Well I can agree strongly with the first point. **PRR ** has been very offensive about religion lately. I just thought the “I have met part” was a little besides the point.
As to the second point, let me just say I find logical base defense of the non-logical to be more difficult to take than faith based ones. I cannot argue against faith, I have none, but that does not mean I am right. **Poly’s ** logic and historical viewpoint is interesting, but inherently wrong as God cannot be proved and history provides too much information for either side of the debate.
Good chop job, there. Too bad it doesn’t address what I was commenting on; to wit, your comment that the current “war” is against Islamic Fundamentalism.
You say that you don’t see a Southern judge applying laws to protect an atheist. Do you have a cite for any Southern judge who has threatened to beat an atheist for her or his beliefs or non-beliefs as you have described? And I would be curious about how many cases there have been in the last 35 years where a Southern judge has failed to protect an atheist’s right not to believe. Do you have any information on this at all?
You do know that most Southern cities are liberal, don’t you?
Thank you for the opportunity to be a virtuous woman.
You couldn’t be a virtuous woman if we turned back time and raised you in the Cenozoic Era (which would be a fabulous idea, btw. Think about it.)
It hardly matters what I think about Southern cities’ liberality, or lack thereof. I’ve had the privilege of reading the post that you are commenting on, wherein the poster stated quite clearly that he was writing about “what it’s like to grow up in an ultraconservative rural area in a red state.” Now the words “ultraconservative” and “rural” have a special meaning to me, a meaning that is some strange ways contrary to that of “liberal” and “city.”
IOW, it is far more rewarding getting down in the gutter and licking the cobblestones than engaging in discourse with you, and I hope I’ll remember that the next time I consider responding to one of your inane posts.
Wow, and I thought the fundamentalist paranoia and belief that they are persecuted for their faith was way wierd. Onward Atheist Soldiers, Marching without God!
I must live on a different planet. We haven’t burned anyone at the stake in years!
If you’re not actually trying to preach to believers, sorry about that. I read the other posts that said that you were going for conversions. I’ll keep the “arrogant”, though.
See post #108, by Polycarp. It’s not exactly clear, but I think his point was that religious belief, in itself, cannot be proved or disproved. If you claim that the Earth was made in six days and humans lived along with dinosaurs, that’s a claim that can be scientifically tested (the “humans with dinosaurs” thesis, at least, I’m not quite as sure of the “made in six days” part). But if you claim that a god exists, or no god exists, well, since gods are independent of the material world, your claim is essentially unprovable (and undisprovable). But your own philosophical viewpoint seems to be that everything can be known through the senses – I’m not certain what the definition of Materialism is exactly, so Polycarp or anyone else, if you want to correct this, feel free – so since the existence of a god cannot be proved by science, you consider belief in God to be ridiculous.
I actually happen to disagree with this. I believe the existence or inexistence of a god to be impossible to determine either way, and I consider that lack of any belief in a god (as opposed to both active disbelief and active belief) to be the “default” position. This is why I’m an agnostic atheist. But frankly I don’t mind the fact that some people actively believe, or actively disbelieve. They don’t have the same life experience as I do. I just wish they’d realise that their beliefs are just that, not facts.
In this thread and a few others, people seem to be comparing the treatment of Christianity and Scientology on this board. Well, there’s of course the fact that Scientology is a much younger religion than Christianity, and one whose origins don’t seem especially noble, what with the rumour that Hubbard said, prior to founding Scientology, that creating a religion was a sure-fire way to make money. (Is there any proof of that, actually?) Christianity, on the other hand, is older and its origins are therefore more shrouded in mystery. Plus, it’s a greater part of Western culture than Scientology is. But I think that the main reason is what I said earlier in this post. Scientology makes some claims that are in the domain of science. I think Scientologists spurn modern psychiatric medicine for unproven treatments, for example. The anti-scientific claims made by some Christians (creationism, to name one) are also often attacked here. If Scientologists make some claims that are totally outside of the domain of science, I have no problem believing that some posters here will mock them, while they might not mock claims made by Christians. But I must say that I personally do not care about what Scientologists claim, as long as it does not go against science, and I believe many other posters feel the same.
It’s certainly wrong that posters or lurkers here are sending you hate mail. But I’m willing to bet that Polycarp, Siege, tomndebb and the others aren’t the ones who are doing this. So what’s the problem with them? Why mention it at all?
tomndebb has claimed that he wants the “LDS theology” thread to remain about LDS theology, while the other thread can contain the claims that Joe Smith was delusional or whatever it does contain (haven’t checked them). I don’t see what’s wrong about this. Do you?
I don’t know if there is an actual rule preventing posters here from sending hate mail to other posters. Mods, is there actually one? I’m reminded of [thread=370735]this thread[/thread], but in this case the offending poster – who, as far as I know, wasn’t warned – hadn’t actually sent what could be construed as “hate mail”.
The best thing I can suggest to you would be to forward the e-mails to an administrator, and see what can be done. I believe someone must be registered to be able to check your e-mail address, so it might be possible to match the return address to someone. Then again, maybe not.
Which is why I said “The religious, as a group” in the very post you quoted. Not that I believe that the religious people you know are as sweetness and light as you claim.
FYI, I can’t recall anything, either.
Yes, but it’s mostly Christianity that actually matters in the US.
“Imposed” ? No, I’m saying that it’s right, and if you believe otherwise, you are wrong. That isn’t imposing anything, and I don’t see where pseudotriton ruber ruber is talking about imposing anything. Holding a strong opinion is not imposing, nor is calling those you disagree with names.
Besides, all the evidence is for materialism, and claiming that mystical/religious beliefs are anything better than wild guesses is an example of ignorance or irrationality, or simple lying.
Which is why it is not the same thing, or even close.
There’s also the little deal that all the evidence suggests that they are wrong and the unbelievers are right; that’s a tiny difference.
:rolleyes: Yes, because the claims of persecution by a massively numerous and extremely powerful group to being persecuted victims is just as plausible as similar claims by a massively outnumbered group that that is the least trusted group in America.
No, gunfire and beatings are more popular these days.
I am quoting your OP in full because, loon that I am, I managed to infer from it the concept that you wish religious belief abolished as a species of ignorance, because of course you are 100% correct in your own views, with whom no one should ever take exception. I note from a page-3 post of yours that either this was not your intent, or your bicycle is proceeding rapidly backwards.
So what am I to construe your OP as meaning? Somehow, even the anencephalic among us have managed to grasp that you don’t like religion very much, without the aforementioned diatribe. As regards it, point by point:
This is something I would hope to see sped along. However, your other posts on the subject indicate that your vaunted tolerance is not really there – what you want is for atheists not to be condemned, granted, but that believers in any faith should take their place, as “promoting ignorance.”
There’s been a great deal of debunking of classical Diffusionism in cultural anthropology. The sun is among a number of deified objects, but hardly universal. As for Christianity, its billion-plus believers make it very difficult to generalize about. T.S. Eliot, Paul Tillich, a superstitious pseudo-Catholic peasant from a third-world nation, and the snake-handlers all fall within that broad category.
You might be very surprised at the charitable work that actual Christian churches do – not Westboro Baptist or Jerry Falwell’s, to be sure, but the typical Methodist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Catholic parish’s outreach efforts to provide help.
I take it you don’t have a clue what clergypeople do. Of course, showing up for class a couple of times a day three days a week, to yammer on about whatever enters your mind, you wouldn’t. And if I’ve misrepresented your duties as a teacher and department head (presuming you are actually what you claim), you may be able to take my point.
I am quoting your post in full because I don’t have a clue what you’re about half of the time, and need frequent reminders. I’m 100% correct only in saying that these are my opinions–everything else is open to discussion. I don’t want religion abolished as much as I believe that’s the direction humanity is moving in (except when I think otherwise, which makes dark days for me, visions of 1984, The Handmaid’s Tale kind of visions.) If I didn’t want people to take exception to my views, I wouldn’t post them on a messageboard. You’re free to disagree as you choose–I just wish you’d be more honest and more clear in your responses.
I do think that, when atheists are less despised in general, society will be less ignorant and less tied up in knots over religion. I’m perfectly okay with people holding any beliefs they choose, the more enlightened the better, but I recognize that my views on what is enlightened are probably not yours. The marketplace of free ideas should help straighten this conflict out, but to have one we need a level field on which we discuss our ideas. The SD is a little skewed to your advantage at this point IMO.
2)The sun was a convenient, and moderately accurate, example of a primitive object of worship. If you’d care to instruct me in anthropology, feel free to open a thread and I’ll read it eagerly.
I wouldn’t say “very surprised” but I’d estimate that a goodly portion of most churches’ effort and energies is designed to go into areas utterly unrelated to charitable works and closely related to reinforcing superstition and primitive fear and hatred among their congregants. Not cool.
I try, of course, to avoid spending time with most religious people, but I’ve seen too many ministers in fancy suits, driving impressive cars, taking nice vacations, etc. not to doubt them when they claim to be working for the poor and weak. If you have no use for learning, and prefer to characterize what I do as “showing up and yammering,” I really can’t argue with you. That is what I do. I like to think my students get some value from my yammering, but it’s possible that they’re wasting their time in school. They’d certainly save a lot of tuition money if they dropped out because of my empty yammering, and they’re certainly free to do so. If you want to open a thread in GD advocating abolishing universities, I’d gladly argue with you there. Why do you have such a hard time allowing me the same courtesy regarding my belief that abolishing religion would be a virtue?
Certainly, I’ve seen them too. I’m not a huge defender of the Catholic Church (recovering Catholic), but I remember visiting the rectory and my parish priest several times. You’d leave your coat on when you visited him, because the rectory was old and badly insulated. His sister lived with him and kept his house. Their provisions were meager. He drove a ten year old car that had been donated to him by a parishioner. The furniture in the rectory was all old and dated.
I never thought of him as a particularly good man - he was a priest, a somewhat judgemental and uncharistmatic one at that - but what small salary was given to him as a priest was not going to fancy cars. Perhaps he had a gambling problem, but my understanding was that most of his salary was going to help poor parishioners. He was apparently fairly generous in that regard - within his limited means - since his stipend was not much.
There are certainly “religious” professionals out to line their own pockets. There are certainly “religious” professionals that don’t.
My own guess is that religion turns out to be a net positive in world history. While certainly a lot of bad has been done under the banner of religion, a lot of good has been done as well. Religious organizations fed the poor long before our government thought they had a role to play there. Religious organizations were instrimental in ending slavery and securing Civil Rights in this country. Once, nearly all hospitals were religious.
Not everyone has the moral compass to be a good person without a religious foundation. Some people need the rule book - and a belief that cheating will get caught and punished. Although there are many forms of Christianity who have a warped rule book, the basics are far from horrible - its a pretty good moral foundation - don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t kill.
Note that I’m not saying that everyone needs the rule book. I’m married to a very ethical atheist. However, I’m always surprised how many people assume that if you didn’t have the rule book and a God, you would plunder and pillage to your heart’s content - I’m not exactly sure we should convince those people there isn’t a God who is there to keep them in line.
Like I say, religion, from sun-worship to scientology, has served a purpose in getting us from being chimpanzees’ slightly smarter older brothers to the enlightened beings we are today. But it’s outmoded, and its practitioners haven’t gotten the message yet, or are fiercely resisting getting it. But rationality, atheism, enlightenment (which are three parts of the same thing) is spreading, and it’s a good thing. You educate people through the slow abolition of primitive and superstitious ideas. It just takes longer than we thought at first, to paraphrase a great and noble thinker.
This illustrates that we are responsible for our beliefs. No matter how popular, or seemingly positive or feel-good they are, we should be held to a standard of integrity when choosing which beliefs dictate our lives and actions.
When blue laws, religious lobbying, and immersion in theism is rampant in our culture, it is a bad thing for all of us. Take Dawkins’ views on the tragedies of 9/11:
Islam is not solely to blame here. Christianity and Judaism have their share of pious massacres to answer for. Does all the fellowship, all the warm feelings and all Sundays singing hymns make up for even one violent death in the name of that belief? Do they make up for thousands? Millions?
Let’s go to Dawkins again,
Is it defensible to stifle education in such ways? Is it somehow not harmful?
Many of you like to repeat the argument that outspoken atheists come off as grumpy, and their approach is “not winning anyone to their side.” I submit that an honest person does not stand on the side which is friendliest, but the side which he believes is right.
Cisco, you’ve gone and done something the OP seemingly can’t be arsed to do- you’ve introduced into this thread some sound arguments showing damage to society done by organized religion. Specifically, you cite blue laws and lobbying by religious groups to stifle education; to those I would add organized repression of homosexuals and opposition to medically sound procedures and counselling on the basis of religious dogma.
I think you (or really Dawkins as quoted by you) go over the top on blaming religion in general for wars fought over dogmatic differences and for the actions of religious fanatics. This product of authoritarianism would be present with or without religion as an enabler - and most philosophies would work just as well to enable fanaticism. (Also, I’m constantly amazed at the number of intelligent people who keep saying “September 11 changed everything” in order to justify the same set of beliefs they espoused before September 11.)
Cisco, in what public schools is Creationism being taught instead of the theory of evolution? I accept Dawkins figures that 50% of the population believes that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, but there is no supporting evidence that those people are the very ones endoctrinated by fundamentalist Christian doctrine. In fact, from what I read recently, fundamentalists make up only 40% of Christians in this country. That would be far less than 50% of the population of the country.
I can understand why Dawkins is so frustrated, but it does a disservice to blame everything on all Christians. I don’t even know any Christians who object to blue laws anymore! I’m sure there are some and that they are vocal. They just aren’t a majority.
Those of you who see television evangelists or ministers from these mega churches and think that they are typical of ministers are naive. My church back home currently has ministerial students from a nearby college to come by and preach a sermon for a modest honorarium. How are churches with two or three hundred members going to have wealthy ministers? Five hundred members is considered a reasonably large membership in the South.
And the churches do provide opportunities for those who want to make a difference for those in need. I’ve been going to one church for a little over a month. They’ve collected books for a library in Belize, collected new hats, gloves and mittens for the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota (where so many don’t have heat through the winter – 80 to 85% unemployment), and provided a chance to sign up to work on disaster relief for a week in New Orleans. I think that there are many main stream churches like this.
And I don’t intend to be critical of all fundamental churches either. There are some that get pushy, but there are many more that don’t. Some of you listen only to the loud mouths and the ones that make the news and you think that is typical. Where are your critical thinking skills?
Have we moved away from blue laws? Yes
Have we moved away from forced Bible reading and teacher initiated prayer in public schools? Yes
Have we moved away from spending public monies on nativity scenes in the public parks? Yes
I know that there are Christians who would like to make this country into a theocracy. That will do more to unite main stream Christians and atheists in American than anything I can think of. We are also rather fond of the Constitution.
Google “intelligent design”. If you’re not familiar with what a hot-button this issue has been in the last couple of years I’m not even sure we should be having this discussion.
Ah, so where do you suppose they got that novel idea from? Certainly not all churches who preach this doctrine are forced to label themselves fundamentalists, are they?
Not quite sure what you’re getting at here. I can name literally thousands of things that Dawkins does not blame on Christianity. In fact, he was strongly opposed to naming his last documentary Root of all Evil because he does not, in fact, believe that religion is the root of all evil. So . . . I believe this is a strawman.
And how many of those two or three hundred member modest churches does it take to make up for one 30-million member Ted Haggard mega church? How many of your ministerial students have the ear of the single most powerful man on the planet? Who is being naive here?
Who ever said churches didn’t do this stuff? I believe my exact words were: Does all the fellowship, all the warm feelings and all Sundays singing hymns make up for even one violent death in the name of that belief? Do they make up for thousands? Millions?
Don’t be so sure. I was in public school as little as 10 years ago and I had many teachers growing up - and especially in high school - who liked to start lectures with, "There’s a GOOD BOOK whose title I’m not allowed to mention here that says . . . " We also had “Bible History” class which was, for all practical purposes, church.
Funny, I’ve never met a dedicated Christian who objected to blue laws.
I’m aware there are those who wish that ID be taught instead or even alongside Evolution; however, the question put to you was in which public schools is it actually being taught instead of the legitimate scientific version, Evolution?