Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think I've ever read a bigger load of shit from you. You seem to be hung up on a very specific type of Christianity.That's definitely a personal problem and shows a clear, closed-minded biased against religion.
Ok. So, first...really?! You should know me well enough by now to know that while I disagree with religion, I'm not holding a gigantic grudge that I wield like a club in debates.
Now, you didn't give me much to work with here. I don't know what assumptions you may have made from my words, or what your specific objection is. So I'm going to fling some poo at a wall and see what sticks.
- I grew up in a very religious home and have pretty much no bad memories from it. I know it can be a force for good. And while I don't think most of that good would have gone away sans religion, it also did nothing to actively hinder it.
- I do constantly stress the difference between religion and the religious people who espouse it. Even the extremist fundamentalists are, on the whole, good individuals who mean well. We just have wildly differing views of what that means.
- Some people can't make that separation. An attack on a belief system is an attack on them personally. That's their problem, not mine, frankly. We have to be able to combat ideas on an intellectual playing field, sometimes vehemently, and it's entirely possible to do that without losing sight of the humanity necessary to respect the individuals and their right to believe it, however absurd we may find the beliefs.
- This may touch on your specific objection, given your "one type of Christianity" comment: if you, your sect, etc. doesn't espouse faith as a means to understanding God (and I use faith in the sense of "belief without evidence"😉, then my point is not about you. But I'm not just talking about the religious outliers. Perfectly moderate, and ultimately good, Christians and Muslims espouse faith as a method of belief. The percentage of theists that don't use faith is very small. I'm not talking about them or their system of belief. I'm talking about mainstream Christianity and Islam, and faith - belief without evidence - is specifically in my crosshairs.
Let's build toward my point again with some statements that hopefully won't be controversial:
- Extremists are men of faith. They truly believe in their God, their holy text, and that their actions put them on the path to eternal salvation. This is, almost by definition, the reason they do what they do.
- We know that morality is possible without religion and faith, and the evidence we have on the subject suggests that religion actually doesn't make one more moral. I can cite examples if needed, and have done so numerous times on the forums.
The priests in my decidedly-moderate church growing up often talked about giving yourself fully to God. Total faith was needed for this, and it was supported as the best possible trait within the belief system. It's a powerful meme. It is encouraged despite lack of evidence, and often the community supports faith even in the face of evidence to the contrary. It's a strong idea.
Now, given the all-importance of religion for believers - moderate or otherwise - we're talking about right and wrong, good and evil, salvation or damnation, and this is in pretty much every Christian sect. We're still nowhere near extremism. And if you truly believe, is there anything you wouldn't do for your God, your religion? The answer should be no, because we're talking about eternity. At that point, it's just a matter of interpreting a text in a violent way. Or a prejudiced way. Or a non-inclusive way.
So on a basic level, faith opposes critical thinking or at least replaces it oftentimes. This isn't true for all levels of belief - it obviously varies person to person and by situation - but the idea of belief without evidence flies in the face of it. And on a larger level, it is perhaps the strongest possible impetus for action that we have as humans, at least on an organizational level. Very little, if anything, has the power that religion, faith, and belief has to rally people to a cause.
So how can I not see the propping up of faith as a good trait as destructive? I don't think it creates any good where none would exist otherwise, and I think, societally, it endorses an idea that, when it reaches a critical mass, can give rise to such extremism. If there were no goodly, moderate priests talking about total blind faith, there would be no extremists (or far less) invoking it to justify their hatred.
It doesn't make the goodly priest evil, or even detrimental on an individual level. As a whole, though, the practice becomes dangerous. It also doesn't mean violence would be eradicated, or even that irrational hatred ad violence wouldn't break out on larger levels. But I do think it would be harder to organize such ingrained prejudice against others in ways that we see manifested in modern society's religious violence.
..
I've also said this is opinion, and largely unverifiable. The little evidence we have on morality among various levels of religious adherence, which seems to favor my argument, also isn't directly applicable to this topic. So take it how you will. This isn't an angry rant against people invoking faith in their daily lives. It's an academic opinion about a cultural trend and specific idea.
Originally posted by Digi
I've also said this is opinion, and largely unverifiable.
I agree that it is your opinion and largely unverifiable.
Originally posted by Digi
The little evidence we have on morality among various levels of religious adherence, which seems to favor my argument,
Is this true or are you using outdated studies?
Originally posted by Digi
This isn't an angry rant against people invoking faith in their daily lives.
I disagree 100% with this statement. It's clearly a rant/biased opinion against theists.
If I were to make a similar statement that would actually be more accurate, I could claim that agnostics and atheists are single, educated, poorer, men, living alone, that do little for charity compared to their theistic peers. Sure, that's backed up by "science", but it does little to contribute to meaningful discussion. It comes off more as a rant and is clearly a bias statement.
Originally posted by Digi
It's an academic opinion about a cultural trend and specific idea.
I disagree with this, too. It has very little academic backing.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Subsequent means next or after
Why did you make this post? Clearly, Digi posted the word "subsequent" in his post but you'll need to be more clear with what you're doing, here.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree that it is your opinion and largely unverifiable.
At least try to address my points.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Is this true or are you using outdated studies?
The idea that atheists can be moral is common sense. The more specific morality studies are documented here:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=479017
I also go on to say: "The little evidence we have on morality among various levels of religious adherence, which seems to favor my argument, also isn't directly applicable to this topic."
Also, your use of the word 'outdated' implies that if I am using studies as evidence, that they are not valid or that I am knowingly using incorrect data (which I would take offense to, but this is the internet). The nature of the question is disingenuous. But no, I know of nothing that has overturned the studies I cite in that thread. They are only tangentially related to my central point, but somewhat applicable to points made in the discussion. If evidence had overturned the points made in the studies, I would not cite them. No one on any side should skew data to make their point.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree 100% with this statement. It's clearly a rant/biased opinion against theists.
To this I have only this reply:
Originally posted by Digi
- Some people can't make that separation. An attack on a belief system is an attack on them personally. That's their problem, not mine, frankly. We have to be able to combat ideas on an intellectual playing field, sometimes vehemently, and it's entirely possible to do that without losing sight of the humanity necessary to respect the individuals and their right to believe it, however absurd we may find the beliefs.
Originally posted by dadudemon
If I were to make a similar statement that would actually be more accurate, I could claim that agnostics and atheists are single, educated, poorer, men, living alone, that do little for charity compared to their theistic peers. Sure, that's backed up by "science", but it does little to contribute to meaningful discussion. It comes off more as a rant and is clearly a bias statement.
Couple things:
- I'm not rambling off a litany of prejudices about theists. I don't think the concept of faith is a positive force in the world. Period; end of central point. Every other point made is simply to work toward that idea. This is wildly different than piegonholing theists into unfair stereotypes.
- Are you actually getting those lifestyle traits from some sort of evidence? Single, poorer, etc.? Seems arbitrary. I have not heard of such stereotypes or data. I'd particularly be interested in the charity argument. Obviously theists do more because there's a LOT more of them. But, per capita, I'm pretty sure Bill Gates alone would give atheists a sizable head start in the philanthropy department. Seeing numbers would be fun.
- Third, I'd probably disagree with you on such a "rant" but I'd completely respect your right to say it. I'd try to address your points on an intellectual level, not brush them off as biased and angry unless it was overtly clear you weren't listening to reason or debating rationally. Tolerance of perceived negative aspects of society is disrespectful to humanity.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree with this, too. It has very little academic backing.
You're using academic in a different sense.
From dictionary.com: theoretical or hypothetical; not practical, realistic, or directly useful: an academic question; an academic discussion of a matter already decided.
...most of what we talk about on KMC is academic in that sense. We're not in a position to do or change much in a practical sense, we're just exchanging ideas. A head coach debating which quarterback to start vs. two fans in the crowd debating which quarterback to start.
...
I still haven't actually fielded a rebuttal from you yet. You seem married to the ploy of simply calling it a biased rant.
"The concept of faith is not a positive force in the world." and "The omnipresence of faith in many theistic religions allows for it to give rise to detrimental groups who use their faith as justification." Do you agree/disagree? Why or why not? If you aren't going to address that, you're just wasting our time.
srug
Amusingly...I did a few quick google searches about religious adherence and charity work. The only source I could find to suggest that religion = more giving was Conservapedia, which also links directly to entries like "Atheist whining" and an "Atheism and morality" article that begins: Not possessing a religious basis for morality, atheists are fundamentally incapable of having a coherent system of morality.
The studies I cite in the link above are on morality, not philanthropic donations, so I don't have evidence to the contrary on a specifically philanthropic topic. I also wouldn't be surprised to learn that religious adherents DO give more. In non-profit work, simply "making the ask" in a variety of ways leads to more donations, as does creating opportunities for peer emulation (i.e. "look how many donors we've already raised at this event! Add your name to our list now!"😉, and church services and related groups are a great forum for such asks, whereas non-churchgoers don't have any sort of outlet to donate on a regular basis. But suffice it to say, the link made me chuckle but did little to sway my opinions.
from Conservapedia
Barack Hussein Obama II (b. August 4, 1961, either in Kenya or Honolulu, Hawaii) was elected the 44th President. Promoted heavily by liberals, as demonstrated by his unjustified receipt of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, Obama won the presidency despite a short and unremarkable political career by outspending his opponent, John McCain, by hundreds of millions of dollars in 2008.
The liberal claptrap that helped elect Obama as president seems silly today. It was claimed, for example, that Obama has millions of followers on Twitter, when allegedly some 70% of them are fake.
---
Lots of comedy gold there.
It's the type of comedy that's also sobering. To someone, and many other someones, that is their primary source of online information. It's the kind of stuff that reminds us that we're not orders of magnitude away from things like political assassinations and widespread societal upheaval in certain areas of the country.
Also probably evidence of my point that the prevalence of certain ideals can create a cultural hotbed for more extreme versions of the ideal to become ingrained in people. The same things I've been saying about faith could easily be likened to patriotism and concepts of freedom. Which, taken alone, don't seem harmful (this from a professed libertarian, so I'm not pushing socialism here), but can lead to harm and prejudice when present in excess.
Originally posted by Digi
At least try to address my points.The idea that atheists can be moral is common sense. The more specific morality studies are documented here:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=479017I also go on to say: "The little evidence we have on morality among various levels of religious adherence, which seems to favor my argument, also isn't directly applicable to this topic."
Also, your use of the word 'outdated' implies that if I am using studies as evidence, that they are not valid or that I am knowingly using incorrect data (which I would take offense to, but this is the internet). The nature of the question is disingenuous. But no, I know of nothing that has overturned the studies I cite in that thread. They are only tangentially related to my central point, but somewhat applicable to points made in the discussion. If evidence had overturned the points made in the studies, I would not cite them. No one on any side should skew data to make their point.
To this I have only this reply:
Couple things:
- I'm not rambling off a litany of prejudices about theists. I don't think the concept of faith is a positive force in the world. Period; end of central point. Every other point made is simply to work toward that idea. This is wildly different than piegonholing theists into unfair stereotypes.
- Are you actually getting those lifestyle traits from some sort of evidence? Single, poorer, etc.? Seems arbitrary. I have not heard of such stereotypes or data. I'd particularly be interested in the charity argument. Obviously theists do more because there's a LOT more of them. But, per capita, I'm pretty sure Bill Gates alone would give atheists a sizable head start in the philanthropy department. Seeing numbers would be fun.
- Third, I'd probably disagree with you on such a "rant" but I'd completely respect your right to say it. I'd try to address your points on an intellectual level, not brush them off as biased and angry unless it was overtly clear you weren't listening to reason or debating rationally. Tolerance of perceived negative aspects of society is disrespectful to humanity.You're using academic in a different sense.
From dictionary.com: theoretical or hypothetical; not practical, realistic, or directly useful: an academic question; an academic discussion of a matter already decided.
...most of what we talk about on KMC is academic in that sense. We're not in a position to do or change much in a practical sense, we're just exchanging ideas. A head coach debating which quarterback to start vs. two fans in the crowd debating which quarterback to start....
I still haven't actually fielded a rebuttal from you yet. You seem married to the ploy of simply calling it a biased rant.
"The concept of faith is not a positive force in the world." and "The omnipresence of faith in many theistic religions allows for it to give rise to detrimental groups who use their faith as justification." Do you agree/disagree? Why or why not? If you aren't going to address that, you're just wasting our time.
srug
Yes, those are traits of atheists (the ones I listed) that are more common among atheists and agnostics than other "religious" demographics. I didn't pull that out of thin air.
Also, Bill Gates is not an atheist: he's agnostic.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, those are traits of atheists (the ones I listed) that are more common among atheists and agnostics than other "religious" demographics. I didn't pull that out of thin air.Also, Bill Gates is not an atheist: he's agnostic.
Fair enough. I looked up the Gates thing and it checks out. I rather think the point to made is still valid though - the world's biggest philanthropist is non-religious. I brought up the Gates example because you seemed to be getting petty, listing traits of atheists (which is not what I'm doing for theists). I really don't think we need to be choosing teams.
There's also his position to consider. Neil DeGrasse Tyson avoids the word atheist and that whole debate because it would undermine his primary objective - to teach science. If he's being honest, he'd have to admit that a scientific worldview tends to lead many away from religion. But he can't say it because of media and the politics of celebrity. If you look at Gates's interviews on the subject, he states that he approaches his worldview from a scientific perspective, but sees a lot of merit in religious morality and ideals. That's about as guarded an answer one can give while telling the truth about non-religiosity. He's making sure he doesn't lose support. We have to say he's agnostic, and he probably is. But I also guarantee you we haven't heard his full thoughts on religion, and never will. Evidence-based beliefs, a scientific worldview, etc. are the key ideas, regardless of label. He doesn't represent anything having to do with mainstream Western faith.
I also think you're probably right about overall giving numbers, for reasons I outlined in the Conservapedia post. But I also think it's a social thing as much as anything. Get a group of like-minded individuals together and I can get you thousands of dollars. My entirely secular organization raised 150K in a day from 800 attendees recently (though the religious makeup of the attendees varied). That's twice what we'll do over the next 12 months. But our event is once every three years. Church is every week. Give atheists a weekly gathering where they work themselves into a fervor and are asked to give to goodly causes. Numbers would skyrocket. But I go out for drinks or dancing or sports a few times a week, stay at home the rest of the time, and never get solicited for money. If I wasn't proactive, I would never give. And most, religious or otherwise, aren't proactive unless they have social or peer influences.
You're still not really pulling your weight in this discussion though. I'd like to hear you respond to more than just 1-2 selected lines. Normally I wouldn't care, but when you call me out so vehemently, I expect something behind it, not just more vague sniping.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Can't you be both?
Sure, yes, sort of. I'd rather not get into this. The end result of the forum trying to lock down labels was, if anything, more confusion.
It's a very wuzzy line, though, to quote a Carl Sagan saying I enjoy. They're related enough that in many cases we can group them together because of the philosophical difference from theism (though not always).
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_diplomatic_missions_attacksTHIS is what it takes to get them rioting, murdering, and comitting violence in general. A simple movie, or a few years ago it was a cartoon. This is a whacky,violent, sadistic religion. To be fair, so are the other two abrahamic religions but not to the extant this one is. maybe we ultimately are incompatible with them.
It not being a religion of peace (and it isn't, it's a cult of Mo) lies in the scriptures of Islam, the Islamic books and sources which promote and glorify death or subjugation of the kuffar (non-believers) and considers women to be chattel.
To understand Islam you have to go to their sources, Qur'an, Hadiths, Tafsirs... not to wikipedia.
Consider this:
''I am just a moderate Nazi. I don't believe in Anti-Semitism, I just agree on fuhrer's views on automotive industry and social order.
You can't judge Nazism by what fundamentalist Nazis do.''
If this disturbs you, so should a Muslim speech about religion of peace.