Anti-theist? Why?

[Storm]

huh?

racists turds put all black americans in one box

Yeah... kinda my point. Replace "black Americans" with "theists," and tell me how that's not EXACTLY what HD did by saying all believers are anti-atheists.

 

[waitasec]

Yeah... kinda my point. Replace "black Americans" with "theists," and tell me how that's not EXACTLY what HD did by saying all believers are anti-atheists.

i'm not for certain that HD really agreed with my sarcastic post...since she said, many instead of just saying christians or all christians...
i could be wrong..., i didn't read the discourse between the both of you since then...

but i see now what you mean...
your such a fireball.... i like that

 

[Nobody]

People who are deluded into a belief that civil treatment only applies to beings who look, act, or believe the same as them are bigots. These people are being brainwashed into being extremist ideologues no different from their religious counterparts.

That seems obvious, but I don't see why you think that was happening at the Reason Rally. I'm assuming it was the Dawkins speech?

Calm, rational debate is of course preferable to petty insults or similar uncivil behavior. But if that degenerates into inane or absurd comments (like threats of hell, or an unending barrage of Bible quotes), as all too often it can, how can you respond honestly without making it clear how absurd it sounds? And that of course will be considered offensive no matter how politely said because of the fact that religion is considered by many as above criticism.

It is fairly common for scientific and religious fundamentalists to advocate uncivil acts and speech towards those who don't think the same way as them.

I agree, although like my previous assumption, I'm just guessing the 'scientific fundamentalist' here is Dawkins with the "Ridicule them!" statement as I can't honestly think of anyone else you could be referring to. If so, I disagree that he advocated any such thing.

As recently as 5-10 years ago any criticism of religious doctrines, or religious figures, no matter how appalling they may have been was considered completely taboo, you just didn't do it, even among people who were non religious. I don't see any problem with not giving automatic respect to things just because they are labeled religious.

If you were the one who had ignorant harmful views, would you change them if I educated you in the manner you advocate? I don't think its likely.

Very unlikely, however if those views were derived from a source that has taken automatic respect and reverence for granted, the lack of same shown by that kind of irreverence makes it pretty clear that those days are gone.

I think that the lack of criticism the unsupportable claims religion makes has enjoyed over the years has done a lot of harm (papal infallibility for one, that myth has allowed much to go unchallenged that should have been). If it takes offending people to stop this from continuing, as much as I may find the idea distasteful, the alternative of keeping quiet as before seems absolutely reprehensible.

 

[HerDotness]

Originally Posted by HerDotness
I think so, because even though some people sidestep saying so, deep down they think that what they believe really is true in some grand, all-prevailing sense whereas any contradictory beliefs are false. This attitude is what so easily enables many Christians to label Mormons or any other Christian sect whose beliefs they think aren't valid somehow as "not really Christians."

And atheism is without a doubt false because it hits at the essence of theism, deities.

That's just the sort of ignorant, gross over-generalization that every bigot relies on.

Excuse me? I what way is what I said ignorant or a gross over-generalization either one?

Please explain.

 

[Storm]

Excuse me? I what way is what I said ignorant or a gross over-generalization either one?

Please explain.

Well, gee. You know how others think better than they do themselves, well enough to know what they REALLY believe even when they won't admit it, and we all think alike.

 

[Prophet]

That seems obvious, but I don't see why you think that was happening at the Reason Rally. I'm assuming it was the Dawkins speech?

I apologize for allowing Richard Dawkins' hateful speech seep into my prejudices against the entire rally.

Calm, rational debate is of course preferable to petty insults or similar uncivil behavior. But if that degenerates into inane or absurd comments (like threats of hell, or an unending barrage of Bible quotes), as all too often it can, how can you respond honestly without making it clear how absurd it sounds? And that of course will be considered offensive no matter how politely said because of the fact that religion is considered by many as above criticism.

No one can force anyone to come down to their level. It really seems like you think there is no choice but to trade barbs when there is a clearly superior choice. You can attempt to fully understand their arguments, and proceed to pick their words apart rationally. If you've tried to get irrational people to acknowledge reason to no avail, there is the third choice which I exercise often here: Ignore them.

I agree, although like my previous assumption, I'm just guessing the 'scientific fundamentalist' here is Dawkins with the "Ridicule them!" statement as I can't honestly think of anyone else you could be referring to. If so, I disagree that he advocated any such thing.

My criticism of Dawkins is that I find bigots like him unreasonable. I regard his claims to reason as hypocrisy. I would be happy to destroy him or any other bigot in debate given the opportunity.

As recently as 5-10 years ago any criticism of religious doctrines, or religious figures, no matter how appalling they may have been was considered completely taboo, you just didn't do it, even among people who were non religious. I don't see any problem with not giving automatic respect to things just because they are labeled religious.

Very unlikely, however if those views were derived from a source that has taken automatic respect and reverence for granted, the lack of same shown by that kind of irreverence makes it pretty clear that those days are gone.

When I say to respect an argument, I am not saying to accept the argument as true. I am saying have the decency to understand an argument before you say "Wrong! It's this!" If the argument is, indeed, ignorant, understanding the ignorant argument would serve as a great advantage in debating against it.

I think that the lack of criticism the unsupportable claims religion makes has enjoyed over the years has done a lot of harm (papal infallibility for one, that myth has allowed much to go unchallenged that should have been). If it takes offending people to stop this from continuing, as much as I may find the idea distasteful, the alternative of keeping quiet as before seems absolutely reprehensible.

This is true of all authoritarian structures including both religion and government. All over the world, where ignorance is greatest, there you will find the world's most wicked authorities increasing their wealth and power by keeping their people in the dark.

 

[Nobody]

I apologize for allowing Richard Dawkins' hateful speech seep into my prejudices against the entire rally.

It's understandable, I have no doubt there are many things about religion (and the behavior of some religious people) that Dawkins does hate, as do I. When discussing something that incites as much emotion as religion does (whatever side you may be on) it is only natural to take some things personally, I know I do, we are only human after all.

No one can force anyone to come down to their level. It really seems like you think there is no choice but to trade barbs when there is a clearly superior choice. You can attempt to fully understand their arguments, and proceed to pick their words apart rationally. If you've tried to get irrational people to acknowledge reason to no avail, there is the third choice which I exercise often here: Ignore them.

That is a very good point, while no one can force me to sink to their level I personally have no problem doing so if it is in my interests to do so. It may not be nice, but then I don't claim to be. We evidently disagree about the superior choice, my opinion is that if someone refuses to acknowledge reason, ignoring them only allows their behavior to go unchallenged, which seems far worse to me than merely causing offense.

My criticism of Dawkins is that I find bigots like him unreasonable. I regard his claims to reason as hypocrisy. I would be happy to destroy him or any other bigot in debate given the opportunity.

I think you are wrong to consider him a bigot, if I thought that he was being unreasonable or advocating bigoted behavior (or mindset) I would be the first to call him on it. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on him.

When I say to respect an argument, I am not saying to accept the argument as true. I am saying have the decency to understand an argument before you say "Wrong! It's this!" If the argument is, indeed, ignorant, understanding the ignorant argument would serve as a great advantage in debating against it.

I agree to the sentiment, unfortunately some people seem to have the main focus of proving themselves correct at all costs rather than a desire to learn, it is only when dealing with that kind of person that reason inevitably fails. Only then would I consider sinking to their level.

This is true of all authoritarian structures including both religion and government. All over the world, where ignorance is greatest, there you will find the world's most wicked authorities increasing their wealth and power by keeping their people in the dark.

You are right, ignorance greatly helps these structures be so successful. I probably come across as unfairly picking on religion when there are non religious authoritarian ideologies too. The main difference, and biggest problem that I see between them is the fact that when labeled religious, it is then automatically given credibility and respect which is wholly unwarranted.

 

[Caladan]

I've often seen it asked of atheists and anti-theists why they care about religions they consider nonsense. It's a fair question, what difference does it make to me what the religious believe? Why not mind my own business? I’d like to know why others hold a similar position, or an opposite one for that matter. I have many reasons I could give for being anti-theist, far too many, but this post will be too long anyway (apologies). Here is the main one.

Extremism.

So your method for dealing with the extremists is not to reinforce the moderate or mainstream line of a religion (or culture) but to brand it all as extremism?
That's quite a simple solution, doesn't take much effort either, I believe.

 

[HerDotness]

Originally Posted by waitasec
aren't all theists anti-atheist?

I think so, because even though some people sidestep saying so, deep down they think that what they believe really is true in some grand, all-prevailing sense whereas any contradictory beliefs are false. This attitude is what so easily enables many Christians to label Mormons or any other Christian sect whose beliefs they think aren't valid somehow as "not really Christians."

And atheism is without a doubt false because it hits at the essence of theism, deities.

Oh, come on, Storm! You know as well as I do that most Christian denominations but for the quite liberal ones claim that theirs is the only true Christianity which is what gives rise to labeling other Christians "not real Christians." The same thing holds true for all non-Christian religions; they're false by default.

Thus, it stands to reason that anyone claiming their theism to be absolutely true is an anti-atheist since atheists unquestionably hold to falsehood by denying deities.

The "deep down" reference meant that if you don't believe there's truth to whatever your beliefs are, why would you even hold to them at all unless you're a hypocrite who only belongs to a church for the social advantages?

This whole attempt to find bias and bigotry in what I said is one massive tempest in a teapot.

 

[Nobody]

So your method for dealing with the extremists is not to reinforce the moderate or mainstream line of a religion (or culture) but to brand it all as extremism?
That's quite a simple solution, doesn't take much effort either, I believe.

I didn't brand all religion as extremism. In my OP I went on to make the point about how extremism is enabled, however unwillingly by the moderates through a combination of group identity and the untouchable status religion/scripture seems to expect.

Reinforcing the 'moderate or mainstream line' is inconsequential IMO.

 

[HerDotness]

In my OP I went on to make the point about how extremism is enabled, however unwillingly by the moderates through a combination of group identity and the untouchable status religion/scripture seems to expect.

Reinforcing the 'moderate or mainstream line' is inconsequential IMO.

I agree.

I can't speak for the use of scriptures in religions other than Christianity, because I have little experience with how members of non-Christian faiths regard and use their scriptures to support truth claims.

However, I've seen any number of instances of Christians excusing themselves from having to do what parts of their scriptures demand because--

"Jesus's sacrifice superseded all the OT laws, so those no longer apply." (Except for the parts we consider useful such as the Ten Commandments or those that condemn homosexuality.)

"Well, the rules on how masters were to treat their slaves reflect the fact that people had slaves in biblical times and needed rules for relating to them properly. That doesn't mean that God thought slavery was a good thing." (Funny how God's Word if it's really that would seem to be the perfect place to say, "Slavery is wrong. Don't do it.")

"This part of the Bible is allegorical or metaphorical. We aren't expected to take it literally." (And we know this part is metaphorical and others aren't just how?)

"Paul was talking about Christian women who were trying to one-up one another with their fashionable clothing and gold jewelry. He didn't really mean women shouldn't dress attractively and wear jewelry if they want to."

Any number of excuses, and yet, the claim is still made that the Bible is the Word of God. What the hey does that mean????

When people refuse to excise the portions of their scripture that condone violent behavior or other things such as slavery that are considered wrong today and focus only upon the parts that are useful to them, they're quietly enabling those who justify violence by means of scripture.

 

[Nobody]

When people refuse to excise the portions of their scripture that condone violent behavior or other things such as slavery that are considered wrong today and focus only upon the parts that are useful to them, they're quietly enabling those who justify violence by means of scripture.

:yes:
This is the exact point I tried to make. Thank you for stating it clearer (and briefer) than I managed to do.

 

[HerDotness]

Which is not to say that some nutcase won't find some passage to justify whatever violent act is being considered. We can't conceive of every possible misuse of scripture obviously nor should we be expected to do so.

However, what's the underlying message in a deity's destroying entire cities of innocent people because their rulers are corrupt? What's the subtext when God sent that series of plagues upon the Egyptians because Pharoah wouldn't let the Israelites leave? Are we supposed to think that the ordinary Egyptian citizen should have stormed the palace and demanded that Pharoah relent, so everyone in the country deserved to be plagued, too?

There are scores of tales of God's incredible violence, excused away by "God is perfect and therefore just in whatever He does, so he must have had a very good reason for what seems to us to be unreasonable violence."

When are we going to figure out that the Bible is a collection of the thinking of some very primitive people? That it is is why we ignore so much of what it says.

 

[HerDotness]

Interestingly, Thomas Jefferson was considered an atheist by a good many people once it became known that Jefferson had chopped up the Gospels and eliminated all the supernatural elements, miracles included, from the accounts of Jesus's life and deeds.

The end result, today titled The Jefferson Bible, Jefferson intended as a guide to living that people might actually follow.

He left in a lot of things that I myself would have omitted, but times have changed markedly. Were Jefferson alive today, I expect once he saw how very much of the Bible has been shown by science to be the attempts of ignorant people to explain why certain natural phenomena occur, he would remove still more from his Bible.

 

[Caladan]

I didn't brand all religion as extremism. In my OP I went on to make the point about how extremism is enabled, however unwillingly by the moderates through a combination of group identity and the untouchable status religion/scripture seems to expect.

In other words you do enforce a generalization as if all people who have affinity to a religion are related to other fringe groups or even individuals of the same general faith.
So a Sufi poet enables a wrong interpretation of Jihad, Francis of Assisi becomes a crusader, and Spinoza is somehow promoting ultra orthodox Judaism.
By all means criticize religious issues, we all do. Just don't lecture people that they enable things which are out of their control or that they supposedly share a group mentality with people they probably have nothing to do with.

Reinforcing the 'moderate or mainstream line' is inconsequential IMO.

Because generalizations and simplistic agendas are so much easier. By all means brush away everything which may be related to theism or religion in some way, just don't expect all people to find that approach constructive or enlightening.
Religion is not above criticism, but unfortunately not all people have the patience to understand what they are ridiculing. I used to label myself as Atheist on this forum, but I have to say that it's this uneducated and shallow attitude towards scriptures, cultural traits, or any constructive discussion of religious issues which made me choose a better label for the time being.

I have a good case study for you. Do you think Reza Aslan enables extremism? do you think other scholars who discuss and teach religion are somehow part of a monolithic group mentality which should be a usual suspect?

 

[HerDotness]

In other words you do enforce a generalization as if all people who have affinity to a religion are related to other fringe groups or even individuals of the same general faith.

No, that's not at all what Nobody is saying. You're extending her point to include all believers in a particular faith when she clearly states:

In my OP I went on to make the point about how extremism is enabled, however unwillingly by the moderates through a combination of group identity and the untouchable status religion/scripture seems to expect.

Just don't lecture people that they enable things which are out of their control or that they supposedly share a group mentality with people they probably have nothing to do with.

Again, you misunderstand. Nobody is saying, as am I, that we think that the emphasis upon group identity (which is nowhere near synonymous with group mentality) and the "off-limits to criticism" attitude regarding religion and scripture combine to make people more complacent than is prudent.

uneducated and shallow attitude towards scriptures, cultural traits, or any constructive discussion of religious issues

Wow! How about telling us what you really think of Nobody?

I get it...All atheists are ignorant about religion. Disdain for what atheists regard as fantasy is a "shallow attitude." It's not constructive to think and say that all religion is based upon imaginary concepts.

The bottom line is "Shut up! Religion is off limits to your criticisms."

 

[Caladan]

No, that's not at all what Nobody is saying. You're extending her point to include all believers in a particular faith when she clearly states:

This seems to be exactly what she is saying here:

"In my OP I went on to make the point about how extremism is enabled, however unwillingly by the moderates through a combination of group identity and the untouchable status religion/scripture seems to expect."

It seems that the extremists and the moderates are of the same group identity, which is of course ridiculous.

Again, you misunderstand. Nobody is saying, as am I, that we think that the emphasis upon group identity (which is nowhere near synonymous with group mentality) and the "off-limits to criticism" attitude regarding scripture combine to make people more complacent than is prudent.

What group identity? do you actually believe that all people who are part of a religion or a culture share an absolute group identity with everyone in the same expanded religious/cultural umbrella?

Wow! How about telling us what you really think of Nobody?

I get it...All atheists are ignorant about religion. Disdain for what atheists regard as fantasy is a "shallow attitude." It's not constructive to think and say that all religion is based upon imaginary concepts.

Spare me the drama. I am an atheist myself. Long standing members on this forum know I have no beliefs in the supernatural or in miracles.

The bottom line is "Shut up! Religion is off limits to your criticisms."

In other words you try to silence a counter opinion with this drama. Not going to work. Throwing moderates and extremists into the same 'group identity' is uneducated and harmful and there is no surprise that it's being criticised.

 

[HerDotness]

Group identity means that people feel a shared sense of belonging with others in that group. It doesn't mean that everyone in the group values the beliefs of that religious group equally or that the group thinks alike.

Group mentality implies the latter--that everyone in the group thinks alike and often carries the connotation of a lockstep, unthinking adherence to ideas.

Do forgive my not having been on the forum long enough to know that you're an atheist yourself. How about simply stating that without "Spare me the drama," such a helpful, gracious way to explain that you think I'm overreacting. Granted, it was an assumption on my part that you meant atheists in general tend to be so ignorant about religion, etc., and I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions.

However, it serves a more useful purpose to point out WHY you think Nobody's ideas don't have merit than to label her uneducated, shallow and then to add that you don't identify yourself as an atheist because you prefer a "better label." Gee, thanks. Nothing like damning with faint praise.

And no, I wasn't suggesting that you should be silenced. That you appeared to be squelching atheistic dissent was the reference.

 

[Caladan]

Group identity means that people feel a shared sense of belonging with others in that group. It doesn't mean that everyone in the group values the beliefs of that religious group equally or that the group thinks alike.

What group identity? I have more in common with a Palestinian from Ramallah than I have with many Haredi Jews in Mea Shearim.

Group mentality implies the latter--that everyone in the group thinks alike and often carries the connotation of a lockstep, unthinking adherence to ideas.

Scratch 'group mentality' from my post and change it with 'group identity'.

However, it serves a more useful purpose to point out WHY you think Nobody's ideas don't have merit than to label her uneducated, shallow and then to add that you don't identify yourself as an atheist because you prefer a "better label." Gee, thanks. Nothing like damning with faint praise.

Nowhere did I say that 'Nobody is uneducated'. Also it doesn't help anyone that you don't let Nobody defend her own posts, I am not inpressed by Knights in shining armour. Your posts here seem self righteous, and I wish you let Nobody answer here own posts instead of jumping to the rescue in full body armour.

And no, I wasn't suggesting that you should be silenced. That you appeared to be squelching atheistic dissent was the reference.

Make the distinction. I have no problem with atheism, to claim that because I disagree with the simplistic notion that all members of some cosmic group are enablers of extremism is anti-atheist is absurd.

 

[HerDotness]

What group identity? I have more in common with a Palestinian from Ramallah than I have with many Haredi Jews in Mea Shearim.

I said "FEEL" a sense of belonging with others in the group. If you don't feel that, then you don't share a group identity to as great an extent as do others. Group identity refers to general characteristics of the group not to the extent to which individuals accept as their own any of those characteristics.

Nowhere did I say that 'Nobody is uneducated'.

Then what was your reference with that about being uneducated and having a shallow attitude? If I misunderstood, I'll gladly apologize.

Also it doesn't help anyone that you don't let Nobody defend her own posts, I am not inpressed by Knights in shining armour. Your posts here seem self righteous

Thanks. I'll take that criticism to heart. (Do note the marked insincerity which words on a screen are unable to convey sufficiently.)

I wish you let Nobody answer here own posts instead of jumping to the rescue in full body armour.

You're entitled to think that. I'm entitled to disregard your attempts to restrict who may or may not choose to express agreement with and support for another's ideas.