Der Trihs, a word

[cosmosdan]

@George Kaplin

[sub]This will probably piss a few people off, but…[/sub]

I like Der Trihs. I find both his views and his presentation refreshingly honest and unpretentious. For years, I’ve been baffled by the special priviledges granted to religious claims in public discourse. They seem to exist inside some intellectual twilight zone, the inhabitants of which have all conspired never to treat them as claims about the world that can be checked. Moreover, it is considered the height of impolitic to deny the veracity of the religious beliefs of others, no matter how batshit insane they might be. A man can claim he is in dialogue with the creator of the universe, that an ordinary snack cracker can be transformed into the living flesh of the Godhead when placed in close proximity to a few latin verses, and that on death his spirit will shed its corporeal ballast and ascend into the heavens for all eternity, and propriety dictates his bizarre assertions remain unquestioned. Yet is there any doubt whatsoever that a lone subscriber to these beliefs would be considered mad?

I don’t see where anybody complained because Der trihs has the audacity to challenge religious belief. Plenty of people here do that. Even as a believer I am willing to. Sam Harris in The End of Faith does a great job of challenging the “off limits” status of religious belief. People who think they know the mind of God and try to pass laws according to their interpretation, certainly should be challenged. Please let me help. Der trihs technique doesn’t help. He throws out all kinds of crap that he has no evidence for and when someone challenges him he cries persecution. Isn’t that exactly what you find repugnant from the religious? You may have also seen Christians make excuses for other Christians bad behavior. Do you find that ridiculous, perhaps offensive?

People like Der Trihs are keenly aware that organised religions are nothing more than arcane agglomerations of culturally acceptable delusions, supported by not even the merest scintilla of empirically verifiable evidence. Furthermore, they resent the fact that these delusions are taken into account when those in power make decisions which potentially affect them. Perhaps his abraisive manner was forged through repeated encounters with people who believe, as over 20% of Americans do, that Jesus will personally descend from the heavens, like some demented Marvel action hero, to smite the wicked and reward the righteous some time in the next fifty years. Whatever influenced his approach, I find it a pleasing antidote to the forced deference pervading the posts of those labouring under the specious ideology that religious beliefs should be accorded more respect than, say, historical ones.

There is a difference that perhaps you and** Der Trihs ** should clue into that other atheist have already been able to grasp.
History is based entirely on facts. Facts which are researchable and to a large degree verifiable. Religion is based on partially on facts. Much of it is the subjective experience and emotion. Would you consider someone a dick if they summarily passed judgement on how others felt and what they valued?
“Oh, you like country music, you must be a moron”
“Oh, you like Rachel, she’s a fat whore”
etc etc.

I agree that there should be more open discussions about religious beliefs. That’s a positive thing. Challenging those who think they have an obligation to force their beliefs on others. A moral obligation IMO.

Most of what Der Trihs offers is ridiculous unfounded and without the evidence he demands from others. It’s made up of the same bias and bigotry he rails against.

[cosmosdan]

@Zoe

I’m not sensing honesty from Der Trihs.

I think Der Trihs honestly believes a lot of the BS he shovels

One can’t exaggerate for effect and be literally honest at the same time. Der Trihs makes too many exaggerated claims for me to take him seriously when I would like to.

Unless one isn’t trying to exaggerate but really believes the BS.

[Uzi]

@fetus

But nobody else is saying them in a more civil fashion,…

Believer: There was a pink elephant wearing my pajamas last night.
Skeptic: Really? Can I see him?
B: Well, unfortunately you have to really want to see him before you can see him <usually said in a condescending manner>.
S: Uh, huh…

Where is the discussion at this point other than to point out that the fellow is a loon and should seek medical help? I imagine some people can do that politely, but I’m too busy pointing and laughing. Der Trihs stands there with a big sign, “This idiot is nuts”.

[Voyager]

@magellan01

Communism is not a Religion (big “r”). Period. Can you couch it in a way that it shares characteristics with religion? Or contort the defintion enough as to make it easier to slide communism into it? Sure. Why you would want to go through those contortions is beyond me. I’m sure I can contort the definition of a pinball machine to say it is a rabbit.

Sigh. If you want to say nothing can be religion-like unless there is god belief, fine. I gave a whole list of fairly fundamental, pardon the expression, areas where they are similar. If you want to ignore them, no problem, but they explain why that Communism’s basic evil is its religious nature is not unjustified.

But atheists did kill people. Million of them. Religious people have, as well. Those are facts. The reason, the ideology they espoused didn’t seem to be working and they thought they’d “help” it out. I don’t know why you (and others) are so afraid of the facts of history. No one is saying that atheist necessarily kill people. I know many atheists who have killed know one. The problem seems to arise when someone buys into Soviet style communism.

No one is saying that atheists don’t kill people. The contention is that in some cases killing is religiously motivated. (Crusades, inquisition, etc.) I don’t know of any cases where killing is motivated by atheism. Not all killing by religious people is religiously motivated, of course - I don’t think a Mafia hitman who goes to church every Sunday kills for religious reasons.

A schematic of the conversation is:

Crusades, Inquisition!
Communists, Nazis!
Nazis were not atheists. Communists didn’t kill for atheism.
Did too
Did not

etc.

and the original point is left in the dust.

It boils down to the guy who thinks it is okay to kill an enemy of the state, and the guy who thinks it is okay to kill a heathen blasphermer who is the enemy of God are roughly evil for the same reason. The Communist and the Phalangist who killed for the state had absolutely different religious views, but killed for the same reason.

[magellan01]

@Voyager

Sigh. If you want to say nothing can be religion-like unless there is god belief, fine.

Good. Because stretching something to be able to claim it is religion-like does not make it a religion.

[Uzi]

@magellan01

Good. Because stretching something to be able to claim it is religion-like does not make it a religion.

Both are belief systems that have been used to justify mass murder, though. Agreed?

[magellan01]

@Uzi

Both are belief systems that have been used to justify mass murder, though. Agreed?

No. It is an socio-economic theory, not a belief system. Unless you want to say that all theories are belief systems. And therefore all theories are religions. And I don’t think you want to say that, do you?

From American Heritage:

n.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

From Wiki:

Communism is a theoretical political ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production. It can be classified as a branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism also refers to a variety of political movements which claim the establishment of such a social organization as their ultimate goal.

[Uzi]

@magellan01

No. It is an socio-economic theory, not a belief system. Unless you want to say that all theories are belief systems. And therefore all theories are religions. And I don’t think you want to say that, do you?

Many people believed in the ultimate goal of the theory of communism and many of them killed to promote it. What basis in fact did such a theory have? I can believe the theory that every dollar I give homeless people on the street will go towards helping them get their lives together, but it belies the fact that many will use it to buy booze. They believed in a fairy tale that people will be happy with their lot in life and forgot or did not take into account that some will always be smarter, work harder, and have more initiative than others.

[cosmosdan]

@Voyager

No one is saying that atheists don’t kill people. The contention is that in some cases killing is religiously motivated. (Crusades, inquisition, etc.) I don’t know of any cases where killing is motivated by atheism. Not all killing by religious people is religiously motivated, of course - I don’t think a Mafia hitman who goes to church every Sunday kills for religious reasons.

This is pretty concise. My take on it is that it some other quality in man rather than just belief or non belief that takes him to a place where murdering others is alright. Whatever tool is used to create the “Us vs. Them” factor to that point.

I think the point about Communism is not that atheism was the motvation but that ateism is not morally superior and also kills. As some other poster said. Take all religion away today and people would still kill each other. Some would still feel and manipulate that us vs them factor.

It boils down to the guy who thinks it is okay to kill an enemy of the state, and the guy who thinks it is okay to kill a heathen blasphermer who is the enemy of God are roughly evil for the same reason. The Communist and the Phalangist who killed for the state had absolutely different religious views, but killed for the same reason.

I was just reading an article about Secular Humanism which the author felt evolved from the teachings of Jesus without the mysticism. IMO Jesus was trying to teach us to not look at the world in an us vs. them way but to realize that ultimately there is just us. It’s a tragic fact that many have perverted that and used it to justify their crimes. Still the teachings of Jesus, Buddha and others are still with us and serving as a catalyst toward improvement.

My own goal is rather than dismiss or ridicule beliefs , to use my background in them to suggest a change to others. To suggest that if the truth is very different than tradition and it is acceptable to question and reconsider long held beliefs. Whew!! It’s slow going.

[cosmosdan]

@Uzi

Both are belief systems that have been used to justify mass murder, though. Agreed?

Aha!! finally a solution. Get rid of all belief systems and we will have peace at last.

let’s see we can… kill everybody.

or,

sterilize everybody so that humans can’t reproduce.

[magellan01]

@Uzi

Many people believed in the ultimate goal of the theory of communism and many of them killed to promote it. What basis in fact did such a theory have? I can believe the theory that every dollar I give homeless people on the street will go towards helping them get their lives together, but it belies the fact that many will use it to buy booze. They believed in a fairy tale that people will be happy with their lot in life and forgot or did not take into account that some will always be smarter, work harder, and have more initiative than others.

I’m not sure what your point is. I hope you’re conceeding that communism is not a religion. But that’s some interesting logic you got there, so I’m not sure.

Are you imply that if somehting is s theory and resulted in people being killed it is, therefore, a religion? And throwing in the “fairy tale” mention was a cute touch. Tell me, couldn’t you have worked in a pink unicorn mention somehow?

So, just for clarification, in your opinion, is communism a religion or not?

[Little_Plastic_Ninja]

@fetus

We have our share of Dopers I would consider fundamendalists or extreme conservatives.

Extreme conservatives yes, but fundamentalists tend to go the way of His4Ever.

If he did, they wouldn’t listen. They would chalk him up as a non-believer and ignore him. As it is, though, they pay attention to him because he riles them up. They say, “Hey, that guy’s an asshole and an idiot. He’s way overly extreme.” Maybe, just maybe, one day they’ll look at a Der Trihs post and say “…Wait a minute. This is me. Something’s gotta give.”

That really is a nice thought. And really, the only good I can see in DT is that he might in fact help someone realize that he sounds just like them, only in a mirror image. And then they might realize just how terrible they sound.

THAT is good. That I can get behind. But for me, DT is the equivalent of a mosquito trapped in my ear canal.

I’ll gladly have a cup of coffee with you and calmly discuss our opinions, Little Plastic Ninja, and I mean that. I’m not sure where exactly you are from your location–Australia?–but if we’re ever in the same place I will gladly have a calm discussion with you, or any other Doper who’d like to have a brain-picking session without vitriol. I’m just saying that the Falwells of the world (and of the board, and there are a couple) have an equal opposite, and maybe that’s how it’s supposed to be.

Texas – like Australia, only with less ocean. The Location is a reference to Terry Pratchett.

It’s funny that my favorite author and the person I get a lot of personal philosophy from is an atheist. I’m not sure what that means about me. But I’d gladly have a coffee-debate with someone who promises not to just throw up his hands and call me a befuddled idiot.

But you’re right in that there has to be an opposite to the Falwells of the world. Still: I don’t like Falwell and I don’t like DT. Though looking at him as the punishment of Christianity is certainly amusing.

The rest of your post… it’s very thoughtful and good stuff. And I can take little kernels of truth out of Christian and atheist ranters. Watch:

It’s a bit silly to take offense at a statement meant to be friendly, especially if it really shouldn’t be insulting.

Killing people is wrong, no matter what reason you give for it. Very rarely is this wrong mitigated by a greater right, and nobody should ever die over religious differences.

It’s possible to be a good person without a religion to back you up.

It’s possible to be devoutly and truly faithful without a church and to be a good person at the same time.

It’s possible to be devoutly and truly faithful with a church and to be a good person at the same time.

Each of these possibilities is not unlikely – these good people are not the exceptions in their respective communities. There are many, many paths to illumination, and not all of those paths pass through spirituality on their way.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Uzi

Believer: There was a pink elephant wearing my pajamas last night.
Skeptic: Really? Can I see him?
B: Well, unfortunately you have to really want to see him before you can see him <usually said in a condescending manner>.
S: Uh, huh…

Where is the discussion at this point other than to point out that the fellow is a loon and should seek medical help? I imagine some people can do that politely, but I’m too busy pointing and laughing. Der Trihs stands there with a big sign, “This idiot is nuts”.

But he hangs the sign on everyone who claims to believe in elephants.

Hence the OP’s accusation.

[Lilairen]

@cosmosdan

My own goal is rather than dismiss or ridicule beliefs , to use my background in them to suggest a change to others. To suggest that if the truth is very different than tradition and it is acceptable to question and reconsider long held beliefs. Whew!! It’s slow going.

It’s slow going because it’s the only thing that’s likely to work in the long run.

“You’re delusional!”, just like “You’re going to hell!”, is only going to convince people who are, somewhere, already sharing basic beliefs about the nature of reality. To someone who isn’t starting with a stray axiom of “This god stuff is all bunk” or “The only way to avoid eternal torment is to adhere to this set of rules” somewhere in their psyche as a possibly-plausible theory, those comments are going to be as convincing as the form of “You’re wrong because I say so” that they are.

Actually changing people’s minds needs to work inside the structures they have at at least some level, or there’s a “can’t get there from here” problem.

[Voyager]

@magellan01

Good. Because stretching something to be able to claim it is religion-like does not make it a religion.

And since atheism is not in the slightest religion-like, the offenses of the Soviet Union have nothing to do with atheism.

[magellan01]

@Voyager

And since atheism is not in the slightest religion-like, the offenses of the Soviet Union have nothing to do with atheism.

What? This statement assumes that the offenses of the Soviet Union were due to religion. Where do you get that from?

[Uzi]

@magellan01

I’m not sure what your point is. I hope you’re conceeding that communism is not a religion. But that’s some interesting logic you got there, so I’m not sure.

It is not a religion, but it is based upon a belief the same as any other religion is. People died because of that belief. Just because the belief isn’t in a god doesn’t mean that they are essentially different. Both are rooted in a persons desire to have the world work in a manner that belies reality.
Now you could say that the people who started the revolution in the USSR were doing it for their own benefit. The same could be said for the people who started any of the different religions, too.

And throwing in the “fairy tale” mention was a cute touch. Tell me, couldn’t you have worked in a pink unicorn mention somehow?

Nah, the IPU would have been overkill.

@Thudlow Boink

But he hangs the sign on everyone who claims to believe in elephants.

We can prove the existance of elephants, though. It’s just the guys who say the elephants (invisible pink elephants if you will. Just to make magellan01 happy! ) are in their pajamas and only they can see them who rate the sign.

[woodstockbirdybird]

@Thudlow Boink

But he hangs the sign on everyone who claims to believe in elephants.

Hence the OP’s accusation.

No, on everyone who believes in pink elephants. There’s a difference.

I don’t like his style - he seems to make the leap from “all believers are delusional” to “all believers are evil” using spurious logic - but he is at least consistent in his statements.

[Voyager]

@magellan01

No. It is an socio-economic theory, not a belief system. Unless you want to say that all theories are belief systems. And therefore all theories are religions. And I don’t think you want to say that, do you?

Communism as practiced in the Soviet Union went far beyond just a socio-economic theory. They had Communist holidays to replace the religious ones, Communist heros, a Communist view of art. It spread to a Communist view of science. There was communist music. Communism filled all the social niches that once were occupied by religion there. Communism doesn’t have to be that way - I don’t think Tito’s brand was, but in the Soviet Union saying it was just an economic theory is simplistic.

[Uzi]

@woodstockbirdybird

No, on everyone who believes in pink elephants. There’s a difference.

HERESY! BLASPHEMY!
You are cast out! Everyone in the true faith knows that it is pink elephants in pajamas! For this crime you will be burned at the stake, broken on the wheel, and given a really bad pink belly!