Is religion being picked on?

[Jagella]

Religious groups pick on eachother. You don't need atheists for that.

 

In order to want God's nonexistence, you have to make some kind of investment on that assumption. A dedicated proponent of humanism, for example, might be reluctant to accept it since it would prove his efforts misguided.

My guess is that scientists and those dedicated to finding the truth would be the least reluctant since, after all, there is practically nothing that could undercut their cause.

Yes, you don't need atheists to persecute religious people, but you sure don't need atheists to join the effort to persecute the religious.

 

I don't know if scientists are as open to truth as you seem to assume. For example, I recently debated the philosophy of mathematics in another science forum. My position proved to be very unpopular there. My stance that math is invented rather than discovered was dismissed as "lunacy." I argued as logically as I could and presented the best evidence I know of to support my position. The moderator there warned me to "stop posting crap." I was insulted numerous times. Their responses were almost completely devoid of any rational arguments or evidence. The entire thread was censored by the moderator at least twice.

 

What does this example demonstrate? I see some obvious parallels between this behavior and that of fundamentalist Christians. Many Christians will irrationally lash out at unbelievers--and so will some of those who claim to represent science. Both groups will censor heretical ideas.

 

Let us atheists and those who respect science not go down that road.

 

Jagella

[MonDie]

You say

"My point is that many atheists can adopt dangerous ideologies."

as if the two notions of atheism and communism are related.

Is that what you think, and if so, why?

Let's face it, Christ was a socialist so, if you are looking for links to communism, the place to look is as likely to be a religious commune as anywhere.

 

The gospels can be read socialistically since Jesus was so against materialism and the rich, but communism is an entirely different beast.

It's at least as likely that communism leads to atheism rather than the reverse. How atheism leads to anything needs elaboration since there are no leaders or definitive texts.

Edited November 1, 2015 by MonDie

[Jagella]

 

This still sounds wrong. I certainly didn't give up anything. My belief system developed to a point where god(s) were an irrational option that was ineffective at explaining reality. I didn't decide one day to be an atheist; I realized at some point I squeezed the last bit of supernatural ignorance out of the gaps in my knowledge.

 

 

I'm also at a loss as to why you think atheists should be singled out for these standards you'd like people to follow. Aren't the standards, the non-religious standards we operate under as citizens in our various societies, enough to cover these "dangerous" ideologies you're worried about? Which particular ideologies do you think we're vulnerable to when atheists have them?

 

This seems like you're persecuting atheists for something anyone might do, and something our society probably already has a defense against.

Well, you can nitpick about how theism is lost, but if one loses religious faith, then the ills of such faith are no longer a factor in that person's life. That's important in a person's moral growth.

 

I'm discussing atheists respecting justice, rational thought, and peace for the simple reason that many atheists do not respect these important elements of a civilized society.

 

One dangerous ideology that many atheists support is that of euthanasia. While I certainly understand people wishing to control their own destinies, granting death to the elderly and disabled is not my way of solving their problems. I debated this issue with some atheists years ago in a forum, and I was insulted and cursed at. That's not my idea of people who are compassionate or reasonable.

 

I'm not persecuting anybody. That's silly. I just wish atheists would set good examples of how people should think and conduct themselves. I fear that we atheists will make the same mistakes as the religious.

 

Jagella

[Strange]

Yes. I've "invented standards" that I'd like people to follow. I'd like people to be rational, just, and peaceful. Do you have a problem with that?

 

That would be great. But why are you insisting that people who don't have a particular belief should behave like that? Why doesn't it apply to everybody?

 

My point is that many atheists can adopt dangerous ideologies.

 

So can people who don't wear hats. Again, why pick on people who don't have a particular belief?

 

We atheists should address that issue.

 

Should I also be responsible for the attitudes of other people who, like me, don't play tiddlywinks?

 

I think that giving up belief in gods is a step in the right direction

 

Why?

 

And what does that have to do with atheism? Not all atheists have given up a belief in gods.

 

We need to make sure we don't make the same mess of the world as the religious have done.

 

It is not clear to me that religion has much to do, one way or the other, with the either the good or the bad things that mankind has achieved. Religious people have done great things. Atheists have done some terrible things. And vice versa.

 

Again, you seem to be setting a large, heterogeneous group on a pedestal for no other reason than that they don't share a belief. This doesn't seem very rational.

 

Do you think that people who don't like football need to make sure that they don't make the same mess of the world as the football fans have done?

Well, you can nitpick about how theism is lost, but if one loses religious faith, then the ills of such faith are no longer a factor in that person's life. That's important in a person's moral growth.

 

But if you lose faith, you may also lose many of the benefits that came with it.

 

But if you never had any faith to lose then your point is irrelevant anyway.

 

I'm discussing atheists respecting justice, rational thought, and peace for the simple reason that many atheists do not respect these important elements of a civilized society.

 

Again, why are you picking on atheists? And what is your evidence that "many atheists do not respect justice, rational thought, and peace"? And where is the evidence that (more) religious people do?

 

One dangerous ideology that many atheists support is that of euthanasia.

 

Do you have any evidence for that? There are religious people who support it as well? And do you have any evidence that it is (a) dangerous and (b) an ideology?

 

I fear that we atheists will make the same mistakes as the religious.

 

I wish you would stop using "we" as if atheists were a homogeneous group. I do not wish to be associated with the views you have expressed in this thread.

My stance that math is invented rather than discovered was dismissed as "lunacy."

 

It is against the rules to discuss what happens on other forums. But I will just point out that that idea is not lunacy (and I doubt it would ever be described as such). Many great philosophers and mathematicians have argued for exactly that. (As I think I might have said somewhere ot other ...)

Edited November 1, 2015 by Strange

[John Cuthber]

Yes, you don't need atheists to persecute religious people, but you sure don't need atheists to join the effort to persecute the religious.

 

How fortunate the n that there is no evidence of that happening (or, at least where it does, it's got nothing to do with atheism).

Where do you see atheists persecuting religion (or anyone else for that matter) because they are atheists?

[overtone]

I should point out that communism isn't necessarily bad, but those who have espoused it don't have very good track records.

The early Christians, the founders of the religion, were communist - for hundreds of years. We see that in the early colonization of NA by Christians - communes, often, some of which have persisted in some form or another to this day. You still see that in the organization of monasteries and priesthoods, as well.

 

Is that part of the bad track record?

 

Marx's famous comment that religion was the opium of the people is often misread these days, when opium has acquired a bad reputation. In Marx's day opium was the best and most effective painkiller available, a Godsend to those suffering from cancer and abscessed teeth and the like. But it was very expensive - the rich could afford it, the poor suffered without. Marx himself took opium when in pain - he had wealthy benefactors. He had the metaphor from personal experience of the blessed relief. He did not regard opium as a bad thing, that people should avoid or reject.

 

 

I wish you would stop using "we" as if atheists were a homogeneous group. I do not wish to be associated with the views you have expressed in this thread.

Jagella is probably a fundie, trolling the forum.

 

Do any of the theologically informed here know when violations of the 9th Commandment (and probably the 3rd, 5th, and 10th as sell) become mortal sins?

Edited November 1, 2015 by overtone

[Jagella]

How fortunate the n that there is no evidence of that happening (or, at least where it does, it's got nothing to do with atheism).

Where do you see atheists persecuting religion (or anyone else for that matter) because they are atheists?

Did I say that atheists--because they are atheists--have persecuted religious believers? I'm just open to the possibility that atheism can cause hatred toward theists. You should be open to that possibility as well.

 

As for atheists persecuting religious people, just check your favorite search engine for examples. There's always a possibility that their being atheists did cause them to persecute believers. Again, please keep an open mind to possibilities.

 

Jagella

[Strange]

I'm just open to the possibility that atheism can cause hatred toward theists.

 

Are you open to the possibility that religion can cause hatred toward atheists?

 

 

As for atheists persecuting religious people, just check your favorite search engine for examples.

 

Your claim, your burden of proof.

 

 

There's always a possibility that their being atheists did cause them to persecute believers. Again, please keep an open mind to possibilities.

 

There's always a possibility that their being religious did cause them to persecute non-believers. Again, please keep an open mind to possibilities.

[Jagella]

 

That would be great. But why are you insisting that people who don't have a particular belief should behave like that? Why doesn't it apply to everybody?

 

Again, you seem to be setting a large, heterogeneous group on a pedestal for no other reason than that they don't share a belief. This doesn't seem very rational.

 

Again, why are you picking on atheists? And what is your evidence that "many atheists do not respect justice, rational thought, and peace"? And where is the evidence that (more) religious people do?

 

Do you have any evidence for that? There are religious people who support it as well? And do you have any evidence that it is (a) dangerous and (b) an ideology?

 

I wish you would stop using "we" as if atheists were a homogeneous group. I do not wish to be associated with the views you have expressed in this thread.

I'm focusing on how many atheists act because lately I've experienced firsthand how intolerant and irrational many of them might be. That kind of behavior bothers me a lot.

 

Regarding euthanasia, I think it's dangerous because what is a "good" death and who should be allowed to die this good death often is decided by those other than the presumed beneficiaries (the elderly, the sick, and the disabled). Euthanasia does not have a good track record.

 

Finally, your telling me not to say "we atheists" is an example of such intolerance. May I ask which of my views you find repugnant? Free expression?

 

Jagella

[Strange]

I'm focusing on how many atheists act because lately I've experienced firsthand how intolerant and irrational many of them might be. That kind of behavior bothers me a lot.

 

So you have found that religious people usually agree with your views then?

 

 

Finally, your telling me not to say "we atheists" is an example of such intolerance.

 

So you think disagreeing with people is a sign of intolerance? Does this mean that you never disagree with anyone?

 

May I ask which of my views you find repugnant?

 

I think the word "repugnant" is a bit strong for not agreeing with someone. However, I would have thought the points of disagreement were fairly obvious. For example:

Your attacks on atheists.

Your attacks on the religious.

Your assumption that all atheists should behave the same way.

[swansont]

 

As for atheists persecuting religious people, just check your favorite search engine for examples. There's always a possibility that their being atheists did cause them to persecute believers. Again, please keep an open mind to possibilities.

 

The results are swamped by folks who think that being treated like everyone else is persecution, because they are so used to preferential treatment. So I'm afraid you will have to do better than that.

[Jagella]

 

Are you open to the possibility that religion can cause hatred toward atheists?

 

There's always a possibility that their being religious did cause them to persecute non-believers. Again, please keep an open mind to possibilities.

Religion can inspire hatred toward anybody. Did I say it cannot inspire hatred?

 

Jagella

[Strange]

Religion can inspire hatred toward anybody. Did I say it cannot inspire hatred?

 

So why are you picking on atheists?

[Jagella]

 

So you have found that religious people usually agree with your views then?

Religious people often are very offended by my opinions on religion. My skepticism about their claims tend to be upsetting to them.

 

Disagreements are not what I normally think of as intolerance. Trying to stifle free expression is very intolerant, in my opinion.

 

So you think disagreeing with people is a sign of intolerance? Does this mean that you never disagree with anyone?

 

I think the word "repugnant" is a bit strong for not agreeing with someone. However, I would have thought the points of disagreement were fairly obvious. For example:

Your attacks on atheists.

Your attacks on the religious.

Criticizing people is not necessarily an "attack." Unlike an attack, criticism can be very uplifting and constructive. I'm hoping that we atheists can do better than the religious.

Your assumption that all atheists should behave the same way.

 

 

I'm not sure why you object to my expecting atheists to be rational, just, and peaceful not to mention truthful. What moral tenet on my list do you have a problem with?

 

Jagella

[Strange]

Trying to stifle free expression is very intolerant, in my opinion.

 

And why do you think that atheists do that more than anyone else?

 

 

 

I'm hoping that we atheists can do better than the religious.

 

Why would you expect that?

 

Why wouldn't you want the other 90% of the population to achieve the same?

 

 

I'm not sure why you object to my expecting atheists to be rational, just, and peaceful not to mention truthful.

 

It is the fact that you are picking on atheists. Why not people who don't play the saxophone? After all we non-sax players need to have higher standards.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Strange

[Jagella]

The early Christians, the founders of the religion, were communist - for hundreds of years. We see that in the early colonization of NA by Christians - communes, often, some of which have persisted in some form or another to this day. You still see that in the organization of monasteries and priesthoods, as well.

 

Is that part of the bad track record?

 

I don't know if the communism of the early Christians led to social problems, but Christianity often has resulted in spcial problems.

 

Jagella is probably a fundie, trolling the forum.

Is that a joke, or are you serious?

 

Jagella

[Arete]

My point is that many atheists can adopt dangerous ideologies. We atheists should address that issue.

 

So personally, I'd say I was an apathetic, agnostic atheist.

 

I don't find any religious ideology particularly compelling, so subscribe to none of them, and so long as the belief systems of others don't impact me or others negatively, I really don't care very much what other people believe or do as a part of their beliefs. I'd be willing to reconsider my position in light of new evidence like, for instance Thor or God appearing in my office with a lifetime supply of fresh coffee and rye whisky on offer for becoming a disciple, but given the status quo I really don't care about religious doctrine and it really isn't a part of my every day thinking or lifestyle.

 

I feel absolutely no desire to group together with other atheists - any more than I feel like grouping together with others simply because they don't play golf, or watch Seinfeld. Beseeching me and others of similar mindsets to do or not do something in the name of collective atheism is unlikely to yield significant results. Just because we happen to not believe the same thing doesn't mean I want to be in a club with you - in fact that's exactly the type of club I'm trying to avoid having anything to do with in the first place.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Arete

[Phi for All]

Just because we happen to not believe the same thing doesn't mean I want to be in a club with you - in fact that's exactly the type of club I'm trying to avoid having anything to do with in the first place.

 

You don't know what you're missing. This Wednesday, we won't be meeting to discuss the non-worship of Zoroaster. Dues will not be collected at this time. You shouldn't come.

[John Cuthber]

Not that it matters much, there are atheist groups

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21319945

they may well be a bunch of awful people but, even then they don't really represent most atheists.

 

Most of us carry on our lives of not bothering to get together with other non sax playing, non golfing non theists.

[Jagella]

 

So personally, I'd say I was an apathetic, agnostic atheist.

 

I feel absolutely no desire to group together with other atheists - any more than I feel like grouping together with others simply because they don't play golf, or watch Seinfeld. Beseeching me and others of similar mindsets to do or not do something in the name of collective atheism is unlikely to yield significant results. Just because we happen to not believe the same thing doesn't mean I want to be in a club with you - in fact that's exactly the type of club I'm trying to avoid having anything to do with in the first place.

I must interpret what you're saying here as your not caring about about people being fair, honest, open-minded, or peaceful. Will you care if you are not treated fairly in court? Are you apathetic that a salesperson is honest with you when you buy a car? Won't you care if you are discriminated against because you are an atheist? And if peaceful behavior means nothing to you, then you won't mind one bit about being a victim of a violent crime--possibly attacked by religious terrorists.

 

OK. Suit yourself.

 

Jagella

[Strange]

I must interpret what you're saying here as your not caring about about people being fair, honest, open-minded, or peaceful.

 

Why must you misinterpret it that way? What drives you to do that?

 

Actually, if you think that someone not caring about the existence of God or gods (and not wanting to get together with others who don't care) is equivalent to not caring about people, then that rather blows your atheist cover and confirms the "fundie" label. That would certainly explain why you created this thread to attack atheists.

 

Or is it just that you think Arete is the "wrong sort" atheist? Like some sort of heretic to be burned at the stake in the name of fairness, honesty, open-mindedness and peace.

[Arete]

I must interpret what you're saying here as your not caring about about people being fair, honest, open-minded, or peaceful.

 

You are interpreting what I said incorrectly. I don't care what religious beliefs others hold (provided they don't affect others negatively) - how you equated that to me not caring if people behave in a criminally antisocial manner seems to defy any logical explanation.

[Jagella]

 

You are interpreting what I said incorrectly. I don't care what religious beliefs others hold (provided they don't affect others negatively) - how you equated that to me not caring if people behave in a criminally antisocial manner seems to defy any logical explanation.

Earlier you said:

 

Just because we happen to not believe the same thing doesn't mean I want to be in a club with you - in fact that's exactly the type of club I'm trying to avoid having anything to do with in the first place.

I never asked anybody to join a club. You were putting words into my mouth. It just seemed to me that you were putting it that way to avoid acting on the issues I've raised throughout this thread.

 

Jagella

Actually, if you think that someone not caring about the existence of God or gods (and not wanting to get together with others who don't care) is equivalent to not caring about people, then that rather blows your atheist cover and confirms the "fundie" label. That would certainly explain why you created this thread to attack atheists.

 

Or is it just that you think Arete is the "wrong sort" atheist? Like some sort of heretic to be burned at the stake in the name of fairness, honesty, open-mindedness and peace.

OK. You caught me. William Lane Craig put me up to this. We fundamentalist Christians want to reinstate the inquisition, and atheists are at the top of our hit list.

 

Jagella

[Arete]

I never asked anybody to join a club. You were putting words into my mouth. It just seemed to me that you were putting it that way to avoid acting on the issues I've raised throughout this thread.

 

You repeatedly define atheists as a group, and call for collective action - e.g.:

 

Obviously, we should take care not to be violent, bigoted, fanatical ... I think that we atheists should take care to act rationally and morally... I fear that we atheists will make the same mistakes as the religious.

 

The point is I don't care if people believe in a God or not. I don't even think of it as a useful distinction. Why should personal religious belief or lack thereof have anything to do with not generally being a jerk to other people?

 

It still doesn't explain your strawman equation of doesn't care about religion = doesn't care about morality.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Arete

[Strange]

OK. You caught me. William Lane Craig put me up to this. We fundamentalist Christians want to reinstate the inquisition, and atheists are at the top of our hit list.

 

OK, funny.

 

But seriously, why did you create a thread attacking atheists? It is four pages now and you still haven't explained why atheists (who are few in number and not an organised group) should be singled out for your criticism. Why do you think this (fairly random) 10 to 20% of the population has a special burden to be fair, peaceful, etc?

 

Wouldn't it be more effective to target the other 80 to 90% of the population? At least they form large groups with a fairly consistent set of beliefs and some sort of organization. That sounds like a much easier group to communicate with and try to persuade.