IzzyR said, "If someone is an atheist solely because he has rejected the specific teachings of a particular religion, while not understanding what those teachings actually are, he is foolishly ignorant (& foolish in general, FTM). "
If you’re an athiest, all you have to “understand” about a religion is the fact that they worship a god. All you have to do to be an athiest is to reject the possibility of the existence of a god. There’s not much more to be said. The rest of the nuances of that religion are pretty much pointless.
On the other hand, one cannot deny the importance religion has played in history and art throughout the ages. However, one doesn’t have to truly understand the intricate teachings of any religion to understand the historical impact it made.
Having an interest in religion for RELIGION’S sake is vastly different than having an interest in religion’s role in the world.
Polycarp said, “And, of course, the thread was not directed at you in any way (particularly in view of the fact that you take the time to inform yourself on matters of interest or concern) – but rather at those who take a Feralwilliamesque stance.”
Actually, according to Oxford, all you have to be is to not have a belief in a deity. Not necessarily believe that one doesn’t exist. Just nitpicking, but it’s a common mistake.
Gobear said, "The very fact that you think that religon is represented by **Jack Chicxk and His4ever shows how little you know about the world’s religions. I prefer to think that religion is better represented by the Sleeping Buddha at Wat Po in Bangkok, or Aya Sophia in Istanbul, or Bach’s “St. Matthew’s Passion.” Man’s impulses to the divine can be found in Paradise Lost, Chartres Cathedral, the rock garden at Ryoanji Temple in Kyoto, the Parthenon, the poems of Rumi, the Blue Mosque of Isfahan, and the Egyptian Hymn to the Sun. "
But religion IS represented by Jack Chick and His4Ever (to some people). The fact that it’s not the most palatable form of religion in your opinion doesn’t mean it’s not representative of what a lot of people believe to be the “Truth.”
Ooooh. Durn enter button. I was also supposed to include in that post…
Kalhoun, I agree, there is a difference between not knowing about how it played in history, and not knowing the ins and outs of major religions. However, I consider it wiser to make a decision based on knowledge, not lack of knowledge. This is going past what the two people quoted in the OP were talking about, of course, but I think it twines in. While you can be an atheist without knowledge of the different types of deities, I consider it perspicuous to learn about something before I make a decision.
Its like saying in a thread about how Trek fans don’t know about Captian Pike “Well I didn’t know, but then again, I think Trek is for geeks.” Or about changing the oil in your car “I can’t do it, why should I when I can pay some grease monkey to do it for me.”
There are two issues here, the pride of ignorance on something that should be basic cultural literacy (although the meaning of Pentecostal is kind of pushing the boundries of “basic.” We aren’t talking about “not all Christians are fundies” or “Christians believe Jesus died for your sins.”) And the smug superiority and implied slam (although I don’t get either from the first post in the example, and the second is not the most eggregious example we’ve seen around here).
Like gobear, I think its a shame when people don’t learn about religion - but that’s because I find it facinating and a key to opening up so much understanding about other stuff. But no one can know everything and you pick and choose. I understand that. I do, however, feel a little regret when people are purposely colorblind based on some principle - I don’t believe in God, so I won’t bother to learn even basic bible stories that are part of the cultural mythos of the society I live in.
Basic cultural literacy, whether about religion or sports or reality tv, should be something you want to acquire (says someone who has never seen reality TV, but doesn’t shun conversations about it, isn’t very religious, and can only hold actual informed converations on baseball and golf, but smiles and nods very convincingly through conversations on basketball and football).
Gobear said, “it really gravels me when someone trashes religion without knowing anything about it”
How much more do I have to know other than they believe in a mystical power that I don’t believe in? I’m not saying that the mysticism is all there is to religion, but it’s enough for me to say “no thanks.”
Gobear, you sound like you’re giving credence to the concept of a diety in your statement above. The Chicksters and the H4Eers are no more bizarre in their beliefs than any “mainstream” religion. They’re just meaner. They’d be mean if they were athiests, as well.
You know, I couldn’t have said it better myself. I’m an atheist. I don’t care what the Bible says Christ allegedly said or did. I don’t care what goes on at the Seder table on Passover. Knowing these things would do nothing for my appreciation of History, Science, Mathematics or what have you. They are irrelevant details. I don’t need to know what the Torah says to understand that the Holocaust was a Bad Thing. All I need to know is that these religions are based on some unseen mystical Being that I have no reason to believe in whatsoever.
Well, there’s no question that His and JTC are mean folks, but if you say are representative of religion, I submit that you need to learn more about religion in general and Christianity in particular.
Fai enough, but that’s not what the folks referenced in the OP were doing. They dropped ignorant comments poohpoohing the subject under discussion, which just downright rude.
Moreover, if one wishes to dismiss all religion as mysticism, fine, but if one wish to dismiss the claims of any one religion, whether it be Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or the LDS, one ought to know what those claims are first.
Frankly, I give more credence to an argument that pinpoints inconsistencies in the Gospels and dissects the miracle-mongering of the Xians using logic and examples from science, than someone who posts, “Christianity sucks cuz it’s some bullshit.”
(Jon Stewart voice) Whaaaa? In no way do I at any time give credence to the existence of any supernatural entities.
I am curious as to how any intelegent being could unilateraly deny the existance of such a being as “God” without at least a working knowledge as to what different religions and people are talking about when they say “God”. “I don’t believe in some magical being in the sky” covers it, I suppose, but with all of the depth and detail of a slice of white bread. “God” means so many different things to so many different people, not all of them having to do with magical sky beings, that it really seems foolish to deny the entire concept unilateraly without studying what you’re denying in at least some basic detail.
People. This is a discussion. Discussions aren’t static monologues carved on huge slabs of granite. They evolve. gobear was not as clear as he should have been regarding his thoughts on the two examples quoted in the OP. Nor was he as clear as he could have been about what he has been condemning. But, this is a discussion. Discussions evolve and change, they shift to new topics, positions get clarified, and people communicate. gobear has clarified his position pretty well since the OP and it does not involve excoriating people who have no interest in a given topic. Likewise Shayna isn’t a banner waving cheerleader for ignorance. She simply objects to what she (understandably) perceived as presumptuousness in the OP.
Yes, the OP could have been more clear. If you wish attack gobear on the clarify of his OP. Don’t attack gobear for opinions which he has repeatedly indicated he doesn’t hold. Likewise, Shayna isn’t deserving of the title “Defender of the Ignorant”. Clearly she’s upset at what she perceived the message of the OP to be.
Now, once again, can we get some real ignoramous’ in here for that aforementioned ass kicking?
Something of a hijack, but I thought I’d point out that this is an enormous overstatement. In fact, the impact of mortality tables on the economy is very limited. Anyone who tries to follow or understand the economy by following new mortality tables is out of his mind.
Not sure why you would attach your comments to my words. What I said was “If someone is an atheist solely because he has rejected the specific teachings of a particular religion, while not understanding what those teachings actually are, he is foolishly ignorant…”. Now if you are saying that you are not an atheist because of anything about the specifics of a particular religion, as you indicate, then you are specifically excluded from that comment. And in fact, I also added - in that very same post - “the atheist who has no interest in the details of a religion that he wouldn’t believe in in any event … is merely disinterested”.
Sorry, but that’s ridiculous. There is no reason for me to parry objections to statements I never made. I had a clear, obvious point to my OP, and most people had no difficulty understanding my meaning. It was Shayna and a few others who decided to interpret it as a personal attack. I am not to blame for their inability to read.
Actually, I’m ashamed to admit, I didn’t look at any of the posts cited in the OP… :o I addressed the thrust (as I read it) of gobear’s argument, and skimmed the rest of the thread.
Bad xeno.
Understood. Yes, the two examples in the OP aren’t even close to exhibiting the type of “aggressive ignorance” I interpreted gobear as railing against.
I missed it because I didn’t look for it (I was interested in the forest instead of the trees), but now that I look, I have to marginally agree that there’s nothing overly special about religious knowledge as opposed to other general areas of knowledge. However, I must also continue to support gobear’s assertions regarding the necessity of a basic knowledge of comparitive religion/religion in history in order to understand damn-near-all broad sociological phenomena, and in order especially to pontificate about those phenomena.
And, just as with the quotes in the OP, you ignore what is written and make your own assertions. Reconcile what you’ve written above with what I originally wrote:
I’d demand an apology from you, but I just don’t value your opinion enough to pretend that it means anything. Still, putting me on the same level as H4E… I feel like I should wish you a weekend of steamy, passionate sex with Jack Chick as punishment.
**
First of all, I didn’t say the story of Adam and Eve (what’s with you reading something and interpreting it to say something YOU want it to say??). I said (emphasis added)
This applies to any story, from a Mother Goose story to Rudyard Kipling to what have you.
And secondly, fuck you and your sanctimonious “you missed the entire point of [the Adam and Eve] story,” and your idiotic “The very fact that you think that religon is represented by Jack Chicxk [sic] and His4ever shows how little you know about the world’s religions.” You know fuckall about me, yet you feel free to automatically assume that I’m ignorant of religion simply because I called you, in a word, a prick. Not to toot my own horn or anything, but I’ve been interested in religion for as long as I can remember and even have a nice piece of paper (i.e., a Bachelor’s degree in Religious Studies) to show for my interest. I can delve into my CV a little farther if you’d like (I seem to recall winning a few awards in Religious Studies, but can’t remember the specific names of the awards off of the top of my head), but frankly, my point has been illustrated. You know absolutely dick about my opinions, my stance, and my knowledge of religion, yet you feel free to assail me regardless.
Which one of us is proud of our ignorance again, and piping in when we know jack and shit about a topic?
**
Where the hell did you pull that nugget from? The best you can charge me with is holding up Jack Chick and His4Ever as figureheads of “Ignorant Fundamentalism,” as that is the ONLY context I mentioned their names in. I know it sounds trite here, and not much of a Pit-worthy insult, but I mean it literally: LEARN TO READ. Fuckin’ a. If you’re going to foam at the mouth and send spittle flying everywhere whenever you’re in the Pit, at least have the decency to tear into something that someone actually said. I know that you then run the risk of someone actually responding and making you look foolish, but for fuck’s sake, grow a pair already.
**
I can’t decide if you stole that line (with added saccharine) from Rudolf Otto or from a fortune cookie. Either way, you’re missing your mark… but I’m sure you won’t let a little trifling matter like the truth get in your way. Keep up that willful ignorance yourself, Chief.
gobear, I have asked you to stop misattributing words or sentiments to me that I did not make, yet you persist. I did NOT say, nor did I imply, nor even hint that I think you’re trying to get people to take an interest in religion for religion’s sake. That is NOT what I find so offensive and objectionable about your holier-than-thou, sanctimonious, self-righteous OP. I also very specifically said that I do not even MEET the supposed criteria of your OP because I do consider myself at least somewhat educated in religion. Therefore, I did NOT take your OP “personally”. I didn’t say that. I didn’t imply that. I didn’t HINT at that. SO STOP MISREPRESENTING ME.
Thank you.
To various others here: as for the general idea that it’s rude to enter a thread about a specific subject for which you have disdain and make a snide comment in order to appear superior – I completely agree! However, we really don’t have examples of that behaviour exhibited in either of the quotes pulled from that other thread.
As a matter of fact, the FIRST person to express a lack of knowledge about The Pentecost was Guinastasia, a woman who is a well-known Christian on these boards, who said, “I didn’t know that about octupuses and squids. And I didn’t know Pentecost was a Jewish feast.” Her post was immediately followed by one of the “offending” examples from this OP, Marley23, who then said, “I didn’t know about the origins of Pentecost, but then, I’m an atheist and I sometimes make a point of not knowing stuff like that.”
A few points: Marley23 was clearly only following another poster who’d admitted “ignorance” on that subject by chiming in with her own admission of the same. I see nothing wrong with that at all. Secondly, Marley23 had been participating in that thread already, contributing other miscellaneous factoids, so it’s not like she went into that thread for the sole purpose of mocking it. 3rd, I see her statement about being an atheist as nothing more than a qualifier as to why she’s ignorant on that particular subject – not an admonition against the learning of any religion. And finally, that thread itself was not about The Pentecost or religion – it was about people believing certain things should be “common” knowledge. Therefore it is not analogous to entering a thread about, say, Star Trek, and claiming no knowledge because all Trekkies are geeks. It’s just not the same at all.
The second example is Nichol_Storm, who also did not enter that thread specifically to bash Christians. She mentioned several things with which she was unfamiliar – exactly in the spirit of the thread – before ever saying anything about the one item of religion that had been brought up. Admittedly, had she left her statement alone after the first sentence; “I also didn’t know about Pentcost, but, like Marley23 I’m an atheist and hence never had a personal stake in learning about it,” it would have been exactly as innocuous as Marley23’s. The next comment about the “invisible man who lives in the sky” was uncalled-for and inappropriate and had no business in that post. I would have completely high-fived the OPer here if he’d pitted that poster for that comment.
But again, none of that is what this rant was supposed to have been about. Look at the thread title. Read the claims by the OPer that anyone who doesn’t learn about religion on purpose is “vile” and “wicked.” Then he changed it later and said it was supposed to have been about expressing opinions about religion if you’ve chosen not to learn about it. Well neither of those women did that, so I fail completely to see how those particular posts caused him to come to the conclusion he did, which precipitated this entire thread.
Here are the things that have been brought up in this thread with which I agree: [ul][li]Going into a thread for the purpose of mocking the participants = BAD[/li][li]Making rude comments about other people’s religion = BAD[/li][]Voicing uneducated opinions as if you’re fully learned on a subject = BAD[/ul] Things with which I do NOT agree: [ul][]Choosing not to learn about specific intricacies of any subject, be it religion, quantum physics, actuary tables (thanks kabbes!) or any other subject /= BAD, let alone vile or wicked![/ul] Just FYI, I have an extremely busy day today – and a half-day at the office, at that. Then I have 2 business meetings that will go on past 9:00PM tonight, so it’s not likely I’ll be responding further to this thread today. Try to keep smilin’, all!
Thanks, they are the differences I expected and agree with. But from the Atheist point of view, both things are fiction. So studying the Bible is mearly compounding an older and larger mistake. A mistake that has allready cost lives, unlike the trekkies (who only cost sex-lives )
The point was made better by others. I don’t think knowing little about star trek can be considered a point of pride.
But being proud that I don’t waste time learning about star trek trivia when I use that time instead to learn about religion (in my own particular case) is a valid thing to be proud about.
I don’t see the people mentioned in the OP as being much different from me, only having different values in the subjects that interest them.
Gobear, you sound like you’re giving credence to the concept of a diety in your statement above.
(Jon Stewart voice) Whaaaa? In no way do I at any time give credence to the existence of any supernatural entities.
Gobear, I didn’t say you actually said that, but by saying one form of Christianity is more representative than any other of the many forms of Christianity sort of states that one is “more” Christian or more worthy than another.
In my opinion, they’re all equally far-fetched. People choose the religious flavor that they most agree with…the church doesn’t choose them. Those who align with the Chicksters and the H4Es are attracted to those because of something within their personality. Poly isn’t a Chickster because he isn’t a mean person. Not the other way around.
Now, do I believe that Poly’s choice of Christianity has had a more positive impact on the world? Absolutely. But I think the Chickster’s impact has been waaaaay more important in the historical sense. But from where I stand, the religious part of the belief systems is equally implausable.
)