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