Pretty much. Of course, there is the bugaboo in which various people make “respect” a one-definition-and-it-is-mine word, making Humpty Dumpty proud.
There is respect for the belief or actions, an action that does, indeed, require that the respect be earned.
There is also respect for the humanity of the person, regardless of beliefs.
I prefer to not go about spitting on persons whom I know to be racist or homophobic–or haters of all things papist or middle aged white males or of several other categories into which I fall. There are people I know who have expressed hatred for one or more categories of identity into which I may be sorted, sometimes knowing I am “one of them” and sometimes ignorant of that fact. I do not see where that gives me the right to refuse to help push their cars out of snowbanks, to refuse to pick up their trash barrel blown into the road by a high wind, to drag my feet creating a report they need at the office, to refuse to fix their vB tags when they post a typo, or to refuse to answer their questions about how this board operates, (either technically or culturally). I do not see where their behavior gives me the right to throw trash on their lawn or toilet paper in their trees or to speak ill of them to other persons or to disparage them as persons.
I may defend myself against direct personal attack and I may make observations about their behavior, but I also believe that I must show respect to the person, regardless of their belief. (And I am sure that I periodically fail in that obligation, but it is still an obligation whether I succeed or fail.)
So, this is an example of the sort of logic I am told I must apply to life. I think this particular type of logic is called the false dichotomy. Two statements demonstrating argument by popularity and an unspoken assumption that disagreement with the speaker can only be caused by stupidity and willful ignorance.
That isn’t logic. That is prejudice dressed up in rhetorical clothes, and it is just another brand of ignorance. We fight that here.
Here, I’ll even offer up some evidence that atheists aren’t treated unfairly.
In this post, I called soapopera a clod, jokingly I might add, for screwing up the “If God is all powerful, can He make a boulder so heavy even He can’t move it?”
I got called out by tomndebb for it, and apologized.
Clod, now. Not a big insult to begin with, and so archaic I was sure they’d get that I was only teasing.
Oh, and tomndebb, the very mod pseudotriton ruber ruber is so sure is both harsh against atheists and unfairly lax on Christians.
So, yeah. There you go, instead of just making claims and expressing opinions, I’ll actually bring proof to the table on this (get that prr?)
PS. A very liberal Christian here. I believe in Him, and try to follow the teachings of tolerance and understanding (within reason, I’ll call out fools and assholes). But I freely acknowledge I could be wrong, I don’t believe in taking anything from the Bible literally, don’t support organized religion (but I’m not actively against it either), believe people will be judged on their deeds, and not what they do or don’t worship, etc.
Proof is a necessary condition to right. That which is not proven is wrong. What is not right has no connection to reality.
I can see this whole logic thing is very difficult to achieve. Subtle, and yet exactly constrained in ways not clearly evident to the ignorant. Tell me, are things that are not completely understood wrong? What about things that are unknown? Are they wrong until discovered, and proven?
I assume you are the entity to which proof must be demonstrated. A weighty burden it must be. Thank you for taking it up, I would find it tedious and unrewarding. I understand a bit more, now why you battle so furiously against this thing you call ignorance. Your arguments make it sound so inviting, and your own position so dreadfully encumbering.
You forgot to call me a name. It’s basically a choice of “idiot,” “liar” or “asshole,” plus either salad or soup.
I never claimed that Tom exclusively harrasses atheists or protects Xians. If he had, he would have been noted by everyone here (well, maybe not everyone) as a blatent bigot. My point is that he is a subtle bigot, and a fairly adept sophist in the bargain. I’ve been resisting providing cites because it’s both easier for me and easier on the board if we don[t get in a whole attack-defend-attack-defend cycle, at the end of which I will not have convinced people even if I can find a thread started by Tom entitled “I am a fucking bigot bwhahahaha.” I may still do it, if fans such as yourself keep clamoring for it (I can’t resist begging and pleading) but I do think we’ll all be sorrier at the resulting trainwreck threads it’s bound to cause, so I’m content to have people impugn my character for now as I express my unsupported opinions of Tom’s behavior and motivation.
Don’t all thank me at once. Form a line, please. Sorry, no autographs.
Sorry for the late entry to answer the OP – I just now saw this thread.
I won’t be addressing anything posted other than the OP, because I just don’t discuss religion on the boards. I admittedly haven’t even read this thread. Not interested.
I know full well that my atheism and essential disdain for ‘Christians’ in general and fundamentalism in particular are not appreciated here. So, in the interest of ‘being nice’, I avoid the subject.
There’s lots of other things to talk about.
So yes, the attitude of the management towards religion inhibits me here. I can live with that.
The experience isn’t proof. It is however evidence in itself. The experience , the phenomenon, prompts the question , “What caused that?” “What’s the source and reason for that phenomenon?”
It doesn’t seem reasonable for me to conclude that such a source must be God, meaning the supreme entity of Judeo Christian belief. It does seem reasonable to entertain to entertain the possibility of something unexplained by science.
I won’t even bother asking for a cite for this.
This however is interesting. Please give some examples and why you think they are healthier.
Interesting new twist. Have you been working on it long? The problem is that it is not up to you to define what reality officially is. Those who believe in God do believe their belief has a large connection with reality. They believe it is your belief system that is disconnected from reality. You seem to be rephrasing an old point. That is , that objective evidence recognizable to all is required for a belief to be legitimate. It simply isn’t so.
That would be the “Stairway to Heaven” I presume.
The problem for you would be finding examples of societies progress that was not connected to religion in some way. I’m not talking about scientific advances. I’m speaking of more subjective progress.
Could I please let me weasel a little and change my plea to “Prevailing Theory”?
90% of my current science knowledge comes from Scientific America and New Scientist. So if it is what is being discussed as the current theory, I in my lack of better knowledge, assume it is the current theory. Besides, it was said with humor. I think I even included a smilie.
I had to look up javelinas: apparently a small wild hog.
I was 8 when I started questioning the Roman Catholic Church and I left it after one last silly Easter Sermon. I am 40 now.
I guess if Wild Pigs raised me I might believe in a God as if you could believe a bunch of wild pigs could raise someone and the person could communicate, then belief in God, unicorns or little green men should be easy.
If your real question is, “Would you have any doubts about the non-existence of God if you were raised by a loving community of Atheists with no exposure to God or Religion until already an adult?” My only answer would have to be, probably not, but I am not sure. I cannot be sure. In fact that is the very reason why I am not an atheist now. I am not sure.
Jim {Please accept my post with the bit of humor I attempted, it will probably fail, but that is normal}
How would you know what a unicorn was if you’d never even seen a horse?
My question was to illustrate the point that, if you’d never been told about god, you wouldn’t have any doubts as to whether or not he existed. You do not believe in the lava planet Gargalon because I just made it up and you’ve never heard of it before.
If god was real, in my opinion, we would know him outside of other people telling us about him - people who were, in turn, told about him by other people. I also believe that if god were real, he would not have waited until late December on the human calendar to “reveal” himself to us.
But what do you mean by God? You seem to mean the Christian God. You are drilling be about an entity I do not believe in and have made it clear I do not believe in. I do not believe in any organized religion’s belief that I have thus far heard about. I just am not sure that there was not some incomprehensible creator or jokester that made the universe and established the physical laws we observe and study. I am simply unsure and I might have the same questions if your javelinas raised me.
Take my word for it, I am mostly anti-religion, especially any religions that promote “be Fruitful and Multiply”, Hate, Murder, Holy Wars, or Religious Rule over state. I have been told to hold my opinions on this matter in several threads, and I usually respect such requests. The requests have not come from mods however.
So while I am not a card carrying Atheist, I am probably your ally most of the time when it comes to religious questions.
It is possible - perhaps likely - that there is or was a prime-mover or first cause of some sort, but it’s not very productive to talk about, it has no current effect on the universe, and it’s unfortunate that so many people call this thing God.
Some scientists refer to the laws of physics as God - and this leads many theists to believe they are on their side - but many of those same scientists are atheists.
I took a philosophy class wherein the professor told us we all believed in God, and when some of us disagreed she insisted that the definition of God is the sum of one’s life experience.
Of course there is a God, as long as you can define God however you want. It’s an excersize in futility, though.
Hey, I didn’t mean to come off as harsh or pedantic. I’m hardly what you’d call an expert. Probably just nitpicking because someone finally brought up a subject I vaguely had knowledge of, so I could sound more learned than I really am. It’s certainly not something I feel I need to argue vehemently. It’s coo’, baby!
I read a quote from Dawkins new book which stuck in my mind. Paraphrased he said "Yes you can describe God as just about anything, Nature, the universe, etc. but for the term to not become meaningless, we have to accpet a meaning of some sort of supreme being. It made sense to me and even as a spiritual believer it made me wonder if God was a term I wanted to keep using.
[aside] Tris, was that comment aimed at my quote? If so, I believe it to be misplaced. I was hoping that the similarities in rhetoric were showing how obnoxious such an argument is. A parody, if you will.
[/aside]
-Geek
I think the turning point for me was in graduate school, arguing with a professor in a feminist theory course over meaning itself. She was a poststructuralist and was arguing that all meaning is an artifact of a person’s location in time space and culture; that meaning emerges exclusively from areas of conflict called “discourse” in which the purpose of all constructed meaning is to reify, reflect, and perpetuate power relations.
I said that while I thought it was useful and necessary to consider all concepts for the ways in which power relations had distorted our understandings of things, and to be aware of how thoroughly entrenched power can control how people perceive things, it was one thing to say that our current understandings of various things was twisted by ideologies and perverted to playing a part in maintaining power structures, but a very different thing to assert that nothing had any meaning, and could not have any meaning, aside from whatever role it played in such power struggles. Likewise, the whole “reality is socially constructed” thing, quite apart from power struggles per se —while I’m ready to grant that we do only an infinitesimal portion of the amount of independent self-originated thinking that we tend to believe that we do, and do not tend to see things except as the culture around us has taught us to see them, we still do bring to the interaction some innate qualities, things which are “us” apart from that which is socially constructed, and similarly whatever we interact with is really there and some of what we experience in interaction with it is really “it”, not just our socially shared belief-systems that define and pertain to it.
And the professor responded to this: “Oh, you believe in God, do you?”
And it simply was not a non-sequitur. She knew what she meant, I knew what she meant, and I knew that a true and vibrant subset of people who use the word “God” would also know what she meant and that she was right, I was one of those people. Even if I had far more in common with her and her worldview than with Jerry Falwell and his.
