thank you Jodi as soon as I saw this thread title, my first thought was “and which religion, pray tell, isn’t convinced that theirs is the right and true way?”
I can only imagine a decade or so ago, the “SDMB” equivalent in Afghanistan wondering aloud about 'why are those Taliban guys so het up over women going to school and all". etc.
it would be a rare religion that postulated “we mostly think we’re right, at the very least we’re not quite as wrong as other ways”.
A believer believes
I’m just very disturbed about people who believe that God endorses one political party over the other. I have to take my grandmother to church, sometimes (she goes to a very conservative Southern Baptist church) and the sermons are often very political. It used to be about how bad and evil Clinton (and the Democrats) were, and these days about how lucky we are to have godly G.W. Bush (but those Democrats are still evil).
The association of politics and religion doesn’t seem to do either many favors. If God has, in fact, ruled in favor of the Republican party on all these issues, then it really doesn’t matter. However, if there’s room for legitimate debate, then the church is alienating people who have reasonable differences with a political position, yet could benefit greatly from the church’s spiritual instruction. And if the church’s spiritual instruction is really as vital as the church claims, then . . . Well, I don’t like to use “hypocrites”, but that’s how I feel about my grandmother’s church, and much of the fundamentalist political movement that I’ve seen personally.
Happened to be looking up the exact wording of this Mark Twain quote right before I read this thread. It seemw to be appropriate whenever fundies get fumed about all things secular.
" If God is as vast as that, he is above blasphemy; if He is as little as that, He is beneath it."
Ah, so simple…
Personally, I think the reason is that some people, in order to have any feeling of purpose or security in life, have to feel like there’s something or someone giving order to things. Whether it’s a right-winger’s God sitting in a cloud, a left-winger’s idealized picture of morality and human nature, a nationalist’s charismatic leader, etc. This isn’t always a “bad” thing, necessarily. If someone getting a “warm fuzzy” feeling when looking at a crucifix helps them have a happy life, then fine. Whatever makes them happy. But sometimes people will get so caught up in their beliefs (Be they religious, a moral code, a political philosophy, etc.) that the belief acts more like a prod, or a goad. To them, it doesn’t just become “good” to follow their core belief, it becomes “bad” NOT to. And that doesn’t just apply to others; consciously or not, I think they start fearing their own beliefs as much as they love them. They go from being the “sheep” into being the “Sheepdogs,” so to speak.
Perhaps it’s a Primate trait. Or a trait to be found in any species that has such strong social impulses.
I’ll try and be back later to disparage and undermine some more groups. 
Ranchoth
(Yup, a lifetime’s worth of philosophical theory condensed into a single poorly-worded paragraph. Not a bad day, so far!)
Maybe I’m just having a bad day and am running everything through the worst possible spin cycle as I process stuff in my head today, but all the above descriptions of the R-Right’s rationalizations smell an awful lot like textbook Fascism.
How far off am I?
I don’t know if they are aware of the absurdity of their beliefs, or are somehow able to ignore that blatant falsehoods, but either way I don’t think that “honest” is an accurate term to describe their position. Take a look at the letter Polycarp linked to:
Lie. Children can say the Pledge as much as they want. The school just can’t endorse it.
Lie. No one is forced to accept atheist beliefs.
No one concerned with honesty would make these statments.
Shodan
No, it means that you shouldn’t use political power to promote religious views.
So that would mean that no atheist has valid moral principles, which means that only theists should be able to have opinions, doesn’t it? Which would mean that while you claim that atheists are intolerant, the fact of the matter is that you are the intolerant one.
Perhaps you mean “the religious right believes in its own rightness no less than any other group in America”. Because the religious right most certainly is different from other groups. Even though other groups think they’re right, they don’t force schoolteachers to recite every day an affirmation if their beliefs. They don’t declare that the rest of the country is “out to get them” every time something doesn’t go their way. There’s a difference between thinking you’re right, and thinking that no one has a right to disagree with you.
You should be more careful with those generalizations.
It amounts to the same thing. If my religious view is that slavery is morally wrong, should I keep my opinions to myself because they are religiously based? Should Sister Prejean’s objections to the death penalty be discounted because they are based on her religion?
Yes. If atheism is true, there are no valid moral principles.
Atheism is not, in fact, true, so therefore it is possible (indeed common) for atheists to hold correct moral views, but not realize that these principles violate their presuppositions. Their atheism is invalid, but their morals are fine.
Well, if disagreement == intolerance, I suppose so. So is every atheist who objects to my advocating my religious beliefs in public. (See the thread about Prayer Warriors in the BBQ Pit if you don’t believe me.)
The idea that none but theists should be allowed to have opinions is yours, not mine, and does not follow from anything I have stated or believe. People are perfectly free to disagree with me, even if it means they are wrong. Obviously. 
You mean the “Heather Has Two Mommies” thing never happened?
A trivial example? Of course. Less trivial than the PoA? That is less clear. Or see Michael Kinsley’s excellent article “On Manger Patrol with the ACLU” for some even more delicious examples.
Of course there is. This is a distinction which is unfortunately likely to be ignored by every group in the US with a mailing list and a chip on its shoulder.
It ain’t just us. It’s ALL of us.
Regards,
Shodan
Slavery and the death penalty have public and social policy implications beyond one’s religious feelings. The words “under God” have no purpose outside of a religious one. Any attempt to enact laws which have no purpose outside of a religious one is immoral.
Bullshit. That’s akin to saying that if democracy is not correct, there are no valid legal principles. Which is, of course, also bullshit.
Also bullshit. Believe in whatever deities you’d like, but don’t pretend things are proven that are not.
Atheism isn’t true? So, as well as the Christian God, I must assume that you worship all of the pagan gods as well, not to mention the dozens and dozens of smaller tribal Gods?
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good torment us without end, for they so do with the approval of their own conscience.” - C.S Lewis
It is that sort of attitude on the part of theists that worries atheists, that they are unable to understand the difference between advocating a position, and using government to promote it.
If you wish.
Not big on keeping an open mind are you?
No disagreement isn’t intolerance. Saying that a position is invalid, however, most certainly is. And this is even more evidence against Jodi’s claim that anti-secularists are honest. I clearly explained what it was that I thought was intolerance, and it went way beyong simple disagreement. Your implication that that is what I’m saying shows just how little concern ytou people have for truth.
Not allowed. Able. You said that
It follws from that thatno atheist is capable of having consistent moral principles.
I’m sure that somewhere in this world there is someone named Heather who has two people considered to be her “Mommy”. I don’t see how this contradicts my statment.
Your insistence that everyone is just like you is baffling.
Shodan:
So, what you are saying is that all moral principles come from God? And if there were no God, there would be no morality? Wow, you have a really low opinion of humanity!
—Yes. If atheism is true, there are no valid moral principles.—
I dare you to turn this into a meaningful arguement: showing how one follows from the other.
Or, you could explain how the existence or non-existence of ANY god would alter what is and is not right and wrong in any way. If there are no valid moral principles, positing a god does not at all solve the problem.
Hey guys, hasn’t it been proven that religion is essential to good moral principles? I mean, just look at those who have studied long and hard in seminary school, been assigned to respected positions within the church, showed their flocks, children and all, the light of their God… Have they ever failed to live up to those principles? I hear Hare Krishna schools in America also have impeccable reputations. And, of course, if nothing else, Judaism and Islam preach nothing but pascifism and loving one’s fellow neighbour.
So you only do the right thing, or abstain from doing the wrong thing, because the sky pixie and his big book tell you to?
That’s scary. That’s really scary.
So does abortion, gay rights, a commitment to limited government, tax policy, and practically every other issue on which people disagree in the US.
I am assuming this means that the Religious Right is permitted to express and advocate positions based on religious commitment and belief if they also have a secular purpose. Thus almost none of the disagreements in our society go away.
If that is what you meant, I agree with you. If you are proposing that no religiously based opinion can be considered as worthy of becoming public policy (the “get your rosaries off my ovaries” argument), I disagree. My objections to murder and other crimes that we would agree are wrong are all religiously based. So are my objections to partial-birth abortion, and totalitarianism.
Unfortunately, you can’t pick out one opinion (with me and with the rest of the religious right). They are all religously based.
Non sequitor. Atheism means the belief that there is no God. Theism does not compel the belief that all religions are equally valid. Polytheism is a variant of theism, not its identity.
I suppose you could believe that there is no President. I could affirm that there is, without being forced to admit that that there is more than one.
What is the difference between “disagreement” and “saying a position is invalid”?
I disagree with positions that I think are invalid. If I thought they were valid, I would agree with them. I assume the same about others, that they would agree with me if they found my arguments convincing.
Again, if I am being intolerant of others by disagreeing with them, OK, I am intolerant. Just as they are being intolerant by disagreeing with me. If either of us can convince the other, I assume we are then being tolerant. Therefore, by advocating my positions, I am working to reduce intolerance.
This is a good thing, is it not? For both of us?
Exactly correct. There is no morality apart from God.
I am not accusing any atheists of being evil people.
I am not accusing any atheists of being evil people.
I am not accusing any atheists of being evil people.
I hope we got that one out of the way.
We’ve done this one on the SDMB. A lot.
OK, suppose there is no God. Thus there can be no transcendent principle above or apart from the universe, which would have validity even if the universe did not exist. I am thinking of things that exist ‘before’ the Big Bang, or after the heat death of the universe - things like that.
There is also no immortality of the soul. After we die, we die, and nothing remains to be affected by anything.
There can also be nothing taken on faith, as self-evident. If we simply assume a morality, that starts us down the path to a transcendent God, which we have already ruled out.
All atheist morality that I have found seems to be based on some first principle that is taken on faith. Such and such is good because it leads to the survival of the species, or the good of society, or greater liberty for everyone, or some variant on the Golden Rule.
Often they say something is immoral because it violates what most people want. Why is “what most people want” a compelling principle? Why “should” I care, and what meaning does the word “should” hold in this context? How do you get from “This is what I want” to “this is what you should do”? Because you will treat me the same in return? Why is what we both want a valid principle?
If you base a morality on the survival of the species, you will fail. No species survive, and even if humanity wants to be the exception, ultimately we will cease to exist upon the heat death of the universe. If you base a morality on the good of the individual, you also fail, since all individuals die, after which nothing they did or had done to them makes the slightest difference to them. There is currently no difference whatsoever between the situation of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Joseph Stalin. Once everyone in the species is dead, no one remains to be benefitted by whatever another member of the species did, and those benefitting actions become meaningless.
If you base a morality on human happiness, you still fail. If atheism is true, happiness is a pattern of electrical activity in the pleasure centers of human brains. Suffering is a slightly different pattern off to one side in the same brain. What sense does it make to say that an electrical pattern is ‘good’ if it happens here, but ‘evil’ if it happens three inches down and to the left?
And once those electrical patterns cease to exist, it is equally meaningless to say that they were morally correct when they existed. How is it meaningful to say that it was morally incorrect for me to turn off a lamp day before yesterday? How has the world been changed in any lasting way?
In the same way, if I dedicate my life to the betterment of my fellow humans, who then die, how have I done anything meaningful? How about if I dedicate myself to mass murder? That is equally meaningless.
It seems to me that all morality has to be based on a first principle. Either that first principle is taken as self-evident, which is what religious types call an “act of faith”, or has to be derived from some other principle. If you can’t logically justify the other principle, you don’t have a valid morality. If you make an “act of faith”, you are not an atheist.
How would an atheist distinguish between a person who spends his life educating the poor, and some one who is executed for rape and murder of children? What principle can we use to determine who is right and who is wrong?
Keep in mind that no matter what you propose, someone can always ask “What is that based on?” If it is not based on something you can rationally justify, you don’t have a valid morality. And if no morality is valid…
I fully understand the fear many feel towards the religious right. We will do anything if we think it is what God wants.
Imagine, however, how we feel towards you. Surrounded by people, all doing the right things -
for no reason at all!
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, the debate over whether it’s possible to have a moral society without religious belief has been gone over in several previous threads. Without rehashing old arguments, I have to point out that a number of people disagree with your opinions on good grounds and you can hardly declare them as proven facts.
On the issue of the Religious Rights motivation, I can see two. The first is the obvious and cynical one; the leadership of the Religious Right promotes its agenda because it derives the power it craves from that activity. The membership follows because it gives them a sense of importance and belonging. From this viewpoint, the Religious Right is no different from any other political organization.
For a less cynical view, I’d point out that everything the Religious Right does is valid if you accept one premise; that the religious belief they espouse is correct. If you accept that one premise (which admittedly I don’t) then everything else they are doing follows logically and rationally from there. If you truly believe that everyone who isn’t a devout Christian will suffer eternal pain, then you should be devoting every possible effort to converting everyone to Christianity. This includes suppressing everyone and everything that opposes Christianity or even just distracts people from Christianity. You’re even justified in using deceit and force if necessary as the end you are seeking is more important than the means used to reach it.
Maybe, they have lost their faith and can’t admit it to themselves.
Ever see anybody standing in the street and yelling that the sun will rise tomorrow? Of corse not, we all “know” it’s going to happen.
How do we know? Because it always has.
Does that prove that it will tomorrow? No.
We have faith that it will.
I know where you were going with this, and this point is a total hijack, but take a look at Heinlein’s speech “The Pragmatics of Patriotism” in his collection Expanded Universe for a totally different approach to the same question.
I disagree.
Yes. Yes, we have. In many threads.
And if you have not yet seen that atheists can hold a consistent and well-based morality without God as its first principle, you have apparantly not read those threads.
(Speaking of which, anyone have a handy link to the Great Gaudere/Libertarian discussion on this very matter?)