we all gather, draw straws, and dress whoever gets the short one up as Jesus Christ and repeatedly kick him in the crotch, we’ve sent memo’s, we must have gotten your address wrong…

I can only speak for myself of course, but I celebrate whenever a new fossil is dug up, and when I learn something new about our planet and the life on it, and when I hear about a new planet being discovered, and when science is embraced and loved by kids (as cheesy and cliché as that may be. I loved working at COSI and helping my nephew with his homework) and when logic and reason are used instead of superstition and fear.

It’s all about the little things.

Your question assumes that there is something organized about atheism. I don’t know atheists who “hate on” religion; most atheists have simply substituted something that works better for them to fill the needs that religion fills for others.

My atheism isn’t contentious, anti-spiritual or ideological; I just have never believed in a Creator, or seen the necessity to believe in one, and the universe makes sense to me in the absence of a supernatural being and I don’t need to add one for myself in order for it to make sense.

I tend to view things empirically, so if a burning bush appeared to me and instructed me that I have been incorrect all these years, I would readjust.

Just because you associate atheism with hating on religion doesn’t mean they are associated. @MrMeltedCrayon, you’re awesome and I agree with you completely.

Also, it’s atheism

Personally, I don’t hate religion. I just try to figure out how it is useful to people and what can make people invest so much into certain stories for which there is no duplicatable evidence.

I suppose one might hate religion if one thought that could help bring religious people to see reality a bit more clearly. Or one might act as if one hates it if one wanted to pick a fight, assuming that a fight might make you feel more sure of yourself. Similarly, one might pick a fight just to show other people on your side that you are all on the same side.

But really, there is nothing to atheism, because there is no there there. It’s just a word that people use to try to explain a perceived opposition to religious beliefs. The only reason a non-believer has to “hate on” religion is if the religion has hurt them in some way. Many religions do hurt individuals by ostracizing them if they don’t act like they believe what everyone else believes. Religions can hurt people in general if they make people behave in ways that are harmful—such as believing in things that make them stop trying to learn more.

The question is like asking, “is there anything to not-believing-in-fairies besides hating on believing in fairies?”

Strictly speaking, atheism is just lack of belief in gods. That’s it. As religions claim gods exist, atheism is “opposed” to religion, but “hate” is probably pretty strong. Atheism isn’t a belief, it’s a lack of a certain kind of belief. I’m not sure how one would get celebrations from a lack of belief (do you celebrate your lack of belief in fairies?)

Now, many atheists are also secular humanists and fans of science, so yeah, there’s plenty of stuff to celebrate there. But that comes from a positive philosophy/ideology (humanism/science), not a lack of a belief.

when I looked at this q, I thought it was some random stupid new user or something who isn’t very bright…then I saw that it was you @kevbo and was really surprised…generally you are capable of seeing many layers of something…many atheists don’t give two craps about hating or not hating on religion…and there is plenty to celebrate…I for one celebrate that I don’t have a dependence on a book, a being, an afterlife, etc…need I say more? I am free

I see there being basically two groups of atheists, the evangelicals , whose mission it is to tell the world how ridiculous and what a waste of time religion is; and the more quiet atheists who believe that there is no greater power, but leave it at that and don’t preach the Gospel of Atheism. In this question @kevbo is obviously referring to the former. Viewed from that perspective I think this is a good question. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is spreading his opinion because he believes that religion is dangerous – he isn’t sending a message of hate for the sack of hatred, which I see some atheists (and of course many of the faithful) doing on a regular basis.

I love the sentiment of @MrMeltedCrayon‘s answer to this. I like the idea of atheists who believe the world is an entity that grows, regenerates, and regulates itself and celebrate scientific strides that help us understand the mechanisms by which that happens. It is difficult in to celebrate something you don’t believe is there, but celebrating the achievements of science and our knowledge are a great place to start.

Oh, come on. Atheism is a belief that there is no god. I don’t “celebrate” that anymore than I celebrate my belief that vanilla ice cream is more delicious than chocolate.

What a totally offensive question. Not all atheists hate on religion and assuming that they do is just another instance of someone being bigoted and ignorant. You know better than that, Kev.

I’m not making assumptions. I’m asking a question based on my limited understanding, and I appreciate the enlightening answers that have been given, especially @SuperMouse ‘s.

If that is stupid, ignorant or bigoted, so be it.

@pdworkin, there are a few organized things about athiesm such as a designated military gravestone icon (as opposed to a cross or Star of David) and radio shows on the topic, but I understand what you are saying.

I don’t mean to sound belligerent here, but some of these responses seem to be coming from a rather defensive place. Of course the majority of atheists are not like this, but the fact remains that there are many atheists who come across as hateful as the religious right. This group preaches the same type of intolerance they lambaste other zealots for. To make matters worse, many of these people see themselves as intellectually superior to those weak enough to believe in a higher power. It is this small group of arrogant non-believers that I believe @kevbo is referring to. Anyone who tries to say these people are not out there is as ignorant as someone trying to say there is no wacky religious right. Might some of the responses attacking the question and the questioner be a way of avoiding answering the question as posited?

@SuperMouse: Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree. If Kev had asked “Is there anything to being a white person other than hating on black people?” you would have had a lot of angry white people in here saying that they had been severely and offensively miscategorized.

There isn’t a good way to answer this question because the basic premise (that atheists hate religion) is flawed.

If the question is offensive, please flag it and I will edit it (assuming the mods agree).

@nikipedia he doesn’t say or even insinuate that all atheists hate religion. He is wondering out loud about the agenda of folks that put on shows such as the one he was watching. That’s where the defensiveness seems to come in here. You seem to be painting atheists and atheism with a much broader brush than @kevbo. To my mind, @MrMeltedCrayon came up with a great way to answer this question.

Would the question have been more palatable to you if he had written:

What do organized groups of atheists celebrate?

It’s the belief that:
This life is all you get. Make it count.
There’s nobody out there taking care of you.
You are responsible for your own actions.

Yes. I don’t hate religion, I just can’t believe in it and I find many people use it as an excuse for inhumane behavior. I don’t spend enough time thinking about religion to “hate on it”.

Yes—staying out of foxholes.

@SuperMouse, I don’t like equating atheist criticism of religion and the kind of intolerance preached by religious people.

When I think of religious intolerance, I think about religious people denying homosexuals and women rights, or saying that only religious people can hold public office. I don’t know any atheists—not even Hitchens or Dawkins—who are arguing that religious people should not have the same rights as atheists, or that religious people are not capable of holding public office. Maybe you know of some examples of this?

There is a huge difference between criticizing something and being intolerant of something. I’m one of the most outspoken “evangelical” atheists and I am not intolerant of religion. I think it’s important to keep this in mind, and avoid drawing false equivalencies.

Atheism is just the non-belief in a god. No more, no less. It’s not as if there is any agenda.

Re: @Qingu ‘s comment: Hence my gay analogy. Gays have been and are denied rights, etc, due to an imbalance of political power. Athiests also experience
that to some degree (if you’ll forgive my possibly neanderthalic assumptions), so it’s expected that they are going to defend themselves against religious agendas. But gays also have (to me) a visible culture and elements of identity that they celebrate. At the time I posed my question, the application of that latter aspect to athiesm was much less obvious. Granted, it appears to be nonsensical in the eyes of some participants here.

I celebrate giftmas. Does that count?

@Qingu there are absolutely atheists and agnostics that would not want a person of faith to hold public office.

Sure there is a difference between criticism and intolerance, but don’t they both boil down to one side thinking the other is wrong? Racism, intolerance, and hatred are preached by people of all stripes and they all come from the same place, ignorance. As a woman of faith I do not deny rights to homosexuals or women (as a matter of fact one of the basic tenets of the Bahá’í Faith is the equality of men and women) any more than I deny you the right to take the words “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance when you are reciting it. It seems that many people are inclined to paint lots of groups with the same broad brush.

To be honest, the question is so bias i don’t even think it merits a response.

To me, atheism means question everything. Think for myself. Be responsible for my own actions. That’s about it.

@airowDee I agree.

@Qingu . . .“I don’t like equating atheist criticism of religion and the kind of intolerance preached by religious people.”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA <gasp> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

fail

a lot of atheists simply don’t believe in god. not everyone treats atheism as a, well, religion, for lack of better word. haha.

@SuperMouse: Only marginally more palatable. It is still fundamentally missing the point of the word “atheism.” It is a belief some people hold, and what people choose to do with that belief varies widely.

And I have to very strongly disagree with your statement that he doesn’t insinuate that all atheists hate religion. The question asks if there’s anything else to atheism—this is asking about the very belief itself, not even asking about people who ascribe to it, organizations that support it, or as you suggest, a minority group of people holding this minority opinion in some organized way. Kev used the broadest stroke possible by saying “atheism” and I responded to that.

@SuperMouse, really? Name one.

@Blondesjon, are you going to actually make a counterargument? Or just annoying taunts? I actually bothered to support my claim why they aren’t equatable. How about you support yours.

@Qingu, part of the Freedom from Religion Foundation’s mission statement is try to stop the religious right from “raiding the public till.” Part of that mission certainly includes keeping conservative religious politicians out of office.

@nikipedia, so is your main issue with the way Kevbo stated the question, or with what you see as bias behind the question?

I’m surprised that I have taken up this end of the argument. I’m not atheist, but I agree with pretty much everything I read on the Freedom From Religion website – and I looked around over there for awhile!

No two atheists necessarily have anything in common to celebrate.

@SuperMouse: You got it—the bias is what really bothered me, and I think any effects on wording were secondary to that.

@Qingu . . .I think I’ll stick with the annoying taunts. It’s much better than the close minded, angry argument sure to ensue if I make an actual point. So, once again. . .

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. . .

@Blondesjon I am so glad you and the Mrs. got your computer issue taken care, it is good to have you both back full time!

@SuperMouse . . .it’s good to see that stuart little avatar as well sm

Atheism is not a religion.

Defending your positions is closed minded, and taunting isn’t?

These questions seem sort of fruitless to me. People with religious beliefs keep trying to imagine atheism as something like their beliefs. I.e., it is a belief.

But we’re identifying people by an absence, and then expecting all folks with that absence to have other common traits? That’s like asking do all people without a leg hate on the legged? Do all amorphous beings hate on beings with shape and form? Do all acephalic organizations hate all organizations with leaders?

It makes no sense to identify people as sharing something when what they share is a lack of something. Atheism is not an ideology. It doesn’t have tenets. Or dogma. Or rituals. There are few organizations of atheists, or rather, only a very small proportion of atheists participate in atheistic organizations.

A hole is defined as an absence. But it could be defined as a presence (of air, for example, or something that is different from that which surrounds it). However a hole in something could be filled with an infinite number of other things. You just can not characterize all holes by the traits of one hole. The absence of one thing in one case does not imply the presence of of the same thing filling all other absences.

A better question might be “why do those atheists on the radio show seem so bitter towards all religions?” Or, if you are really curious, you might ask atheists what they have playing a role in their lives that is similar to the role that religion plays in the lives of the religious. Then, of course, you have define some parameters regarding what you are talking about, since religions play so many different roles.

You could ask atheists “where do your ethics come from?” Or “how do you experience a sense of community?” Or “are there any rituals you engage in that connect you to a spirituality?” Science is about searching for commonalities, not trying to characterize absences.

If there is nothing, true nothing, then there is no thing there. That’s all. Nothing comes in all shapes and sizes. Nothing comes associated with billions of different things. Nothing could be anywhere, next to anything. There is nothing that is shared by all instances of nothing. Nothing may have no “instances” at all. All things may share the presence of nothingness between them, but there is no telling what will be next to nothing. Anything could be next to nothing.

You see? It’s gibberish. It sounds ridiculous. You simply can’t make nothing into a thing. The absence of a God does not imply the presence of anything else. To even begin to try to think of any commonality shared by a nothingness just turns your brain inside out. It makes no sense. Like a Kline bottle. The inside is the outside, and vice versa. There is nothing to atheism, because atheism is nothing. To try to say that nothing is something is, well, meaningless.

I think @kevbo has a point even though he expresses it somewhat impoliticly. There is not much in the way of fellowship or community, or much of anything you could call a positive program, among atheists. As a consequence, every atheist is pretty much on his own and therefore vulnerable to being picked off one by one by the temptations to selfishness, dilettantism, materialism and cruelty which abound in our culture.

At present, many atheists subscribe to secular humanism—which acts as a kind of buffer to the “beyond freedom and dignity” brand of scientists who sell out their fellow human being by developing the science and technology of human manipulation and control. Atheists say they value “human dignity,” but they do not revere it; they do not see it as something sacred, to be defended at all cost. They certainly do not see the spark of the divine in the lowly and the needy amongst us, nor do they feel any spiritual connection to the reflected humanity of their fellow man in any concrete instance, much a sense of communion or common feeling with all of humanity.

As a consequence, you don’t find many atheists devoting their lives to the care of lepers or the truly wretched of the earth. Nor do they put their lives on the line for social justice to the extent you see the Quakers or the Maryknolls. They profess to care about the earth, but they do not see it as a sacred trust. Some even curl their lips in sneering contempt at the suggestion that the earth may be a living organism worthy of reverence and respect. You don’t see atheists trying to pull people together in projects like Karen Armstrong’s Charter for Compassion. And,it is well-known, they don’t give as much to charity as believers.

I have been to atheists, agnostics and free-thinker’s meetings, here in Sacramento, but these are more like AA meetings for recovering evangelicals. The sense of rage and betrayal atheists feel from having abusive, unloving parents brainwashing them, shaming them, and beating them is both palpable and real. The most enthusiastic proponents of corporal punishment are Christian fundamentalists, who advocate beating their children from infancy onward because punishment is “Biblical.” I’ve heard scores of stories about how fanatical Christians physically and emotionally assault their kids, making their beaten down children beg forgiveness from God for disobeying their parents, and doing things like preventing them from crying so that they never connect with the sense of outrage and betrayal that is at the core of these assaults.

I even have my own stories. And I think, quite rightly, that I have both a right and a duty to campaign against fundamentalist Christianity as the immoral and misguided cancer on humanity that it is. At the same time, I see compassion as the cornerstone of all the world’s religions, and accordingly, I am mindful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I am not ready to give up on religion as a vessel of compassion. I don’t think a belief in a supernatural god is a necessary prerequisite for religion, even though most people don’t know and can’t imagine anything else. I don’t see religion as necessarily requiring unreasonable belief, or supernatural rigmarole, slavish devotion to “sacred” texts, or any of the other things that atheists rightly find an offense to their reason and integrity.

I think that religion can be re-imagined to include atheists. For example, I don’t think a belief in God is necessary in order to have a religion (there is, after all, Taoism). I think that one can be an atheist and still feel a spiritual—that is to say, a moral connection to all of humanity. We are all inextricably bound together in the evolution of our species; our consciousness, our sense of justice, and our evolving sense of human dignity and the rights that go with them, require no irrational beliefs. And it is on this basis that we can reject the violent traditions of existing religions and preserve their humanitarian compassion.

(For more, click on Karen Armstrong, the first of the two links above.)

@daloon and @Zuma, GAs.

Geez, maybe I should have just reread the DFW commencement speech and dropped from memory the religion bashing that was de rigueur on this site up until maybe a year ago.

I see now that there is wide variety of perspective and that the most vocal isn’t the most representative. Thanks to all of
you who articulated those distinctions and your points of view.

@supermouse
“to those weak enough to believe in a higher power” – do you think believers are weak minded?

@kevbo I still don’t see how religion bashing (which of course does occur) have anything to do with groups of atheists doing it…it’s not like we all get together and bash on religion..I’m not even sure who I’m speaking for…I just want it to be clear to you that the resentment towards the wording of your question, on my part, does not equal neglect of the fact that there are people out there who ‘hate on religion’

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I am not saying that at all. I have however been given the distinct impression more than once by non-believers that I am weak minded because I believe in God.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I think he means that though not all atheists have it out for religion, some do, dare I say many do, the only thing he can readily think of that a group of atheists all come to together on is when they are in fact, expressing their disliking of religion.

At first glance it looked to me like he was just grouping everyone together, but after rereading it and looking at his later posts it now just seems like an unfortunate choice of words that left the door open for being interpreted in a number of different ways, you have to be specific in written text because if you’re not it’s taken as generality because tone and expression is solely up to the reader.

I hope that made sense, a couple friends came over earlier and we enjoyed some rasta lettuce. XD

@ABoyNamedBoobs03 of course it makes sense, I am not mad at him or anything…:)

I have not the time or motivation to read this whole thread, so excuse me if I repeat some points already raised or if my comments are not coherent with the rest.

Atheism does not have strict rules by which one must abide if they are to call themselves an atheist. Christianity for example has many principles such as the virgin birth, resurrection, and divinity of Jesus Christ that one must believe to call themselves a Christian. Atheism requires only that one does not believe in a deity of any form, and for many the supernatural of any form. Atheists therefore range from deeply religious Buddhists to people who simply do not believe there is a god because they think it unlikely.

Since almost every atheist has their own unique beliefs, I may only present my own ideas on the issue of religion. The reason atheists tend to rail on religion is that this is the only thing they are guaranteed to have in common, and the fact that atheists are shunned in some sectors of society means that there is a sense of community and common beliefs are focussed upon. I have a personal belief system that I derive from evolutionary principles and ethics based on the law of the greater good from a common principle.

I believe that death should not be dealt by a human to another human as punishment, but only ever in self-defence or mercy (such as euthanasia). Everyone has the right to choose their own moment of death, so as an aggressor they have made a decision to risk their lives. I believe that no person has the right to decide the fate of another’s life. I believe that every person has, at every moment in time, freedom of choice. Even with a gun barrel to the head, a choice exists and the individual alone is responsible for their choices, although others may be held accountable for acts of coercion and misleading persuasion. I believe that every person should work for the common good of others, as through achieving the common good the greatest personal good is achieved (Nash equilibria), and anyone deliberately working against the common good should be liable to consequences. I believe that the measure of success is not in material possessions, but in an individual’s overall happiness and well-being. Gluttony of any possession or sensation is working against the common good. I believe the strong should strive to help the weak, and one day when they themselves are weak the strong will help them. I believe death is the end, and each person should live in the knowledge that no consequences last, but great deeds are remembered and honoured for all time.

I could go on; maybe I have gone on too long. This is just a small portion of my most important beliefs, and an example of how both morality and social justice may be derived from scientific and ethical principles in the absence of religion. You often don’t get to see this side of atheism, because atheism has no dictates. Religion confines a person to a certain set of beliefs, whereas atheism frees a person to follow logic to the lifestyle they find to be of the greatest advantage.

It’s all a celebration of life and living.

I am not an athiest but I can definitely relate to and appreciate the athiest for the general desire for truth (whatever that is depending on the day). I am a spiritual person but I am also a skeptic & I don’t believe in anything which I can’t logically link to some level of scientific proof. I have seen many proofs that the basic tenets of various religions (like prayer, meditation, love, selfless service, positive attitudes etc.) have a scientifically measurable affect on ourselves & the globe. I choose to link that science to spirit but I am not so stupid as to think that makes it true. & I’m not so stupid that I can’t realize that the exact same science can be linked to non believer points in order to say that there is no need for a god when we can do these great things collectively all by ourselves & therefore why would one exist?why can’t we imagine that with the science that backs it we created this ourselves & therefore there is no god above us as we have done it all.

I say all that to make the point that science & logic disprove many of the things religious people depend on as truth today. & just as we all know the idea used years ago to attempt proving inferiority of blacks in the US is crap we know that half the things told to us daily about spirit or religion are crap. It seems logical that just as we would laugh at someone & in a very animated way point out the idiocy of someone who truly believes one race to be more capable than another we do the same to the idiots who blindly believe the lies of religion that hateful people use in order to assert their egos over the rest as if they have all the answers. It’s like they don’t even realize they cancel themselves out. Christians in America are a perfect example in that they run around trying to politically & legally control the masses as if they are the holders of the omnicient truth while the book they hold in their hand requires them to remove their ego from their lives per Ecclesiastes – so the fact that in order to legally control the globe they are in fact sparring upon their own religion is laughable & worth pointing out in an animated way. I see it as religious people taking the truth personally & whining about how athiests are all so hateful & mean. There is a difference between pointing out stupidity of those who follow false truths to justify hate, capitalism & control over others & hating on a religion. If I believe the sky is burnt orange instead of blue & people point at my idiocy in that clearly false belief are they hating on me or am I just being a sensitive cry baby?

I am a spiritual person who believes in god but I also believe in the truth & believe that to deny the truth is the worst offense on the planet so I’m all for science & atheism vigorously pointing out the asinine lies & I may be wrong but I really believe that if I sat down next to an atheist both of us with our science to back us that we would have a respectful conversation & end it with a better understanding of each other & perhaps still disagree but not do it in a way that makes either feel hated on. I think that could happen because I’m not holding a fable in my hand pretending it’s science while ignoring the fact that the original Greek Hebrew etc. Translation said nothing about how I should hate homosexuals or non believers or not take care of all those in poverty equally. That is plain stupid & to point out that fact isn’t hating it’s simply pointing out fact. But that’s just me & what do I know I’m just a little pagan priestess? LOL

Speaking as a Christian, I can understand how people of any belief system can get fed up by being stigmatized and devalued by people who disagreed with them. Some of those televangelists can be very biased in their beliefs and @kevbo had the same opportunity that the rest of us do when the 700 Club or other such program comes on-turn the dial. Why would you listen to what you consider to be haters except to get support in name calling?

Uh… to possibly learn something by listening to a POV that I’m unfamiliar with? Okay by you?

@Jenniehowell very nice answer, welcome to fluther as well.

@kevbo let me first just say i do not believe in god.

that said. there is not much to atheism at all. some atheists do hate on religion, but they rarely hate religion for religious beliefs in and of themselves (i don’t think many atheists care if someone believes in god or not). atheists are generally against hateful acts that are carried out in the name of god/religion (and most religious people feel the same way, it gives them a bad name)

i think it is frustrating for an atheist to hear the illogical hatred that has recently gained a lot of popularity in the evangelical religious right wing. that might have been the person on the radio you heard. they were expressing their frustration.

i personally am interested in learning the beliefs and history of different religions. some of my friends believe in god and some don’t but as long as they are not total ass holes, i love them.

re: what you mentions about culture – as far as i know there is not a “atheist culture” that is comparable to any organized religion or gay-culture or anything like that.. i don’t know why

I think the crux of the matter is that atheists tend to dislike religious people who are always and forever trying to convince them how wrong they are. Not religion itself so much, but the deluded people who embrace it.

Exactly if there was no more getting in people’s face, there would be no need for the get out out of my face response. Leave others to their own beliefs. Okay by you, @kevbo ?

Yeah, that’s okay by me. There are plenty of other possible responses, and the intent of my question is understanding what those other responses are. I wasn’t listening to this show to gain support for name calling. I was curious and after a time waiting to hear something different. Stupid me, I decided to bring my unanswered question here.

Many atheists are spiritual people. God is not a prerequisite to be spiritual. Even without spirituality there are many occasions in life to celebrate. A wedding. The birth of a child. Winning a gold medal. Discovering the Higgs.

Conversely, many so-called religious people practice a kind of soul-deadening idolatry with respect to scripture.

@SuperMouse, there’s a huge difference between working towards “keeping conservative religious politicians out of office” and “not voting for someone simply because they are religious.”

Note the word conservative in their mission statement. And I’m sure every single one of them voted for Barack Obama, who purports to be a Christian.

On the other hand, plenty of Christians consider atheism to be an instant disqualifier towards voting for someone. George H.W. Bush once said he doesn’t think atheists could be real Americans.

Stop with the false equivalency.

Also, you said “I have however been given the distinct impression more than once by non-believers that I am weak minded because I believe in God.”

Unless you’re talking about some kind of impersonal cosmic God that’s indistinguishable from the Universe or something, I’ll go ahead and say it’s pretty ignorant to believe in the gods of human religions, such as Yahweh and Zeus. In the same way, it’s ignorant to believe in astrology, or homeopathy, and other things that aren’t true.

And yeah, I guess that may come off as pretty mean. But if you want to see “mean,” you should look at what the Bible says about unbelievers. We are “fools” who deserve to eat the flesh of our own children and drink the afterbirth of our own miscarriages, and after that we deserve to suffer in hell, “wailing and gnashing our teeth.” Speaking of false equivalencies…

@ABoyNamedBoobs03 thanks for the welcome & the apreciation of my answer.
@Qingu in theory couldn’t it be argued that those who aren’t atheist are not atheist simply because they lack the knowledge that a true study of science, history & spirituality would bring? I think it could & in the end if that science exists & we deny it or don’t seek it out it is a bit ignorant right?

On the same level I have studied the science of astrology (not the woo woo religion like dependency of it but the science) & have found it true at least as far as saying that celestial bodies effect human bodies thru (EMI) electromagnetic interference which affects our hormones & our emotions just as the moon affects the ocean etc. So for me both those who deny it & those that treat it like a religion are ignorant.

I think the truths & untruths about one subject or another are more about the method of approach &/or starting hypothesis than anything else just as the woo woo astrology is crap but the science astrology has some reality/truth to it. Similarly, the atheist who ignores the science of what meditation etc. Can do is equally as ignorant as the Christian who believes that the bible says that they should hate or be against homosexuality based on an interpretation of Greek that didn’t even include the word homosexual in the first place. It’s all a matter of perspective so in the end I guess I’m saying I agree with you but I think you should be less broad with how you categorize ignorant in the overall picture – perhaps then it won’t come across quite as mean or ignorant to the recipient & create such an impass.

@Qingu you’re right, huge difference. Also, it is a pretty impressive feat to be certain of the way they all voted in the last presidential election.

I’m not sure if it matters to you, but I am not Christian and I do not take what the Bible says literally. I do believe in God. I am not ignorant. I firmly believe that everyone has the right to believe in whatever god or higher power or lack thereof they feel comfortable with, and I would not wish to have anyone’s flesh eaten or condemn anyone to wailing and gnashing their teeth in hell. As a matter of fact I don’t even believe in hell. So if we are going to avoid false equivalencies, let’s start with the fact that all believers do not believe what you assume they do.

@SuperMouse I am curious about what kind of God you believe in and why you do.

It sounds to me as though you are what I call a “soft theist,” in that the “higher power” you believe in embodies a kind of deep morality which invites you to love your fellow man and treat even the lowliest among humanity with compassion; and that you even treat your enemies as you would wish to be treated if you were in their place (when you are at your best). In another context, you might easily be a Buddhist, or a follower of Quan Yin, or Gandhi because you don’t see any one religion as having a monopoly on compassion or spirituality.

When you meditate, you might even hear a “small, still voice” (which was how God spoke to the prophets and St. Paul). If you were of a more secular mind you could say that this was the voice of your own deep humanity, and that what the voice conveys to you are the moral claims of your fellow man. You place this higher power outside of yourself, in part, out of a sense of humility; but also, because the great bulk of humanity is outside yourself. You participate in the spiritual/moral life of humanity as an incarnate human being, but you recognize correctly that it does transcend you, and that it does have a kind of god-like immortality and a life all it’s own.

More important, “soft” theists recognize that their beliefs are “true” not in the sense that facts and information are true, but in the way that literature is true: such as, the way the parable of the Good Samaritan shows, in a morally self-evident way, that true compassion knows no boundaries or social distinction. Soft theists have faith, but they also have doubts, and so they are humble in belief, and therefore not inclined to force their beliefs on others. In this respect, I think they rightly take offense at both atheists and believers alike who arrogantly and dogmatically assert their belief or disbelief or call them “weak minded.”

@Qingu There is, of course, another kind of believer—whom I call “hard theists,” who believe in a supernatural Being, not because it is particularly believable but because it isn’t. For them, Faith and Faith Alone, is their ticket to Salvation. Should they fail to believe; should they harbor even the slightest doubts, they are convinced that they will be cast into a fiery pit and suffer the tortures of eternal damnation.

The first question that comes to mind is, “Why would anyone believe in something so patently unworthy of belief?” What kind of God has so little respect for humanity and so little to recommend him that he has to resort to terrorizing people into believing in him? Indeed, what kind of God demands that you believe patently ridiculous things, like the earth being only 6,000 years old? What kind of desperate, fearful and weak-minded people would embrace such a deity, much less place such a despicable being at the center of their religion?

Obviously, it is people who don’t see that they have much choice in the matter. No one would come to such a belief through principled reason alone. Such beliefs are acquired by coercion. They require brainwashing, manipulation and the systematic destruction of one’s critical faculties, and the sense of being in command of one’s own will. If you read the letters, diaries and biographies of prominent Protestants like Martin Luther, John Calvin, Cotton Mather, and the founders of the born-again denominations of American evangelists and Pentecostalists, you find a preoccupation with harsh punishment and obedience from infancy onward.

Here, the goal was to break the child’s will, in order to make them instantly and automatically obedient to their parent’s and God’s will, which were often hopelessly confounded by the highly conditional love of scripture quoting parents. You find an extremely vengeful theology, preoccupied with sin and punishment, doctrines like the “total corruption” of human nature, accompanied by fantasies of intense apocalyptic retribution and violence.

People aren’t born “weak minded.” Their intellects are systematically broken and subverted by literally having the fear of God beaten into them. Their capacity for empathy and compassion are stunted to a point where they are genuinely perplexed by the idea that someone would consistently behave morally out of Love in their heart. They are so alienated from their own authentic needs and emotions from such an early age, that what is left of their intellects is tasked with suppressing cognitive dissonance by smothering inconvenient facts, desires, and intuitions under a blanket of dogma.

Punishment has convinced them that they are intrinsically sinful, worthless, and in dire need of “saving.” They generalize this self-loathing not only in a profound hatred of their own humanity, but toward Humanity in general, which (when they look inward) they tend to see as intrinsically corrupt and evil. In this respect, the emotional underpinnings of belief trump anything they could arrive at by reason.

There is a kind of radical go-for-broke, all-or-nothing aspect to the Born Again conversion experience. In becoming Born Again, one wagers one’s life, one’s soul, and one’s sanity on the proposition that one’s particular set of religious beliefs are Absolutely True. One then awakens into a “new reality” founded on the “eternal certainties” of dogma. One’s self-worth becomes entirely contingent on the approval of a vengeful, inconsistent, and cruel God.

Unfortunately, this is a different reality than the rest of us live in. And any clarity of mind that comes from possessing Absolute and immutable Truths comes at a terrible price: One must jettison everything that doesn’t fit—reason, feelings, facts and, ultimately, the ability to distinguish one’s religious fantasies from the reality that the rest of us inhabit.

In other words, the believer comes to inhabit a God-centered universe in which reality emanates from God the Creator, rather than existing unto itself. In this alternate reality, the truth of things is only “testable” through reference to Scripture, which is the God-centered world reputedly revealed to us by God Himself.

Reason is how people normally hold one another accountable to each other and to humanity. To a god-centered person Reason is a form of idolatry, insofar as it dethrones God and places Humanity in it’s place. In this respect, the believer is not only unhinged from the reality that the rest of us live in, he is hostile to it. And, to that extent, he has no compunction against forcing his beliefs on the rest of us, beating his kids, banning stem-cell research, or throwing people who take drugs in prison because he regards as “immoral.”

Arguments based on a sneering contempt for the absurdity of this such beliefs simply have no traction with Born Again believers. In fact, these “slings and arrows” of outrage only serve to press the believer into a glorious and much anticipated martyrdom at the hands of evil God-hating “atheists.” Their shields go up and any chance at dialogue ceases

On the other hand, arguments which do seem to have traction with them have to do with the immorality of coercion, and the immoral implications of being irrational and anti-human. Such arguments appeal to their suppressed and now despised humanity, and the anger and humiliation they feel in being coerced into their beliefs.

But, even then, their solipsism is often so complete that even these arguments have no effect. However, such arguments do tend to resonate powerfully with once-born “soft” theist Protestants and Catholics who still have a firm grasp on their humanity, and it is these people, the silent majority, who need the all the support they can get.

@Jenniehowell

You claim: “celestial bodies effect human bodies thru (EMI) electromagnetic interference which affects our hormones & our emotions just as the moon affects the ocean etc.”

“So for me both those who deny it & those that treat it like a religion are ignorant.”

I have no problem if someone wishes to put me in a category of “ignorant” because I don’t share a belief with them. But if you are going to make a claim that people who dismiss the “science” of astrology are ignorant, then you better be willing to put some scientific evidence on the table to back up your claims. That means peer-reviewed scientific studies which produce supportive findings that can be replicated by other independent researchers.

Here are the studies I am aware of (some of which are rigorous, double blind, and peer-reviewed):

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/02/what_do_you_mea.html

@Zuma – So are you a “soft” atheist?

@mattbrowne I dunno, what do you think?

@Zuma – I’m not sure. I’ve noticed both flavors (soft and hard) in some of your comments. I’m very careful when it comes to judging people. I prefer questions like “Do you see yourself as a…?” Instead of “You are…” I prefer statement like “This comment sounds to me like…” Even if people explicitly ask me to judge them, I’m being careful.

@SuperMouse, I was being a little cheeky with overgeneralization of environmentalists, but I think you know what I meant.

And regarding your belief in “God,” I did make a point of saying, “Unless you’re talking about some kind of impersonal cosmic God that’s indistinguishable from the Universe or something…”

I don’t think people who believe in such gods are weak-minded or ignorant. I just think they ought to use less confusing language, because these “gods” are often functionally indistinguishable from an atheist’s “universe” or “theory of everything.” For most of history, the word “god” has meant a personal being who participates in human history, not an abstract force or universal structure. I don’t even think that dressing up impersonal abstractions with mystical language counts as “theism,” but really, this is just a semantic argument.

The debate about whether such a god exists (or, I would argue, whether or not the word “god” is a good description for the concept) is really a sideshow compared to the battle over the existence of Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Shiva, and other traditional gods… none of whom you believe in.

@Zuma, I think you oversimplify the motivation for religious belief by portraying it as completely counter-intuitive, only the result of fear of punishment.

Look at the beginning of the Bible, Genesis 1. It describes a standard Mesopotamian form of creation, where a god divides up chaotic matter into discernable forms—sea, sky, land. The sky is described as a solid dome that holds up an above-sky ocean. The sun, moon, stars and planets are set into this solid dome.

To us, this is patently nonsense. We know the earth is round and that it revolves around the sun. But put yourself in the shoes of a bronze-age desert nomad. How in the world would you ever realize the earth revolves around the sun?

In fact, the idea that there is an ocean held up by a (solid) sky makes a lot of intuitive sense. You know that rain falls from the sky. You know that large bodies of water are blue; the sky is blue, so there must be a large body of water up there. This is entirely “reasonable.”

Today, we know it’s not reasonable… but only because we’ve made a bunch of detailed observations that are actually quite esoteric. Ask a child to prove that the earth revolves around the sun, or that the sky is made of gases. They won’t have a clue how to do that. Science is hard. It takes work, and it takes an empirical worldview that really doesn’t come naturally to human beings. For most of history, solid sky-domes were accepted as fact. Copernicus only recently showed that heliocentrism is better than geocentrism, and just barely at that.

The idea of gods is also quite reasonable to a bronze-age nomad. It is very, very easy to ascribe anthropomorphic traits to emergent phenomena like storms and fire. Hell, by some definitions of “life,” storms and fire are “alive.” (Fire even has a fossil record like animals). Our hunter-gatherer ancestors evolved to predict and manipulate the behavior of animals they hunted. Religous ritual is simply this brain-wiring being applied to storms and fire and other phenomena. And it is not difficult to see how gods like Marduk and Yahweh evolved from their more elemental deity ancestors (both have aspects of traditional storm-gods).

So—while I don’t think religious belief is reasonable (in fact, I think it’s ignorant), I’m also not willing to reduce religious belief to fear-mongering. I think our brains are just wired for the types of memes in religion. Of course, that doesn’t mean the memes are true.

@Jenniehowell, a couple of points:

1. There is no scientific evidence I am aware of that the astrological position of the planets affects human personality. In fact, that sounds like pseudo-scientific nonsense. As someone else said, if you have peer-reviewed evidence for this, please post a link.

2. You’ve said twice now that the “original” Greek or Hebrew versions of the Bible don’t actually condemn homosexuality. We don’t have original versions of Biblical texts, but the earliest texts we have, written in Hebrew and Greek, do clearly condemn homosexuality. In fact, Leviticus 18 calls it an “abomination” and calls for homosexuals to be put to death.

So I’m not sure how you would support your claim that the original Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality. It seems an especially odd claim for the Old Testament, which also condemns (in addition to homosexuals) adulterers, disobedient children, unbelievers, magicians, people who work on the Sabbath. All of these people must be put to death, according to the Bible. So it seems weird to claim out of nowhere that the “original” Bible was actually progressive.

@Critter38 I could spend a few hours trying to google one site or another developed by who knows who that would back me up on the various things I’ve learned over the period of my lifetime but somehow I don’t think I could even do it justice. So with that said honestly I’m too lazy to try.

I will say though that there isn’t a book (re: science related) used in schools today that doesn’t mention the moon & it’s affect on the planet through magnetic pull especially water. Additionally most living things on our planet are made up of the same water & are being pulled in much the same way. Womens cycles go with the moon on many occasions, people feel bloated during particular moon cycles etc. The list goes on. I myself have worked in a nursing home & I promise you every full moon there was a group of elders going loopy in some weird way opposite of their normal behaviour.

Don’t get me wrong I don’t think or believe that based on any planet at any time in my life it can be said my horoscope will be correct & I should expect myself to have some miraculous prosperity because mercury just came out of retrograde. That’s the woo woo stuff I’m talking about. Just that their is science that proves we are affected in various ways down here on earth. For reference pick up a science book about the moon.

It seems logical to me that with the evidence of the moon & it’s effects on us – then the other added science that explains how our bodies are affected by much smaller amounts of EMI that comes from the wiring in our houses that has shown to affect some to the point of paranoia & thinking there’s ghosts in their houses when there isn’t. I used to work in electronics when I was in the military & to screw around with each other (however stupid) we would put a de-gausing ring around someones head & flip it on to watch them go nuts. Those rings don’t even touch you they just send “energy” out to whatever is in the ring. So science proves that the various planets have different levels of magnetic pull on our planet at different times, it proves separately that we are effected by magnetic interference & minimally in every childs science book is mention of at least one celestial body affecting various things on our entire planet. It seems a simple & logical jump to make if one bothers to do two things- 1: pick up a bunch of science books relating to planets &/or EMI affects on surroundings & read them & 2: when they read them don’t try to be all weird non science woo woo or so afraid of the woo woo that you are blinded to what the science says. It’s easy to see the planets have pull on us – it’s the kooks that try to say that will predict their future day by day as opposed to doing something like make you feel bloated or act crazy in a nursing home etc.

@Qingu I agree with you on your point #1 I haven’t seen any evidence of personality changing planets – I have seen some that just affects our bodies from menstrual cycles & beyond.
#2 sorry I accidentally thought people could read my mind (LOL) & know that I have completely discounted the old testament with regards to Christianity & it’s requirements today – afterall the old test. Put simply is a preface to
the big deal of Jesus coming & saving the world. LOL as far as the new test there’s a whole new bunch of rules & to stick with the old ones pretty much cancels out a persons Christianity when it comes down to it. As far as the new test goes there are plenty of references in the bible we read today but when looking at the original Greek (forgive me I’m at work on an iPhone unable to truly give references to much of anything) those words weren’t even used & todays bibles generally have the word homosexual where the word pimp should be based on literal translations. (again forgive me it is much to much drama for me to reference on this frickin phone)

@Qingu not to mention that at least with regards to treating people badly etc. Homosexual & others Jesus himself tells his followers (according to their book) that the first 2 commandments are the most important love god & love your neighbor (if course most of them have somehow twisted it so they only have to love their “Christian” neighbors but… That little piece alone requires Christians not to hate homosexuals & a slew of others.

@Qingu You must have read what I wrote very quickly. I wasn’t talking about people holding Iron Age beliefs in the Iron Age; I was talking about people holding unreasonable Iron Age beliefs today. To me, it only seems possible if their critical faculties have been compromised by fear.

I am reacting to your assessment of such people “weak minded,” as if they had a full deck to play with, when I think a more charitable and more accurate assessment is that their minds have been damaged. Whole areas of reality that are explicit and obvious to us are subconscious to them. Indeed, keeping all the counterfactuals that the 21st Century presents to Iron Age beliefs out of awareness requires a mental rigidity that is anything but “weak minded.”

My remarks to Supermouse were directed to you as well.

The horse is dead, my friends.

@Jenniehowell

You’re drowning in “woo woo”, and you’re simply not in any position to tell others to “pick up a science book”, unless they’re handing it to you.

I could write country and western…

@Jenniehowell, there is no evidence that the tidal pull of the moon has any affect whatsoever on people’s mental states.

Or menstruation.

And even if that were the case, astrology is not based on tidal effects.

As Critter says, if you are unable to support your position with scientific evidence (because you’re “too lazy” or otherwise) you are in absolutely no position to lecture others about “science woo woo.” Science does not work by making unwarranted “inferences.”

About “Hebrew and Greek,” if you’re just throwing out the entirety of the Old Testament, why did you bother to mention “Hebrew”?

Here is the word Paul uses, translated often as “homosexual”:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G733&t=KJV

Why on earth do you think this refers to anything except homosexuals? You mentioned prostitutes, which Paul also mentions. There’s simply no context to interpret Paul’s writing as condemning anything other than homosexuality.

If you want a religion that’s gay-friendly, I suggest looking at religions not based on the Bible.

@Zuma, well, my point was that science is hard. It’s hard to internalize. It’s abstract. On the face of it, a 6,000 year old geocentric earth is no more believable than a 4.5 billion-year old heliocentric earth.

There are two reasons why you’d prefer the second over the first.

• You have examined and internalized the evidence, much of it abstract and based on somewhat esoteric ideas like radiation half lives.

• You are simply trusting the authority of scientists and textbooks.

Most people do the latter. Ask the average adult to prove the earth revolves around the sun. They won’t have a clue where to start (and 20% of adults don’t even realize this). For many people, scientific truth is just as “mystical” and “revelatory” as religious “truth.” They may accept that science is based on evidence in a way that religion is not, but they never interact with this evidence. They believe it based on authority alone.

Which is just to say, you don’t need fear to believe in religion over science. You just need to trust the religion-promoting authority more than the science-promoting authority.

I think blindly believing in authority, in general, is a sign of weak-mindedness. But this applies to secularites as well as religious people. And I don’t think you need to invoke the idea that religious minds are damaged to explain why they believe in bullshit. They just blindly trust a different authority than most secular people blindly trust.

And it’s interesting that I’m the one defending religious people in this conversation!

@Zuma and @Qingu, I am Bahá’í. Bahá’í‘s believe in the oneness humanity, the equality of men and women, harmony of religion and science, and that all religion comes from one God.

The Baha’i god is basically a hop, skip, and jump away from a pantheist god indistinguishable from the universe.

You may as well worship a Universal Force that, for some reason, doesn’t like alcohol.

Frankly, I interpret the Baha’i (and Unitarian) “all religion comes from God” business as bald-faced syncretism. It’s a good marketing strategy for your religion (as it has been for most religions) but it doesn’t really address the fact that Bahai’s believe the central theological premises of every major religion are incorrect.

@Qingu No, we’re not talking about mere differences in authorities here, as if the only thing that separates believers from nonbelievers is where we prefer to get our information. That would make secular people who held a scientific worldview equally “weak-minded.”

I think a very strong case can be made that Born-Again True Believers simply cannot process information like the rest of us. Here, for example, I ask the question, “Why do Born Again Christians seem to have so much trouble reasoning logically?” And the people who choose to argue with me unwittingly prove my point no matter how hard they try not to.

But a lot of secular people can’t make logical arguments either. A lot of secular people just believe things based solely on authority. Their authority isn’t their priest, it’s dudes in a white labcoat (or their middle school teachers forcing them to memorize facts without thinking about why they are facts in the first place).

I agree that evangelical Christians do not process logic correctly; I’ve written on here that I think there is something similarly wrong with the brain processes of fundamentalists and conspiracy theorists.

But frankly, most people are pretty stupid. Most people have no idea how to debate, or why certain things are fallacies. So I wouldn’t single religious people out as being uniquely deficient.

I do think there is a huge difference in the content of what these rival authorities are saying. Obviously: one authority is saying prescientific nonsense and the other is saying stuff supported by evidence. But that’s why I think we ought to concentrate on the content of such positions, rather than speculating on the factors motivating people to take positions in the first place.

I’m not sure if we’re really disagreeing with each other at this point.

@Qingu No, this is something quite different from being stupid and unable to debate; it is not a brain dysfunction; it is not a lack of intellectual courage; it is an almost clinical inability to process counterfactual information. (See link above.)

“Are you against freedom”? Oh man.

How long have you been arguing with religious people on the Internet? I’ve been doing it for years, so I wonder if I’m just more desensitized than you. :)

I disagree that it’s “clinical.” They just have no training. They may not even read at a high school level. Lots of Americans don’t. I doubt most people on that site more than skimmed your posts; they probably saw certain words which triggered automatic responses handed down to them.

Basically, I think you’re underestimating how difficult logic and argumentation are. It is an abstract art that a lot of people—religious or otherwise—cannot really follow. I think part of it is just our evolution; we evolved from socially hierarchical primates and we are wired to receive “information flow” coming from an authority figure. Filtering and reforming that information flow using abstract concepts is a recent innovation and is entirely cultural. It’s hard; it’s not a clinical dysfunction when people aren’t any good at it.

Regarding an “inability to process counterfactual information,” again, I think this is just deep in our brain wiring.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/science/08tier.html?ref=science

This article talks about how partisans just ignore facts that do not fit their worldview. It is about partisanship over who got to the North Pole first (apparently there were two fiercely competing camps) but it also mentions a study about Republicans who, when presented with evidence (including Bush saying so) that Saddam didn’t have WMD’s, continued to believe he did.

Different parts of our brain are active when evaluating “our side” vs. “the other side.”

@Qingu “You may as well worship a Universal Force that, for some reason, doesn’t like alcohol”

Or homosexuality for that matter. Amazing how such a warm and fuzzy universal loving spirit suddenly morphs into a dime-a-dozen bigot when it comes to gay sex.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bah.htm

Wha? I did not know that.

Fireside! Supermouse! Is your religion that stupid? Its scriptures appear to be.

@Qingu Fireside and I both answered your question that was specifically about the Baha’i’ Faith’s stance on homosexuality.

I have gone to Universalist/Unitarian services and knew those weren’t for me because I like a little God in my religion. The Baha’i’ Faith does not say or even insinuate that the theological premises of every other religion are incorrect. Baha’i’s believe in Progressive Revelation. None negates anything the others have to say, they build on one another. Baha’i’s also understand that the Bible and other holy books were written by men, and are therefore filtered through the writer’s reality. Baha’i’ writings come straight from Baha’u’llah who is God’s manifestation for this age. I would like to recommend a book called Gardner’s of God, written by a mother and son who are not Baha’i’ but who researched the Faith. You might find it enlightening.

@Qingu I am wondering why you are having so much trouble accepting that someone can believe in God without believing in hell, without believing that religion has to polarize people, and without hate.

@SuperMouse, the Baha’i faith doesn’t say that other religions are incorrect because, according to the Baha’i faith, all religions are actually earlier versions of the Baha’i faith.

Of course, the Baha’i faith’s God does not have a son who was sacrificed in a salvific act. This flatly contradicts the central teaching of Christianity. The Baha’i God did not reveal his final revelation to the prophet Muhammad and demand submission. This flatly contradicts the central teaching of Islam, which absolutely denies progressive revalation and explicitly says the Quran was written directly by God, not men. The Baha’i God does not have avatars worthy of devotion, which contradicts the central teachings of several Hindu traditions.

What the Baha’i religion does it exactly what lots of religions do: it presents itself as the “updated version” of existing religions in an attempt to cull those religions’ followers. It is syncretism, perhaps the most ancient form of marketing. Some of us are familiar enough with other religions to realize that like many forms of marketing, it’s just BS.

I also like the bit about no further prophets are expected for a 1000 years. I guess they didn’t want someone else playing the same game and nicking their followers a few decades down the track.

Maybe god will progressively reveal that the 1,000 year bit of progressive revelation he previously revealed was wrong.

At which point the devout will smile sweetly and explain that god in his wisdom and love for us knew that we mere mortals just hadn’t been ready to discard our nasty bigotry, and all the resultant suffering was in fact part of a divine and merciful plan. Amen.

@Critter38 and @Qingu I find it rather disturbing that you had decided to turn this into a “Bash the Baha’i’ Faith” thread. Study the Faith. Accept it or don’t. But mocking it? That seems below you.

When have I ever given the impression that mocking religions was below me?

Of course, we were making a rhetorical point: that the concept of progressive revelation is silly and reflects nothing more than humanity’s naturally evolving secular morality.

I don’t see “accept it or don’t” as this binary response to ideas; I also think a lot of ideas deserve criticism. Especially when those ideas coincide with things like intolerance of homosexuals.

I thought we were just trying to live up to title of the thread?

Try not to be disturbed by it. It’s not about you as a person. What we are criticizing is a set of ideas and ideologies, none of which have rights.

To openly criticize an ideology is to see how well it holds up to multiple people’s standards of empathy and reason, and by my standards I find fault with part of a set of ideologies that you just happen to associate yourself with.

You may not believe me, but I think that when you have others mock your religion, or any other ideology you ascribe to, it might just make you take it off the pedestal, even for a few minutes, and have a closer look. If there is no truth to what we say, feel free to ignore us and place it right back on up there. But if there is some truth to our candour, then feel free to buy us an ice cream.

I like vanilla.

@SuperMouse You might find this article interesting. It deals specifically with attempts to protect religions from criticism, and how this in facts hurts the people of minority religions like the Baha’i’ faith.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/humanrights/1276/religious_persecution_wolf_in_anti-defamation_sheep%27s_clothing/

Personally I don’t believe that an unexamined faith is one that is even worth my time. That is to say that I have no problem with criticism of mine or any other faith, that is where dialog begins, and dialog is essential. The Baha’i’ faith encourages everyone, before even entertaining the idea of becoming Baha’i’, to pursue an independent investigation of the truth. That includes reading criticisms, which I have done. But in my book there is a difference between a discussion of religion vs. atheism and mocking faith. I know from my years of questioning the Catholic religion to priests, brothers, nuns, and staunch followers that there is a way to discuss these things without mocking them. When you resort to those tactics it is mostly your ignorance that shows through.

My question for you @Critter38 and @Qingu remains, why do you have so much trouble with a person holding religious beliefs? Does it threaten you somehow? I do not feel threatened in the least by your lack of faith. I see no need to attack or mock you for it. Why are you having so much trouble doing the same for me? Or is it that you are so zealous in your atheism that you feel compelled to attempt to bring the entire world around to your way of thinking? If that is the case, are you any better than Evangelical Christians or Muslims on the same mission?

@SuperMouse – I believe in God, but I don’t believe in hell. You are not alone.

You’re meta-arguing here, @SuperMouse. I think discussions can take various forms, some perhaps less civil than others. But sarcasm has been a long-standing rhetorical technique (see Jonathan Swift). I’m sorry if your feelings are hurt, but don’t hide behind your hurt feelings to avoid addressing legitimate criticism.

To answer your question, I’m not “threatened” by your religious faith. I just think your religion’s views on homosexuality and progressive revelation are wrong, morally and factually. And I think it’s important to point out that they are wrong, and to try to get Baha’is to address this wrongness, because at least some of those views affect real people in the real world.

And as for the charge that I’m “no better” than evangelicals—my problem with evangelical Christians is not that they are zealous about convincing people of their beliefs. My problem with them is that their beliefs are wrong, and immoral. I have no problem with people trying to promote their beliefs; I wish more people would do so, and that more people would be willing to openly discuss and debate their religions.

Yes, open discussions and debates of all religions and all non-religious belief systems/moral frameworks is extremely important. It’s great we have the opportunity here on Fluther.

“I think there is something similarly wrong with the brain processes of fundamentalists and conspiracy theorists.”

@Qingu, except conspiracies do occur, and disbelieving them is also often a symptom of trusting an authority. In fact, to work successfully, conspiracies most likely depend upon the revelations above regarding brain wiring to work properly.

I will concede that most conspiracy arguments aren’t logical, most directly in the sense that they come to a proven, logical conclusion.

However, they aren’t dogmatic; they are malleable based on new or better information, including the possibility that the conspiracy in question doesn’t exist.

Obviously, holding an opinion and proving it to be true using logic are two different standards. I think part of your frustration (and others) is expecting the latter in a forum where the median expectation or standard is the former. Unless your goal is to feel self
satisfied by mopping the floor with everyone who is silly enough to approach you with an opinion, you would do well to provide a more welcoming orientation to your standards for discourse.

@kevbo, but conspiracy theories rely on a worldview that asserts that an authority is in charge. If an event is significant, is must have been directed by an authority.

Conspiracy theories often implicitly reject the idea that significant events can emerge just from simple, chaotic human interactions. It’s the exact same process that a creationist uses to arrive at the conclusion that the bacterial flagellum motor must have been created. The alternative—that it was undirected—is messy, and intuitively seems less likely than an authority directing the process.

“Must” may be true for some, but my general sense is that “is likely” is more the consensus. There is room for skepticism and witholding judgement. It doesn’t all have to have a uniform explanation.

I think much of what we’ve witnessed goes beyond simple, chaotic, human interaction (which, incidentally provides
an excellent cover story). For example, leaking false WMD info to the NYT and then quoting the NYT on television programs to justify a case for war. Doesn’t prove hypothesis B, but it does negate simple, chaotic interaction, and does make a case for an authority being in charge of a significant (and related) event.

But there’s actually evidence that the authority figures leaked misinformation to the NYT. You have no evidence whatsoever for the “inside job.”

Your claim that “simple, chaotic human interaction” is an excellent cover story is further proof of the similarity between conspiracy theorists and religious people. Religious people also fold reasonable explanations into their mythological worldview. The earth’s age is only “apparent”; God created it with the “appearance of age”; any contrary evidence is an excellent way to test believers’ faith. If you assume “someone is behind it all” then any alternate explanation can be dismissed as “that’s what they want you to think.”

Just as you claim cheekiness, I’m claiming the “cover story” as an aside. Again, it’s not always true, but sometimes it is. People do claim coincidence to obscure guilt.

My point isn’t whether there’s evidence for or against, it’s what’s a reasonable premiss based on precedent. Both are chaos and conspiracy are reasonable.

While we are on the subject, it would be useful to understand the definition of or standard for evidence that you use.

@Qingu my feelings aren’t hurt, I just don’t see any reason to lower the level of discourse by calling the opinions of others stupid or bullshit or wrong or by mocking their beliefs. It is merely your opinion that the opinions of people of faith are wrong and immoral. You don’t know for sure God doesn’t exist any more than I know for sure He does. We hold different opinions here. You are trying to come across as though yours is the final, moral, correct statement on God, the Baha’i’ faith, and religion in general. For me to accept that blindly is as wrong as it is for me to accept the teachings of any faith blindly.

You sir are an atheist, I have no problem with that. I on the other hand am Baha’i’. In order for you to practice what you preach (i.e. it is wrong and immoral to judge others), you should have no problem with that. Pity me if you wish, but also please understand that my life is more full because of my faith. I treat all with respect and dignity not in spite of, but because of my faith, and I do not, would never consider, judging someone based solely on their sexuality, gender, color, religious beliefs or lack there of.

Now, based on your responses upthread and in the other thread you started recently, you will likely take this opportunity to explain to me that I should shun my faith because – the way you see it – I see some of the writings of the manifestation I worship as not matching my belief system. To that I will say (again), that this faith speaks to me like none other has. There are many, many more writings of the Faith to be translated and I believe we may have not heard the final word on this subject from the Universal House of Justice.

@kevbo, the mainstream story isn’t claiming “coincidence,” it’s claiming that 19 terrorists hijacked planes with box cutters and flew them into buildings, causing explosions that toppled the buildings. It was an intentional attack by a fringe group of people.

The “chaotic nature” I mentioned refers to the idea that such fringe groups of people exist and act independently on their own motives, without being directed by an overarching conspiratorial “authority.”

I have two basic standards of evidence. One is Occam’s Razor. The other is that the person making the positive assertion has the burden of proof.

To illustrate, I could make the claim that there is a teacup orbiting the planet Neptune, put there by God. The fact that God could put a teacup in Neptune’s orbit is not evidence that he did. The fact that we cannot readily disprove this claim is not evidence that the claim is true. The fact that other objects orbit Neptune is not evidence that this particular object orbits Neptune. Finally, a universe without a teacup orbiting Neptune is simpler and requires less “special pleading” or “divine intervention” than a universe with an orbiting teapot, so believing this claim would violate Occam’s razor.

It does claim coincidence of security failures across multiple agencies over many months (or years).

@SuperMouse, everything is someone’s opinion. Some opinions can be supported; others can’t. The purpose of discussion is to figure that out.

Saying I don’t know God doesn’t exist anymore than he does is like saying that I don’t know fairies are imaginary anymore than that they’re real. It’s a nonsense statement, especially when applied to specific deities like Yahweh, Marduk, Zeus, and Thor. I am as positive that these beings are imaginary to the same extent that I am positive that fairies are imaginary. I could be wrong—according to quantum mechanics, I could be wrong in my assumption that my chair will remain solid when I sit on it. Don’t confuse the possibility of being wrong with an equal chance of being wrong.

I make absolutely no claims that my moral views are final and ultimate. In fact, I am fairly positive that future generations will look at many of my views in the same light that I look at the views of my grandfather.

However, I am willing to defend the views I have. I am willing to defend the view that homosexuals deserve equal rights as other human beings and that their love is just as valid as heterosexual love. I am glad we agree with each other on this. But if you disagree with this, I will criticize your views and expect you to defend them, because those views are important and worth thinking critically about.

You cannot simultaneously claim that you “do not judge others” and that your faith does not permit homosexuality. That is judging homosexuals. Now, you seem to believe that somehow—despite all of the clear writings on the subject in the link I posted—Baha’ullah doesn’t really outlaw homosexual sex and that this is all just a misinterpretation of the true Baha’i faith. Whatever. I look forward to support for that position if and when you dredge it up. But I doubt you’ll be able to, and I have a feeling that, instead of simply rejecting this part of your faith, you’ll resort to the same sort of intellectual dishonesty that Christians use to ignore the unsavory parts of the Bible, dismissing them as “metaphors” and appealing to some nonexistent “context” that absolves them. I hope I’m wrong.

@kevbo, what security failures? I thought boxcutters were allowed on airplanes at the time.

Failures to investigate suspicious people? That’s hardly a “coincidence” in federal organizations. Look at how our government handled checking out on that convicted kidnapper guy.

@Qingu it is interesting that you have already decided how I am going to defend my views. I can assure you that it would not be by belittling others or telling them their views, because they are different than mine, are wrong. While I say thank you for the invitation to discuss my beliefs further, I am done engaging with you in this thread. You are not interested in furthering your knowledge or even in a discussion. You are merely interested in telling everyone who does not believe the way you do they are wrong.

BTW, wouldn’t it be the moral and correct thing to do to give credit to Bertrand Russell for his teapot theory you discussed upthread?

Is it equally probable that one suspicious person is overlooked as 19 who are associated with one of the FBI’s most wanted?

Air defense?

n.b. You likely would have found FDR annoying… “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” ;-)

@SuperMouse, sorry, but that sounds exactly like “hiding behind hurt feelings to avoid addressing criticism” to me.

And yes, all credit goes to Russell. Though I did add God to it.

@kevbo, how many of them were associated with it? What crucial piece or pieces of evidence do you think “they” overlooked? Who is “they”? Note that I’ve said that Bush was negligent in addressing the threat of al-Qaeda and that we obviously should have done a better job of monitoring these people, but this is easy to say in hindsight.

What do you mean by air defense? You mean like shooting down the planes? I’m actually pretty comfortable saying that they probably did shoot down one of the planes.

I think FDR’s maxim is just a maxim, and besides, you’re taking it out of context. It doesn’t mean that politicians plan every single world event.

@Qingu you are nothing if not predictable. Thank you for that. Oh, and no need for an apology your answer was exactly what I expected.

@Qingu . . .We get it. A priest spit in your butt when you were little. Get over it.