful (or practical) in the real world (tm).


Bah! The real world is only a special case.



Ah. Assuming a more ideal world, why would you hate the three religions that I mentioned above?



Simple: because they are deserving of my hatred.



So, would you consider your culture to be the 'right' one?



What do you mean by the "right" culture?

[copiae]

Good for you, I guess. How is that "hoping" thing going?


Great. =)


Bah! The real world is only a special case.


Hehe. Either that, or the unreal world is.


Simple: because they are deserving of my hatred.


Ah, we then return to my original question: Why? You are, of course, entitled to hate whatever you want, but its that "deserving" that I wonder about.

I hope that in the massive sidetrack on culture, I have been able to establish that murder, pain, suffering, etc, are not trademarks of religion - rather, they are just a part of human nature. Why then just hate religion? Even if the establishment has not been made, why hate religions (and sects) that have no blood-stained doctrines?



What do you mean by the "right" culture?

I'm trying to gain a scope within which to view your reply... This is somewhat tangential to what you initially said.

Anyway, earlier, you said that you apply the norms from your culture onto other cultures, and implied that judgements are derived based on this application. Is your present culture the right (read: correct) one to compare other cultures to? Does this answer hold for all people (from the past, the present and the future) or just for you?

Cheers,

[Goliath]

[QUOTE=Goliath]
Good for you, I Ah, we then return to my original question: Why? You are, of course, entitled to hate whatever you want, but its that "deserving" that I wonder about.



Because religion is one of the biggest--if not the biggest--causes of rape, murder, and hatred that mankind has ever known.


murder, pain, suffering, etc, are not trademarks of religion -


And where did I claim this?



Anyway, earlier, you said that you apply the norms from your culture onto other cultures, and implied that judgements are derived based on this application. Is your present culture the right (read: correct) one to compare other cultures to?



You're avoiding the question. What does "right" (or "correct", to use your backpedalling synonym) mean in this case?

[copiae]

Goliath,

I thought that if I were to actually read your posts, focus on the content and not the language, and provide thought-out replies, then perhaps I would be able to make you rethink the foundations of your hatred. Prior to posting anything in this thread, I would read your posts, think about thier content, and do some background reading/research... Usually quite a time-consuming process, but it was the courtesy that I extended to you.


For a while, it seemed like this courtesy was working. With your latest posts, I realise that this impression most likely stemmed from fanciful thinking: Your latest post especially quite clearly demonstrates the amount of time and effort you've invested in considering what I've had to say.


Unfortunately, the whimsy which originally motivated me to do this has almost completely withered away. I guess you would perceive this to be my defeat, and I agree with you... Although I will venture to say that we have differing opinions on who lost.


Enjoy your hatred :wave:.

[Goliath]

I thought that if I were to actually read your posts, focus on the content and not the language,

Ummm....the content is written in the language. :?



then perhaps I would be able to make you rethink the foundations of your hatred.



Why did you want to do this?



Your latest post especially quite clearly demonstrates the amount of time and effort you've invested in considering what I've had to say.



If I hadn't considered what you've said, then I wouldn't have responded.

However, the perceived quality of a post need not correlate with the length of time in which it was written.



I guess you would perceive this to be my defeat,



You guess correctly.



Although I will venture to say that we have differing opinions on who lost.



:shrug: Perhaps. So be it.



Enjoy your hatred :wave:.

:? That makes no sense whatsoever. IMO, my hatred of xianity is neither good nor bad: it just is.

"Enjoy your hatred [of xianity] :wave: " makes as much sense as "Enjoy the fact that the acceleration due to gravity on Earth is approximately 9.8 m/s^2. :wave:"

[Dingfod]

But one is immutable, the other is not.

[Goliath]

But one is immutable, the other is not.

That still doesn't make "Enjoy your hatred :wave:." any less nonsensical.

To rephrase, peer's closing shot makes no more sense than "Enjoy the fact that your office is in Dakota Hall 325 :wave:."

:shrug: It just makes no sense.

[Dingfod]

Hey, it was your analogy, not mine. Your latest analogy is more apt. But, you might as well enjoy the fact that your office is in Dakota Hall 325, they could move you to Bumfuck Basement, Cubical 666 next to the sump pump, which would probably be a lot less enjoyable, what with the sewer odors and pump noises. Your office location is at least somewhat subject to change, just as your hatred for Christianity is, whether you admit it or not.

[Goliath]

You see, this is why I generally hate analogies...they're never exactly right.

I'll just spit it out: My hatred of xianity is. I don't view it as good. I don't view it as bad. It merely is. And there may be someday when it no longer is. That's fine.

But the suggestion to enjoy something that I view neither as good nor bad makes no sense.

[copiae]

Ummm....the content is written in the language. :?


The content is written using the language.



Why did you want to do this?


Whimsy?



However, the perceived quality of a post need not correlate with the length of time in which it was written.


True.

Having said that, my post was made at 9:59am (my time). Lets assume that you saw said post at 9:59am, and made a reply at the end of 10:06am. That means that within seven minutes, you presumably arrived at the following conclusions (written from your perspective):

1) His comment on the trademarks of religion was directly based on something that I had previously written in this thread.

2) He avoided the question being asked.

3) Hes engaged in some form of backpedalling.

Had you perhaps spent a little more time considering what I wrote, and why I wrote it, perhaps you might have arrived at these following outcomes instead (once more, from your perspective):

1) He said that in his posts, he hoped that he was able to establish that these things do not derive from religion, but rather from human nature. He didnt say that I had previously said that that they did.

2) Perhaps what he is trying to do is to make me think about what 'right' repersents? Perhaps he has no definition either, and he is hoping that I will supply him with one? What is my definition of right?

3) Well, if 2) is right, perhaps correct simply helps to establish the context within which he is searching for his definition.

Then, had you thought about things for a little longer still, perhaps you may have arrived at these outcomes instead (and again, from your perspective):

1a) I don't agree that he has established that these things derive from human nature, but if I were to extend to him the benefit of doubt, what would be the implications? Would I still hate religion? If I do, perhaps the reasons for my hatred are not as clear-cut as I like to think they are?

--or--

1b) I don't agree that he has established that these things derive from human nature, and I'm not going to extend to him the benefit of doubt, because hes totally wrong. But what about Buddhism and the Bahai faith? These religions have no bloodstained history.. Do I hate them? If so, maybe I am lumping them in with Christianity and other religions...

--or--

1c) Well, he has established that culture is essential for a human, and that these behaviours are apparent even with no religion... Hmm.. maybe religion isnt a source of these things.


2a) Maybe he did answer the question, but answered it by rewording what he originally wrote to me, to make it more conducive towards understanding?

--or--

2b) Maybe he didnt understand what I was asking. Perhaps I should reword it, so that he can try again?

3) Maybe there is no backpedalling going on here. Oops. Good thing I didnt post anything about backpedalling

The conclusions I've arrived at on your behalf are irrelevant - There are a thousand more possibilities, all of which mature with the benefit of time and consideration. Perhaps now you can understand why the 7 minute "I'll repeat something I said earlier, ask him where I wrote that, and claim hes avoiding the question" response produced such a negative reaction in me...

Before you respond to this post, think about what I am trying to say here. There is no need for a quick reply.


"Enjoy your hatred [of xianity] :wave: " makes as much sense as "Enjoy the fact that the acceleration due to gravity on Earth is approximately 9.8 m/s^2. :wave:"

Heh, they both make perfect sense, but apart from a one-word comment - skydiver - I'm not going to explain why. =)

[seebs]

I think an informed faith is a very good thing for scientists, or anyone else;

How unbelievably insulting. I have no faith, and I very much doubt that I will ever have faith.

I don't intend any insult.

I think that informed faith is useful. That doesn't mean you're a bad person if you don't have it. I also think blue eyes are pretty. This is not an attack on brown-eyed people.

Note, though, that what I mean when I talk aboout "faith" may not be what you expect.

[Goliath]

The content is written using the language.

Correct.



Whimsy?



:shrug: Okay.



Having said that, my post was made at 9:59am (my time). Lets assume that you saw said post at 9:59am, and made a reply at the end of 10:06am. That means that within seven minutes, you presumably arrived at the following conclusions (written from your perspective):

1) His comment on the trademarks of religion was directly based on something that I had previously written in this thread.

2) He avoided the question being asked.

3) Hes engaged in some form of backpedalling.


Correct. I came to conclusion 1 from starting to read the post, and found that 2 and 3 were true in the middle of responding.

I'm a fast typer, and I tend to think fast. Deal with it.



Had you perhaps spent a little more time considering what I wrote, and why I wrote it, perhaps you might have arrived at these following outcomes instead (once more, from your perspective):

<snip long list of irrelevancies>



Yes, but so what? I could've conceivably arrived at the conclusion that all grass is actually green cheese and that you are actually a 1973 Ford Maverick.

Heh, they both make perfect sense, but apart from a one-word comment - skydiver - I'm not going to explain why. =)

My analogy was not a good one, and for that, I apologize. Read my post previous to this one.

[copiae]

Correct. I came to conclusion 1 from starting to read the post, and found that 2 and 3 were true in the middle of responding.

I'm a fast typer, and I tend to think fast. Deal with it.


Bravo.


Nice to see that you took my advice too.



Yes, but so what? I could've conceivably arrived at the conclusion that all grass is actually green cheese and that you are actually a 1973 Ford Maverick.


And had you done that, I would have asked you why you reached those conclusions. Sadly, on the proviso that you had went away and thought about things for a bit, I would have honestly prefered those replies to the ones you gave (after all, the justification for them would have definitely been interesting!).

On a side note, This thread should really be split.

[Goliath]

I'm goingg to bed. I feel drunnrk but I haven't drank a single drop of alcoholl...just emotional stressgon e berzerk.

So I'll respond to tyhou to morrow, assbag.

[JoeP]

[QUOTE=Goliath]
Good for you, I Ah, we then return to my original question: Why? You are, of course, entitled to hate whatever you want, but its that "deserving" that I wonder about.



Because religion is one of the biggest--if not the biggest--causes of rape, murder, and hatred that mankind has ever known.


murder, pain, suffering, etc, are not trademarks of religion -


And where did I claim this?

Goliath, too funny. :D In the same post even. Now I seriously suspect that you are playing with us.

If you're not playing, and you don't accept that "religion is one of the biggest--if not the biggest--causes of rape, murder, and hatred that mankind has ever known" is a claim that "murder, pain, suffering, etc, are trademarks of religion", then you must instead accept that people have difficulty understanding what you mean. Do you see what I mean here?

joe

[Goliath]

Goliath, too funny. :D


I'm glad that at least one of us is amused.



If you're not playing, and you don't accept that "religion is one of the biggest--if not the biggest--causes of rape, murder, and hatred that mankind has ever known" is a claim that "murder, pain, suffering, etc, are trademarks of religion", then you must instead accept that people have difficulty understanding what you mean. Do you see what I mean here?



No, I don't. There is a big difference between saying that religion is a big cause of rape, murder and hatred and saying that murder pain suffering, etc. are trademarks of religion. I'm not claiming that religion has a monopoly on anything.

What's so difficult about understanding the difference between the two?!

[viscousmemories]

On a side note, This thread should really be split.
Nah, I think the chance of any further productive discussion on this thread - related to the subject of the OP, anyway - is long past. Besides I learned as much as I think I could hope to considering my disjointed phrasing of the OP and the high ratio of noise to signal, so it served its purpose for me. :)

[beyelzu]

Goliath, too funny. :D


I'm glad that at least one of us is amused.



If you're not playing, and you don't accept that "religion is one of the biggest--if not the biggest--causes of rape, murder, and hatred that mankind has ever known" is a claim that "murder, pain, suffering, etc, are trademarks of religion", then you must instead accept that people have difficulty understanding what you mean. Do you see what I mean here?



No, I don't. There is a big difference between saying that religion is a big cause of rape, murder and hatred and saying that murder pain suffering, etc. are trademarks of religion. I'm not claiming that religion has a monopoly on anything.

What's so difficult about understanding the difference between the two?!


goliath,

have you considered that if not for religion, it would be some other dogmatic belief system that humans would rape and murder for. I am asking if you have considered that murdering in the name of religion is symptomatic of a bigger problem having to do with humans holding on to dogmatic beliefs and being willing to commit atrocities in the name of those beliefs.

[Goliath]

have you considered that if not for religion, it would be some other dogmatic belief system that humans would rape and murder for.


I have considered that possibility, yes. However, I have no idea if that would be the case or not (and will never have a way of finding out, since I can't go back in time and somehow eradicate religion in the past).


I am asking if you have considered that murdering in the name of religion is symptomatic of a bigger problem having to do with humans holding on to dogmatic beliefs and being willing to commit atrocities in the name of those beliefs.

What problem could possibly be bigger than religion?

[beyelzu]

have you considered that if not for religion, it would be some other dogmatic belief system that humans would rape and murder for.


I have considered that possibility, yes. However, I have no idea if that would be the case or not (and will never have a way of finding out, since I can't go back in time and somehow eradicate religion in the past).

you could look at cases where religion was suppressed and people still killed in the name of a dogmatic belief system. I think the obvious examples are probably nationalism and/or the communist party in USSR. I often think about memes and culture. The thing is culture is taught pretty dogmatically by and large to children. Look both ways before crossing the street. Wear clothing. Similarly, when people dont do those things they are attacked on a social level.

With religion, since it has often been a fairly complete set of societal mores, it seems that a rejection of it would bring an even more dramatic response.



I am asking if you have considered that murdering in the name of religion is symptomatic of a bigger problem having to do with humans holding on to dogmatic beliefs and being willing to commit atrocities in the name of those beliefs.

What problem could possibly be bigger than religion?the bigger problem would be that humans naturally cling to dogmatic belief systems and will murder in their names. It's a bigger problem if true, because even if religion is one of the biggest cause of atrocities even if religion didnt exist, humans would find other reasons for those atrocities.