Religious Insensitivity

[sealchan]

I get it, and I understand that civil dialog tends to be more acceptable all around, however I do feel there is a time and place for ridicule, as bad as some may think that sounds.

I submit, in support of this idea, this snippet of a conversation between Sam Harris and some Jewish religious types, that perfectly demonstrates exactly the mind-set I am supporting, and interpretation of reactions to outlandish ideas that I am talking about:

Relevant bit starts around 2:35, but the lead-in is good for context.

Summation: NOBODY who doesn't believe him feels sympathy for the guy who still believes Elvis is alive.

Yes, we need to recognize that such beliefs have a limited, objective scope.

However, in the worlds religions I think that we have something more sophisticated than a belief that Elvis is still alive. What we have are works of literature which present a Mt Everest or a Grand Canyon like epic amount of meaningful metaphor and story that serves as a reservoir of hope and inspiration to millions of people and is supported within appreciative communities.

This is why we dont laugh or barely or poorly conceal our laughter in the case of recognized religious beliefs.

I would argue, however, that many beliefs are harmful to human culture or have been deployed out of a personal sphere and into a public sphere in a harmful way. But we cannot expect to eliminate belief or the power it has over our sense of meaning or inspiration to act. Rather we need to re-grow and re-educate such harmful beliefs.

To do so we need to educate everyone in the methods and discoveries of science especially that science which one can personally appreciate the benefits of so that one has a direct appreciation of science.

But we also need to educate everyone in the methods and benefits of story and art. In this way we can encourage the next memes to be those that integrate our need both for proven fact as well as helpful fiction and keep ourselves aware of our Universe as well as motivated to undertake the challenges that we face in that Universe.

 

[dybmh]

You address me by my prefered pronouns

 

[Road Warrior]

Even if you postulate, 'evolution did it!', wrt morality, it is still not a Real Thing, but a manipulation, to produce a desired behavior.. by a human controller with an agenda. It is still a delusion, in a godless universe. Morality is only a human construct, for control and manipulation, even if you speculate positive evolutionary benefits.

It can only be a Real Thing, if an Embedder actually put morality into His creation.

There used to be a computer game called “Life” when computers first came out. In many ways it was like the game of “Go”. There are rules and, playing within the rules opened up a wealth of possibilities. Same with music; there are just so many sounds that the human ear can hear but the combination of notes, instruments and other factors are endless.

IF there is a Creator, then I’m more inclined to the Deist approach of a Watchmaker God: the Universe is set up and then turned loose to see how it all works out. That said, morality is relative and changes, but some work and some do not. Like evolution, some will live and some will die out.

 

[usfan]

I, for one, think that religion doesn't give me my morality, but it gives me hope, more of the Yang I need in my inner Yin-Yang.

IMO, 'religion', or indoctrinated beliefs, CAN preempt or negate the inner 'sense' of morality, as embedded by God. This is how you get terrorists and ideologues to commit heinous acts, with no sting of conscience. The Germans were a moral people, but went along with Hitler's genocide for the Greater Good.. or at least the Master Race belief.

But one not need believe in God to 'feel' the conviction of morality, or the sting of conscience when violating that morality. The Enlightenment philosophers called this 'Natural Law,' and it was recognized as being 'self evident.'

Paul spoke of this too:

Rom2:14
Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I start to see life as one huge written Role-Playing Game. The people of religion seem to have more supernatural-involved backstories to me. The people not of religion may have less supernatural-involved backstory in some senses, but a greater chance at character development. Both have hero and villain characters, and many heroes and villians aren't black and white, rather following DnD classification such as Chaotic Neutral and many others.

 

[dybmh]

@Road Warrior & @usfan ,

I agree that people have an inborn simple morality not to harm others.

The evidence that I think is most profound is in the medical definition of a sociopath:

Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental condition in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others (source) .

Because a sociopath is determined to have a disorder, and it is recognized outside of a religious context, is that evidence supporting an inborn, simple morality not to harm others?

 

[dybmh]

I start to see life as one huge written Role-Playing Game. The people of religion seem to have more supernatural-involved backstories to me. The people not of religion may have less supernatural-involved backstory in some senses, but a greater chance at character development. Both have hero and villain characters, and many heroes and villians aren't black and white, rather following DnD classification such as Chaotic Neutral and many others.

Gurps... are you familiar with Gurps?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Gurps... are you familiar with Gurps?

Only a little. I'll still write you in as having 15 ST, though.

 

[usfan]

Being a Christian under pressure is the true test of whether we are real Christians or just pretending to be.

I like everything you said in this post, and just add a qualifier to this one:

The RESULTS of this pressure are not universally equivalent. People fail, people succeed victoriously. Failure is not an indicator of pretense.

I would argue, however, that many beliefs are harmful to human culture or have been deployed out of a personal sphere and into a public sphere in a harmful way.

And who decides 'harmful?' Goebbels? Pol Pot? Ghandi?

Isn't EVERY belief of humanity 'deployed out of a personal sphere?'

To do so we need to educate everyone in the methods and discoveries of science

Ah, yes. Indoctrinate homogeneity of belief, so there is no dissension. That is the historical human way. We get along better if we all believe alike. Mandated conformity is much easier than freedom of conscience.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It is an effective tactic to demean a competing worldview..

You cannot compare (but many atheists do..) a belief in God, which has thousands of years of precedence, overwhelming personal and circumstantial evidence.. and is The Historical human consensus, with deliberate fabrications or delusion.

But I did, and will continue to do so, because there are correlating factors that can be drawn - as I mentioned, caliber of evidence, ability to actually "know" facts about the thing, etc.

You lack information to make that judgment. It is a belief, only.

I would concede this, you are right, and it was hyperbolic of me to say "nobody."

..yes, that is how religious bigotry expresses itself.. increasing intolerance for alternate beliefs.
..and this evil subset of humanity smears, by association, ALL of Christianity?

It is those beliefs that attempt to alter the world without proper inter-subjectively verifiable justification or evidence that are the problem. Everyone agrees that "gravity" is operating on our world, we can demonstrate its effects, and come to logical conclusions as to how to use it or get around the limitations it puts on us. The same cannot, in any way be said for any religious belief that is attributed to a person because "God told me it was so." To even try to get there is ridiculous.

Are no atheists or Muslims or Buddhists 'rotten & destructive!!?'

Yes, they are... and I may be one of them. I never said that atheists were guilt free. In fact I have stated that no atheist represents or speaks for another unless they are making the simple statement "I do not believe in god."

By what standards of morality do you condemn Christianity, yet exclude others?

I don't make a point to exclude others. Christianity is the majority view in the area I live in and the one whose adherents attempt to change public opinion or legislation. The views of Christianity are the ones that most affect my life directly, and so I have familiarized myself enough with them to understand its strengths and weaknesses, and criticize or raise objection with those things I find objectionable in its doctrine or practice. What else would you have me do? It affects my life in what I feel are negative ways, and so I push back. You do the same toward atheism... do you see me questioning you why you do it??? No! I stick to the facts, and challenge the doctrine and beliefs, and defend my side of the argument as best I can.

5. Christianity is religion! Atheism is science!

Has anyone actually ever said to you that "atheism is science?" If they have, then they need to hit the books and read up a bit more. This statement couldn't be much more incorrect if you also threw in there the idea that it is healthy to eat human feces.

6. Religious bigotry and ridicule is ok for atheists, since we're not religious!

I would never say this. You're free to ridicule me all you want... and in fact you have! You, however, are the one who is hypocritical about it. I at least ridicule and expect to be ridiculed. You ridicule and then expect everyone to bathe your feet for you.

No, because NOBODY has that. We have beliefs.. religio/philosophical opinions. That is all. You have no more 'empirical facts!' for your ideological worldview than anyone else.

This is a strange statement. How would "atheism" have any "facts"? Can you even answer that? Atheism is not believing in god(s), that's it. Something I am sure you have been told 1,000+ times. There are no "facts" that come with it. The "facts" you're talking about exist in actual disciplines and practices like physics, geology, archaeology, etc. and are COMPLETELY UNRELATED to atheism. Completely unrelated. Many of those things, are, however, related to religious beliefs because religions tend to make all sorts of claims that cross over all of those areas. Atheism makes NO CLAIM.

You can believe whatever you want, about the nature of the universe. Nobody is forcing you to believe anything.

But they would like to - and this is one of the big problems.

Your intolerance of Christianity is a personal beef, and is nothing but old fashioned religious bigotry.

Attempts to sway legislative bodies using the "opinions of God" that cannot be verified is not simply something I have a "beef" with.

There is plenty of evidence for God. It is not empirical, or subject to laboratory analysis, but it is there, for the sincere seeker of Truth.

And here you are, displaying one of the other things I take issue with... stating that your belief is "Truth.
" It's such a joke. I don't claim to know "The Truth." But you obviously (SO obviously) do. And that displays such an ignorance of what can even constitute or qualify as "truth."

But, there is no evidence for the 'no God!' belief, either.

I just don't believe YOUR claim - I make no claim that there is no god. I don't know if there is a god or there is no god. And I don't know for very good reasons. Reason being one of them.

Everybody gotta believe something.

This is ENTIRELY TRUE! See... here's an example of something that is completely, 10% true. Everyone has to believe something is reality. It just so happens that I restrict what I believe in to what has evidenced itself to be reliably consistent, reproducible, inter-subjectively verifiable and tangible, detectable or measurable.

Everyone has to do their own believing, and their own dying.

And what does "dying" have to do with anything? And here is where I detect the disingenuous nature of believers creeping into this dialogue. The only reason you would bring this into the conversation, that I can think of, is to make people evaluate their "options" upon death - with your preferred narrative on that on the tip of your tongue for anyone who wants to ask you, I am sure. What other reason could there possibly be? And you wonder why you get ridiculed.

 

[dybmh]

Only a little. I'll still write you in as having 15 ST, though.

Alignment True-Neutral.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You address me by my prefered pronouns

Which are? How about I just call you "The?"

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Alignment True-Neutral.

Lucky.

Chaotic Neutral here.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

And you wonder why you get ridiculed.

90% of the time, people get ridiculed due to misunderstanding.

 

[sealchan]

I like everything you said in this post, and just add a qualifier to this one:

The RESULTS of this pressure are not universally equivalent. People fail, people succeed victoriously. Failure is not an indicator of pretense.

And who decides 'harmful?' Goebbels? Pol Pot? Ghandi?

Isn't EVERY belief of humanity 'deployed out of a personal sphere?'

Ah, yes. Indoctrinate homogeneity of belief, so there is no dissension. That is the historical human way. We get along better if we all believe alike. Mandated conformity is much easier than freedom of conscience.

Hopefully we the people will decide what is harmful.

If everyone wants their various medications and computers to work with everyone else then I think we have grounds to want some homogeneity.

 

[Road Warrior]

Which are? How about I just call you "The?"

LOL. When I was in the Navy I was nicknamed “The Divine Wind” but they usually shortened it to Divine.

 

[dybmh]

LOL. When I was in the Navy I was nicknamed “The Divine Wind” but they usually shortened it to Divine.

Are you sure it wasn't Bovine Wind? Shortened to Bovine.

 

[Road Warrior]

Are you sure it wasn't Bovine Wind? Shortened to Bovine.

Maybe now....over 20 years later.

 

[dybmh]

Maybe now....over 20 years later.

There's a country song in there somewhere...

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What I am advocating for is restraint and limits on ridicule.

I think people should be free to monitor themselves based on the feedback they are getting, and whether it matched the results they are hoping for. So, by definition, I don't advocate for any specific limits.

It is absurd to try to prove that God exists without evidence.
It is not absurd to believe in God.

I would say it is absurd to expect any others to believe in God. That is what is absurd, and that is precisely what I respond to much of the time. Someone who is offering their thoughts on God as a way of either trying to convince anyone else, or stating it as if it simply some universal "truth" - which many times comes along with the idea that people "don't have the authority to question" - which is just insane.

It is absurd to believe in Mother Goose.

Bigfoot... well.... in 2014 a lot of people believed in Bigfoot.. (source). So, maybe it's not absurd.

It doesn't make something magically "not absurd" just because a bunch of people believe something. Even if you are surrounded by people who believe and act the same as you are, YOU, individually, are responsible for your mental meanderings and actions. Just ask the Nazi soldiers during World War 2 who were "just following orders" and doing like their fellow soldiers around them.

Do you see the difference?

Does my above paragraph make you realize more why there is very little difference?

If someone makes an absurd claim, then, OK, this is an internet forum, ridicule should be at least expected. I grant that.

And this is what I am targeting - specific claims that things are known that cannot possibly be known, and for which the explanation for "why" they are known is either not up for discussion or turns out to be terribly inadequate once it is discussed.

But I do see people being ridiculed because of who they are, what they believe, and ( by your own admission ) how fervently they hold their beliefs.

Things that people can't help about themselves are not up for ridicule. These include things like skin-color, tone of voice, sexual orientation, etc. Everything else is fair game.

And as for your apparent hang-up about fervency of belief, it is, most certainly, the person who expresses their unprovable ideas with a sense of humility and trepidation - who well understands that they cannot have 100% certainty about such things that will always get more respect immediately from me. As soon as belief of the kind we have been discussing is taken to the 100% certainty level - they've overstepped their bounds, and I might stray into ridiculing their immediate claims, and anything else they bring to the table that does not sufficiently demonstrate the truth and bring with it a reason to maintain 100% certainty.

Ridiculing the claim made, is fair play. Ridiculing based on a person's devotion to their beliefs, is not fair play.

I will, most certainly, continually ask a person how they can be so certain. And with that may come a certain tone, or words of some disparagement if such action is kept up. The belief is always fair game. The person themselves and attributes of them are not, but the fervency of belief is, I feel, part and parcel of the belief, not the person. But perhaps you might further convince me that this is not the case.

This is very interesting... "unrelated tibdits of nonsense" I don't want to dig too deeply into this. But in order to accurately qualify non-sense a person needs to be much much smarter than the other person. The person who claims non-sense is not accepting any modicum of ignorance on the matter.

I see what you mean, but I think you know the kind of post I am talking about, and a lot of times, it is proved to be nonsense because the person ends up being completely unwilling to back up anything they are saying, or makes statements like "just do the research, and you will see for yourself." There are tell-tale signs that someone is being completely dishonest or is displaying such lengths of backward thinking that you almost don't even want to bother for fear that they are going to just try taking you down rabbit-hole after rabbit-hole.

The claim of non-sense is virtually worthless in a debate. All it means is that it doesn't make sense to the individual making the claim. I argued this point here: (link)

Again, there are cases where the person in question is completely baseless and can't prove a darn thing to save their lives. I could point you to a few if you want - would just have to find the threads. One was a guy who claimed to be the "founder of Anonymous" - the internet group that supposedly exists as a subversive group of hackers. He claimed he was an amazing programmer who worked on government projects for producing amazing AI. He gave some programming examples in some of his documentation. He was using line-by-line brute force pixel-setting to draw graphics, and that was his "proof" that he had extensive programming experience. I am not joking. Another was a recent claim by a poster who claimed that atheism was a symptom of a "Deteriorated" mind. As proof he linked me to an article about some research that was done to discern the effects of air-pollution on the cognitive abilities of mice.

It's actually a very interesting thread because in it, there are several examples of ridicule. Some of it in my opinion is fair play, because absurd unsupported claims are made. And some of the ridicule is completely unwarranted, IMHO.

I'll check it out. And yeah - I would never argue that any or all forms of ridicule are okay. That simply isn't the case.

OK. I want to highlight this: "exhibit signals that they believe themselves superior"

"exhibit signals" this is where I think, respectfully, an insult is not warranted. An insult is not warranted when someone exhibits a signal that they are going to be offensive. I think ridicule is not warranted until the person actually makes the absurd claim.

It is obviously going to be a case by case basis, and judgment call, and subject to emotion and levels of frustration, etc. There isn't exactly a "formula" I go by or prescribe that anyone adhere to - that's just not realistic. And a lot of times it is hard to quantify in language what exactly I'm talking about. So "signals that they believe themselves superior" covers a broad range of terribly ridiculous behaviors and posturing that I have seen in the past, and isn't necessarily, itself, the "most accurate" representation of what I have seen/experienced. Some of the posturing is in direct insult to huge swaths of humanity from someone who has proven over the course of the discussion that they don't even accept the actual facts of the situation but are hell-bent on sticking to their caricature, for example, which is just ludicrous.

I know the sort of person, the sort of mindset, you are speaking about. And, in my experience, given enough rope, these people hang themselves ( ahem... figuratively ). So it's better to take the high road and wait it out. Let the person make the absurd claim. Then, by all means, pile on.

I gotcha... and this is basically just what I am talking about also when I say something like "ridicule is a useful social tool" - I am not saying that it is always necessary, or is a "go to" - but it is just one of those things you can reach for to try and let someone know that they have struck a boundary, and need to back off or risk having the other person try and make them look even more foolish.

Look, I sound like a bible-thumping lunatic sometimes... but I'm not. I give off signals that I believe I am superior... but I don't believe that.

I know what you mean - and I am sure I sound that way a lot also... but I don't believe that either. Truly, I believe that I am objectively no more important in the universe than a stone.

And honestly... it's hypocritical to object to one person who "exhibits signals that they believe themselves superior" and at the same behave superior by calling their beliefs non-sense.

But this is where I think a lot of assumption is being inserted. I don't have a "belief" that I believe is superior. That's not what it is about. I believe in the impossibility of knowing the full truth of these sorts of things, and so anyone who says they do know displaying poor form... unless, that is, they have the goods to back it up. So, if anything, I advocate for adopting NO position in lieu of adequate knowledge on the subject. If you want to call that "no position" as me thinking that "no position" is "superior" - have at it. I do feel it is superior to claiming knowledge you can't possibly have certainty about, but I don't believe myself "superior" for holding no position. If anything, I understand it as a shortcoming of sorts. I am just simply unwilling to accept "answers" for the holes in my knowledge that don't have sufficient warrant/evidence/demonstrability. And anything I "believe" I readily admit is only a belief that has almost no actual certainty behind it.

Also, regarding the times when people disappear and do not answer or take the heat...

My friend, you don't have to look very far back in time to see that this happened to me in the Slavery thread. Virtually no one admits when they are wrong on this forum. When they stop replying, that is conceding the point.

I don't agree with this approach. I absolutely admit when i am wrong in a debate. I apologize. I take the heat. I have made some bone-head blunders. And I have admitted it when it happens.

This is the tack I take also... there are times I have literally just stated "That is a completely fair point, and I concede."

Hostility. Pre-emptive hostility based on the subjective determination that some one is "signaling" that they are going to start preaching.

I am probably guilty of this, I admit. And it is because the posturing that starts to let you know that's where someone is going is usually accompanied by one or more insults to (again) large swaths of humanity. In those cases, I feel the first punch has already been thrown. If someone is willing to take the conversation to that level right off the bat, then I can ONLY surmise that they think those kind of tactics fair game, and so I feel free to respond in kind.

Hypocrisy. Objecting to one person behaving in a superior manner while at the same time behaving in a superior manner. Objecting to a lack of intellectual integrity while at the same time lacking intellectual integrity. Etc...

Both non-believers and believers exhibit hostility and hypocrisy.

I think that we agree on this.

We do. And I don't fear admitting that I am guilty of it myself from time to time. There was one thread quite recently that I ended up realizing that I was being a complete jerk-off in, and I sort of (barely) eeked out a final point to finish it off, and parted with my opponent on fair terms... but it was not one of my finer moments by a long shot.