Religion
Related: About this forumRichard Dawkins to atheist rally: 'Show contempt' for faith
By Cathy Lynn Grossman
USA TODAY Updated 2m ago
About 20,000 atheists gathered within shouting distance of the Washington Monument on Saturday for a Reason Rally hell-bent on damning religion and mocking beliefs -- and believers, too.
A full pantheon of demigods of unbelief -- British scientists and full-time atheism rabble-rouser Richard Dawkins was the headliner -- kept a crowd of all ages on their feet for more than six hours (and counting -- I left before the band Bad Religion was set to play).
Dawkins didn't appear until five hours into the event but few seemed discouraged by the near-constant rain or drizzle. They whistled and cheered for his familiar lines such as:
Evolution is not just true, it's beautiful ...
But when Dawkins got to the part where he calls on the crowd not only to challenge religious people but to "ridicule and show contempt" for their doctrines and sacraments, including the Eucharist which Catholics believe becomes the body of Christ during Mass.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2012/03/-atheists-richard-dawkins-reason-rally/1
I'm happy reason prevailed.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)nt
rug
(82,333 posts)"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus." - St. Justin Martyr, 2nd Century
But, of course, that's beside the point.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Religion makes people believe things that are patently, demonstrably, ridiculously untrue, and it makes them feel entitled to demand that those beliefs be respected in spite of that. Not to mention, in many cases, makes them feel entitled to ram those beliefs down other people's throats. if pointing that out makes someone an ass, then we need more asses and less delusional believers in the world.
rug
(82,333 posts)I won't stop you.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)And to decline to join them.
rug
(82,333 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The term "ass" was yours. Saying it was mine is just a blatant and deliberate falsehood. As was your claim of "reductio ad ridiculum", apparently made in hope that nobody would watch the speech in its entirety.
rug
(82,333 posts)You adopted and extrapolated the term. That is both your right and the blatant truth.
Deny he said this: "Mock them, ridicule them in public."
It will only make your position even more untenable.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)It was your term, not mine, as you dishonestly claimed.
Weak try, but typically shameless and bankrupt. We're done here.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Or you could use that blood detection stuff from CSI.
rug
(82,333 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Or alternatively, you could centrifuge it and see if the serum separates from solids?
You could use white wine and see if it changes color.
rug
(82,333 posts)
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
rug
(82,333 posts)As in overlooked, ignored, avoided. 
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)You could see that ice could be melted into water, water could be boiled into steam, and in the cold steam formed frost on cold objects. So ice, water, steam, and frost or snow were of the same substance, although they had different appearances.
We now understand physical chemistry, and we know how phase changes affect physical properties of an object without changing their molecular makeup.
"Substance" goes in the same bin of obsolete concepts as "ether" and "phlogiston".
rug
(82,333 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)is difficult to translate and the usual "daily bread" is very misguiding, as the litteral translation would be something like 'over-substance bread', referring perhaps to "spiritual" metabolism of something other than classical matter.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The change in transubstantiation is not "philosophical" or symbolic. It is explicitly chemical and physical. A change to actual blood and flesh. Weasel all you want, but that's black letter Catholic doctrine.
rug
(82,333 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)...
As regards the philosophical possibility of the accidents existing without their substance, the older school drew a fine distinction between modal and absolute accidents, By the modal accidents were understood such as could not, being mere modes, be separated from their substance without involving a metaphysical contradiction, e.g. the form and motion of a body. Those accidents were designated absolute, whose objective reality was adequately distinct from the reality of their substance, in such a way that no intrinsic repugnance was involved in their separability, as, e.g., the quantity of a body. Aristotle, himself taught (Metaphys., VI, 3rd ed. of Bekker, p. 1029, a. 13), that quantity was not a corporeal substance, but only a phenomenon of substance. Modern philosophy, on the other hand, has endeavored since the time of John Locke, to reject altogether from the realm of ideas the concept of substance as something imaginary, and to rest satisfied with qualities alone as the excitants of sensation, a view of the material world which the so-called psychology of association and actuality is trying to carry out in its various details. The Catholic Church does not feel called upon to follow up the ephemeral vagaries of these new philosophical systems, but bases her doctrine on the everlasting philosophy of sound reason, which rightly distinguishes between the thing in itself and its characteristic qualities (color, form, size, etc.). Though the "thing in itself" may even remain imperceptible to the senses and therefore be designated in the language of Kant as a noumenon, or in the language of Spencer, the Unknowable, yet we cannot escape the necessity of seeking beneath the appearances the thing which appears, beneath the colour that which is colored beneath the form that which has form, i.e. the substratum or subject which sustains the phenomena. The older philosophy designated the appearances by the name of accidents, the subject of the appearances, by that of substance. It matters little what the terms are, provided the things signified by them are rightly understood. What is particularly important regarding material substances and their accidental qualities, is the necessity of proceeding cautiously in this discussion, since in the domain of natural philosophy the greatest uncertainty reigns even at the present day concerning the nature of matter, one system pulling down what another has reared, as is proved in the latest theories of atomism and energy, of ions and electrons.
The old theology tried with St. Thomas Aquinas (III: 77) to prove the possibility of absolute accidents on the principles of the Aristotelean-Scholastic hylomorphism, i.e. the system which teaches that the essential constitution of bodies consists in the substantial union of materia prima and forma substantialis. Some theologians of today would seek to come to an understanding with modern science, which bases all natural processes upon the very fruitful theory of energy, by trying with Leibniz to explain the Eucharistic accidentia sine subjecto according to the dynamism of natural philosophy. Assuming, according to this system, a real distinction between force and its manifestations, between energy and its effects, it may be seen that under the influence of the First Cause the energy (substance) necessary for the essence of bread is withdrawn by virtue of conversion, while the effects of energy (accidents) in a miraculous manner continue. For the rest it may be said, that it is far from the Church's intention to restrict the Catholic's investigation regarding the doctrine of the Blessed Sacrament to any particular view of natural philosophy or even to require him to establish its truth on the principles of medieval physics; all that the Church demands is, that those theories of material substances be rejected which not only contradict the teaching of the Church, but also are repugnant to experience and sound reason, as Pantheism, Hylozoism, Monism, Absolute Idealism, Cartesianism, etc.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3
Sounds like philosophy to me.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)just to try to avoid the simple fact. The wine and bread after transubstantiation are either physical and chemical flesh and blood, or they aren't. Those are the ONLY choices. And which is correct isn't a Mystery. or a MYSTERY. Or even a MysterY.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)there being ONLY two choises are not made from the position of skeptical agnosticism.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)If so, out with it. if not, ramble on.
tama
(9,137 posts)not really needed.
Second, could speculate something about quantum level magnetic body.
Joseph8th
(228 posts)You just relate everything to quantum something, don'cha, Tama?
"It could be the quantum level top-down tororus borealis is causing the jam to squirt out of my jelly-filled jellyroll."
pee against the wind. That's classic. 
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)teaches you to not waste too much time debating the reality-challenged...no profit in it.
Joseph8th
(228 posts)... an Amanita Muscaria mushroom. That way, the Bible is literally true, since according to John Allegro and a number of other scholars, Jesus himself was a mushroom.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)I think religion is given too much importance.
Religion needs to return to the private realm. People need to keep it private. It's no mystery that religion has a history of being used to exploit and hurt human beings. It lends itself to that when it's taken out of the person and private realm.
provis99
(13,062 posts)So Dawkins is more mild mannered than Protestant doctrine.
rug
(82,333 posts)And Dawkins is an ass.
Why take on his arguments, when you can just call him an ass.
Just saying.
Dawkins is not an ass, he's justifiably angry at the religious lunacy in this country, and in his own. As am I.
Yes, he sometimes uses charged rhetoric to get his point across, but as a member of DU, you know that politics is always like that.
And that's what cuts to the core of the issue. Religious organizations have intruded themselves heavily into US politics in such a way that one of the two major parties has been so infiltrated that it's difficult to distinguish it from a church. This has had a profound and to many of us dangerous consequences if they ever get fully in power.
So give Dawkins a break. He's on the right side of things, and he's right to be angry.
Religion is a big problem right now.
rug
(82,333 posts)He takes the stage at a rally based on reason and unashamedly encourages one of the crudest logical fallacies, reductio ad ridiculum, thereby degrading and undermining the legitimate points he's making.
Among other things, that's bad politics.
The uses to which religion, as opposed to religion per se, is put is undeniably one of the myriad problems sweeping over this world. But a carnival barker hardly helps.
Sorry, that's how I see it.
longship
(40,416 posts)I'm with Dawkins, and I might add George Carlin. Ridicule is an appropriate methodology for premises that are basically ridiculous.
Now I don't think one should ridicule people just because they are religious, but the religious organizations and their leaders are fair game as are the beliefs they mandate. Let them defend their iron age mysticism.
I also agree with Dennett that we have to break the spell. Religion has had it too good for centuries when opposition meant death -- as Hitchens once said, it might take us some time, but we're going to get the job done.
So I, like many atheists are for strong opposition because the opponents are very strong and will do what they can to oppose anybody against them, whether their opponents use strong rhetoric or not.
rug
(82,333 posts)I just don't think that's the case.
To me, the problem is the cynical seizure of religion for political and economic gain.
The problem is not the psychology or theology of religion, it is the sociology of religion.
longship
(40,416 posts)I strongly think that it's going to take both strong opposition and calm rhetoric to turn the tide. We need Dawkins' flame thrower and Dan Barker's quiet reason and everybody in between. We need people calling themselves atheists, agnostics, liberal theists, and devout ones, too, who see clearly that a religious debate isn't the solution to anything.
All are welcome, including the firebrands. We need everybody who will come to the table.
villager
(26,001 posts)The way I teach scripture (the Hebrew side of the book, in this case), is as a "myth cycle," where "belief" isn't required to investigate where these stories came from, and what they might mean to us today. (As metaphors, many of these stories are still quite compelling).
My own "theism" is simply that the sum is greater than the whole of the parts, and in that differential lies The Great Mystery, which we still haven't figured out.
But in my own walking around life, it just seems that those who identify as "religiously liberal" seem to be more open to capital-Q "Questions" about the Meaning of It All than those who self-identify as atheists.
that said, obviously atheists are to be preferred over fascist fundamentalists, in these desperate times.
It's a lively discussion, and probably atheism is as necessary in the "ecosystem of belief" as devotion, for ideas to be defined, make sense, etc.
longship
(40,416 posts)The same to you. Glad to be on the same team as you. 
Joseph8th
(228 posts)... the Hammer and the Anvil.
tama
(9,137 posts)"Strong opposition" by attacking the enemy just gives the enemy more energy and makes you behave just as stupid as the aggressive enemy you are attacking. Lose-lose game is what Dawkins is playing.
Instead of responding to an attack by emotional energy of aggression, political aikido uses the energy of the aggressor and calmly directs it to calmness and surrender.
longship
(40,416 posts)Because he has stated very clearly that it is not. I think you can put Hitchens in the same category.
But political strategy theories set aside, what Dawkins et al are saying is still based on the facts of the situation. Religion has a grip on the world that it does not deserve. It has achieved this solely by way of force, for much of the last millennium, on pain of torture and death.
The new atheists are merely stating that this privilege of religion must not stand if humans are to avoid future pain and suffering. All of them talk about this. I suggest Dennett's Breaking the Spell which is a very well reasoned book where he goes into much detail on how humans have come to this situation.
If you don't like Dawkins, that's fine. Many people don't. You can dislike his tactics but it won't change the fact that he's correct.
But more importantly he's not the only one raising his voice. Don't like him? Then don't listen to him.
I'll tell you one thing, he does a lot of good for the non-believing community whether you like him or not. His God Delusion is a good read.
with new atheists and skeptic organisations etc., is that they are very similar to the institutions of orthodoxy they are supposed to oppose.
longship
(40,416 posts)The only orthodoxy I know of atheists have is a non-belief in god(s), if you can even get away with calling that as orthodoxy you have explain why many of us, including many prominent atheists (including me) would happily embrace a god if there were actual evidence for such a thing.
Skeptics only say that nature is the final arbiter of how the universe works. That's hardly an orthodoxy either. To oppose that is to oppose the incredible nature of nature, as Feynman called it.
We are a reality based community. Orthodoxy? Hardly.
speaking about atheism and skepticism in general. And new atheists and (pseudo)skeptical organizations should speak for themselves, not for atheism and skepticism in general.
longship
(40,416 posts)I've never seen that terminology before.
Thanks.
Truzzi was a cofounder of CSICOP, a "skeptics skeptic".
They tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them. [...] When an experiment of the paranormal meets their requirements, then they move the goal posts. Then, if the experiment is reputable, they say it's a mere anomaly.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcello_Truzzi
In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.
— Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism", Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987[1]
Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:[1]
The tendency to deny, rather than doubt
Double standards in the application of criticism
Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for completely dismissing a claim
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism
According to this definition, a good example of pseudoskepticism is a scientifically low quality debunking exercise by a "skeptical investigator", which is then taken as "proof" that the original claim and evidence has no plausibility and has been completely dismissed. Also the level of how "extraordinary" a claim is, is very subjective and ideological valuation, and this has been taken by pseudoskeptics as licence to move goal-posts ad infinitum in order to reject evidence that is not acceptable for ideological reasons.
So one case of disagreement amongst skeptics means the entire entireprise is worthless? I'm glad that you pointed this out to me.
I think I'll give up skepticism and take up Big Foot (or is it Big Feet?) or UFOs or maybe homeopathy.
After all there's no disagreement amongst politics or religions or scientists. And any disagreement means that the entire enterprise is worthless.
Sigh!
humblebum
(5,881 posts)person does not deserve a break. That is pure bigotry and needs to be challenged.
longship
(40,416 posts)Rather than engage the position rationally you attack the person. In other words, Richard Dawkins is wrong because I think he's an ass.
If you don't like Dawkins' position make an argument, not an ad hominem.
tama
(9,137 posts)calling Dawkins an ass on the grounds of Dawkins exhorting and supporting hostile forms of communication against those he disagrees with is an ad hominem. Justification of that particular ad hominem should be based on ethical evaluations.
Dawkins being an ass on grounds of ethical evaluations of his communication strategies is of course not an argument against Dawkin's other views e.g. about genetics and biology, which should be discussed and evaluated by their own merits.
longship
(40,416 posts)But I and many others think he is right on the money. His position is that it's just too damned bad if religions are offended by what atheists say.
Why is criticism of religion to be held off the table? Who in the Hell do they think they are? An example: They merely claim to speak for God. What unbridled hubris! Then when shown the contradictions in their beliefs, they say that god works in mysterious ways. Which is it? Do they know god or not?
I agree whole heatedly with Richard Dawkins on this. Religion has had a monopoly for too long.
People call Dawkins an ass merely because they don't like what he is saying. Well, atheists are going to keep saying those things until religions stop demonizing people merely because they believe in a different god, or no god.
As Dennett says, we've got to break that spell.
tama
(9,137 posts)and it does not work. I have some experience from victims of religions, close friends and loved ones becoming e.g. Jehova's Wittnesses, which is a very hurtfull power cult of preying the emotionally insecure.
"Rational" arguments and ridicule don't help the cult victims at all, they just make the situation worse. What helps is firm disagreement without getting into debate mode, patience, compassion and just being there for your friends and loved ones, no matter what they believe in a given moment.
The public figure of Dawkins is just another attention whore in the market of attention econonomy, selling books etc. and getting his ego-boosts. In that sense he's no different from the other cult founders and leaderships. And the methodology of taking the role of inquisitor who ridicules the answers - instead of just sharing your point of view and listening to others in respectfull dialogue - is common method to all cults. Dawkins is learning from those he's supposed to object to and repeats the behavior. It's despicable - from my point of view.
longship
(40,416 posts)I think you've got atheists confused with somebody else.
We need this discussion, Tama, because it's a crucial one. We've had other discussions on these forums and they all address, to me -- and apparently to you -- important issues.
But let's make this a respectful dialog which address the issues at their core.
For me it is simple. Atheists have the same right to speak out just as anybody else in this country, without being maligned because of people's opinion, not of what is being said, but how it's being said.
I don't agree with everything anybody says in our movement. We all step over the bounds at one time or another. These forums are an exquisite exemplar of that, as are your and my on-going discussions, which I very much value.
It's what the whole deal here is about.
I just don't know where to take this discussion next without the both of us sniping at one another, something I devoutly (so to speak) do not wish.
My position has always to be respectful while at the same time taking on important issues with some passion.
tama
(9,137 posts)this discussion and agree this is a crucial one.
"Inquisition" was not by any means any generalisation about atheist, but the psychological power game of who gets to make the questions and who is subjected to answering. It's a tactic that can be used regardless of belief system, and I've seen lots of discussions to degenerate on that level also in this group. I don't like Dawkins because from my point of view he acts like a cult leader - his atheism is not the reason but how he speaks and advices others to speak.
And as for generalisations about atheists, there are many kinds of atheists here, also those saying that what is great about atheism is that others can't speak for you, not organized atheism nor "angry atheists" with victim syndrome - his words, not mine. So I do my best to avoid generalisations about atheists and respect each individual atheist point of view - as long as it respects my point of view. And I hope you can do the same and not pose as spokesperson for atheists, even if you are active in an atheist movement that does not give you the right to speak for all atheists as there are atheists who don't belong to that movement nor share it's views and tactics.
Because of the reasons stated above, also I feel passionate about cults and cultish behaviour and invasive belief systems that see no value in plurality of view points but want to put all the eggs in the same basket.
And as for my own ethical criteria for plausibility arguments are that I prefer belief systems and theories that open up potential new fields of experience to those shutting down and limiting what can be experienced.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)bigoted and does absolutely nothing to improve the image of atheism. Hitchens used the same words, but added "hate" to his exhortation.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Most don't think what you say they believe but I have run across a few.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)Do you mind pointing out where any Protestant has said that--let alone "Protestants."
provis99
(13,062 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1475179&mesg_id=1478418
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080903042829AAR94jU
http://www.atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/2182797:Topic:104199
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160_12.asp
http://calvinismmyway.blogspot.ca/2010/10/is-transubstantiation-cannibalism.html
http://www.godvoter.org/jesus-bread-wine.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t7462519/
http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/cot/t0w13cannibalism.htm
http://boardreader.com/thread/Do_you_practice_Christian_Ritual_Canniba_e204X67vb.html
http://antireligion.tripod.com/cannibal.htm
I'm sure you can find many others in a simple google search.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)1-To say that Protestants believe Catholics are cannibals is misplaced.
There are some Protestants who are fiercely anti-Catholic and who make that accusation, but none of these pope haters represent any authentic Protestant position. They also believe that the Pope is the anti-Christ--but that is not what Protestants believe.
2-Others on your list are opposed to all religion.
Historically the charge of cannibalism arose in the 2nd century when non-Christians made that accusation, without understanding what the Eucharist was really about.
3-I stand in Protestantism's main stream. We reject transubstantiation but know where it came from--and in Catholic doctrine it never implied eating Christ's physical flesh and blood.
Now, what was the point you were trying to make?
provis99
(13,062 posts)You are immune to rational argument, taking succor in your own biased opinions, so you are going on permanent Ignore. Bye forever.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)seriously are dangerous.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)on the claims that the Moon Landings are fake. They held no respect for, as Adam called it "Bullshit!", it was bleeped out, but you get the picture. Beliefs in bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Yeti, Fairies, etc. are all belittled in many different ways in many different media. Same goes for "alternative" spirituality, though sadly, all these gain some legitimacy on certain shows on some channels.
I view religion as absolutely no different than these, excepting beliefs that have adverse negative consequences on people(homophobia, sexism, etc.) those should be rightly condemned as bad in addition to foolish.
As far as the kinds of people who make fun of the silly and ridiculous, could be all types, they could care about truth and accuracy over fantasy and lies, they could be concerned about people being scammed, by psychics for example. All sorts of motivations for advocating reason over faith.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)fun of or being contemptuous of those that may believe those things.
Your view is so narrow and so exclusive. I don't think people that primarily care about truth and accuracy are inclined to mock others.
That would look like you, and only you, knew the true answers. And that is just patently false.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)or even consistent. That's simply not the case, and please don't claim I'm claiming I have all the answers, just because I know certain beliefs are wrong and/or silly doesn't mean I know everything. Hell, I'm wrong about things all the time, but you know what is different between me and those that have faith? I don't make up answers to cover up my ignorance.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)"a bunch of dumbasses" mean that you don't primarily care about truth and accuracy? Or does that not count as "mocking"? Do you, and only you, know the truth about creationism?
rug
(82,333 posts)Leontius
(2,270 posts)anti-religious bigotry, must have been the rain. It washed away the good intentions.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)some people attending this were not in agreement with Dawkins or others who took his position.
I am sure many POV's were expressed, but some just have to be the most extreme to maintain their positions, I guess.
villager
(26,001 posts) mr blur
(7,753 posts)the ideas behind gods and the lengths to which some people will go to insist on their validity and reality are ridiculous and we find great humour in ridiculing them.
Just because they are legitimised by governments everywhere, doesn't make them out of bound for criticism and ridicule.
Dawkins is quite right to call for open ridicule of religion(s); the fact that it pisses off "people of faith" is a sign that it works. Why shouldn't they have to justify their magical thinking? Seems to me that anyone secure in their faith wouldn't give a damn what he, or any of us, thinks.
Perhaps they have a hard time being reminded of how crazy the things they profess to believe actually are.
rug
(82,333 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)narrowly focused, narrow-minded, and therefore incomplete in its assessment of "reality" - does that mean it is OK to openly ridicule atheism and to show contempt for it? Organized atheism is nothing new and it has a long history, which is rarely acknowledged or recognized.
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)It is NOT OK to treat it as politically dangerous, or to seek to defeat politicians because of their atheism, or to treat atheists as lesser citizens.
There is a big difference between ridicule of ideas, and political intolerance.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)potentially politically dangerous.
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)I don't care for ridicule and contempt - unless it is for right-wingers, or for those who campaign against modern medicine. But if I am to have the right to express contempt for right-wingers, others must have the right to express contempt for left-wingers. Etc. It's all part of basic freedom. Countries which treat the expression of ridicule and contempt as politically dangerous are very rarely good countries to live in.
Advocating violence against a group is one thing; expressing ridicule or contempt is another - do you want to go back to sedition and blasphemy laws?
tama
(9,137 posts)Pro-censureship does not follow by logical necessity from considering something potentially dangerous, pro-censureship is the view that potentially dangerous opinions should be silenced. An alternative strategy could be that potentially dangerous opinions should not be censured but exposed and given as much publicity as possible, along with critical evaluation.
I don't know if humblebum is proposing censureship, critical exposure or some other strategy. That is for him to say and we should respect that, whether we agree or not with co-locutors opinions.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)and that's called enlightened. Tell me, what the fuck is wrong with this picture?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)It's all how you do it.
and the level of wit and insight, etc., etc.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)but I wouldn't take him as an expert on religion, any more than I would take Penn Jilette as one.
Not where I would go for spiritual insight.
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)Perhaps just because atheists and fundamentalists are human beings, and human beings can be pretty humourless at times?
At any rate: what's wrong with many fundamentalists isn't that they're humourless; it's that they're authoritarian. The more disagreeable atheists wish to RIDICULE people of faith. The more disagreeable fundamentalists wish to PUNISH atheists - and those of the wrong religions, and those who break their religious social/moral rules. The latter is much worse.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Seeing that they want to exterminate anyone who is not a fellow fundamentalist.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)believed that extraterrestrials were on their way to earth in a giant spaceship, and that when they arrived, all of their devotees would be taken up into the spaceship and carried off to a better world. And suppose that they gathered by the hundreds and thousands every week to sing songs to the aliens (convinced they can hear across the vastness of space) and celebrate that glorious day to come. And suppose this went on for hundreds of years. Is there any doubt that they'd be mocked and regarded with amusement and scorn? Delusional, weirdos, nuts and crackpots would probably be some of the kinder terms (whether spoken out loud or not) that would be applied to them, by just about everyone.
But call those people Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Catholics and the space aliens “God” and “Jesus”, and all of a sudden, the same behavior is supposed to be regarded (on DU and everywhere else) not merely as sane and sensible, but wonderful, as something to be praised and immune from criticism. Mainly because of the deferential attitude and special status that organized religion has convinced most people it is entitled to.
LARED
(11,735 posts)
dmallind
(10,437 posts)No thesaurus includes entries for "ridicule" or "contempt" alongside "intolerance".
humblebum
(5,881 posts)LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)Treating atheists or secularists (or those of minority religions) as politically dangerous/lesser citizens/in the same category as Soviet mass murders, etc., or imposing religion-based morality into law, is the ultimate in intolerance.
I would rather be made fun of, than threatened with imprisonment or even denied political representation, or even treated as though secularism is responsible for major social evils. Moral condemnation is much worse than ridicule. Of course, respectful disagreement is better than either.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)You are welcome to believe in whatever fairy tales you like, and we'll tolerate that. But that tolerance doesn't have to come with any respect of those beliefs or your faith in them whatsoever. 
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)but no one did, so your premise is fallacious and willfully ignorant.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)I have been heavily critical of atheism and you labeled it as hatred, remember?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)And until you acknowledge that, this conversation can go no further.
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)You DO express hatred of atheists, or at least of outspoken atheists.
You have compared modern atheism with Soviet repression. You have implied that outspoken contemporary atheism is the same sort of thing as that expressed by the Soviet League of Militant Atheists.
I do not think this to be true of any other regular poster on the forum, including highly religious ones. Nor do I object to your statements that atheism is a narrow-minded belief system, etc. However much I might disagree, that is not hatred. However, I DO object very strongly to your implications that atheism is a political danger to society.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)about comparing "modern atheism with Soviet repression" - that is your interpretation, not mine. However, many of the philosophical positions and statements are nearly identical. That is a simple fact.
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)And now you say that 'many of the philosophical positions and statements are nearly identical' - So modern atheists believe in repression, torture and mass murder? Or is it that asserting the right to be open about disbelief in God is 'nearly identical' to advocating repression, torture and mass murder? Either way implies quite a lot of hatred for atheists..
Leontius
(2,270 posts)The Crusades, witch burnings and the Inquistion to present day Christians and their actions ?
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)In any case, neither statement justifies the other. (If you are referring to my reply to Humblebum on that thread, I was satirizing the attitude and pointing out that what he said about atheism was just as unjust as equating Christianity with the Inquisition. I was not equating Christianity with the Inquisition myself, and I wouldn't!)
Leontius
(2,270 posts)I don't see how you could miss the connection being made over and over again it seems to be the favorite club for a certain group, especially the Inquisition. There does seem to be an ebb and flow to its use but it is quite common. We do agree that it is unjust and unproductive. People, at least many, of today are radicaly different from people of the eleventh an sixteenth centuries in their attitudes, actions, beliefs and practices.
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)I think it's unjust and unproductive to do any of these things; however there is one difference here: the Inquisition was a 'Catholic' dictatorship, as the Taliban is an 'Islamic' dictatorship. Soviet Communism was not primarily an atheist dictatorship; it was a political, essentially imperial, dictatorship, where atheism was but one component of the state-sponsored ideology. Thus the Inquisition and the Taliban were direct, if distorted, products of Catholicism and Islam, whereas Soviet Communism was primarily a very distorted product of socialist ideology in an unholy marriage with the cult of personality. The enforcement of atheism was more a result than a cause of state dictatorship.
I think it is actually possible to argue somewhat the same about the Inquisition and the Taliban: that the religions were used to maintain and enforce the dictators' power, rather than being the primary causes. However, the religions were at least on an explicit level a more key part of the state apparatus in the case of the Inquisition and the Taliban, than atheism in the case of the Soviet Union.
In any case, equating all Catholics with the Inquisition, or all Muslims with the Taliban, or all Protestants with Puritan witch-burning, or all atheists with Stalinism, is unjust. The important thing is to have a state which is religion-neutral - neither enforcing atheism nor any religion -and gives equal rights to all.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)are used by both sides in this argument. Take a period of your own history from Henry VIII to William and Mary were the conflicts really about religion or politics?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,347 posts)Henry VIII's initial split from Rome was about politics - his desire for a male heir. Edward VI and his regents/advisers were more explicit in purely religious coercion, and then Mary very explicitly. Conflict was often about religion after that - the Gunpowder Plot, the suspicion of Charles I having Catholic sympathies, and then his sons, the alleged Catholic plots, and then, finally, chucking out a British, but Catholic, James II in favour of his daughter and son-in-law, purely because they were Protestant (and he'd had a son he was bringing up Catholic).
The biggest conflict, the British Civil Wars, had religion involved (eg the Scottish Covenanters rejecting the imposition of episcopal liturgy), but were perhaps mainly about politics - a 'unitary' king versus a parliament of the landed gentry.
tama
(9,137 posts)the "atheism" of Soviet Union was the myth and metaphysics of technocracy and materialism - plus the usual personality cults of hierarchic power pyramids. And btw the technocratic materialism of Soviet Union Marxism was not same as Marx' own philosophical and dialectical materialism - which is one of the main reasons why Marx said that he's not a Marxist.
And that is why also technocratic materialism and imperialism should be avoided as state ideology, as well as other imperialistic mythologies.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Is so much different than before.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)philosophical position? I would call those advocating specific actions. However, people like Russell and McCabe wholly identified with the philosophical positions and ideals of Soviet atheist groups. Many arguments, such as absolute separation of Church and State and open ridicule of religion, public parades, advertisements, and literature, are all too similar, as well as their associations with outside organizations of atheists and free-thought groups. Even the depiction of the Flying Spaghetti Monster strongly resembles a Soviet atheist caricature.
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)is that they did support the ruling party in advocating repression, torture and mass murder! Rather a serious reason.
But there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with advocating absolute separation of church and state! One could perhaps argue that the formal, official separation is less important than the de facto separation, and that emphasizing the former may distract from the latter. E.g. the UK is more secular than the USA, although we don't have formal state-church separation and you do. But there is NOTHING wrong with the desire to keep religion out of state law!!!!
And what is wrong with advertisements, publishing literature, association with other free-thought and atheist groups??? Do you think that atheists should be denied freedom of speech and expression and association?????? What about your First Amendment? It is the hostility to political rights for atheists that CREATES outspoken atheism! There weren't so many 'militant atheists' 20 years ago, because there wasn't the same vicious anti-secularism in mainstream politics!
The Soviets were anti-monarchist - do you think that the Americans are just like the Soviets philosophically because you rejected monarchy? The Soviet Union emphasized the role of trade unions - do you think (as some right-wingers undoubtedly do) that the right of trade unions to organize is the first step to totalitarian communist dictatorship? Why should atheist rights be the only thing that it is permissible to engage in these near-McCarthyite allegations about?
tama
(9,137 posts)when the claim is made universal, namely that there should be no state churches and/or state religions at all in any state. Assuming the argument is coming from the ethical position of pluralism.
LARED
(11,735 posts)in·tol·er·ance? ?/ɪnˈtɒlərəns/ Show Spelled[in-tol-er-uhns] Show IPA
noun
1. lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.
2. incapacity or indisposition to bear or endure: intolerance to heat.
3. abnormal sensitivity or allergy to a food, drug, etc.
4. an intolerant act.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intolerance
I looked at perhaps a dozen definitions of intolerance and not a single one limited intolerance to actions on people as you are trying to claim. Every single one of them included ideas and opinions.
To be clear, are your seriously claiming the quotes below from leaders of the atheist movement are NOT intolerant?
He reveled in the group's reputation as the marines of atheism, as the people who storm the faith barricades and bring "unpopular but necessary" lawsuits......
Silverman may have gone a bit further in his rhetoric than he intended. In a thundering call for "zero tolerance" for anyone who disagrees with or insults atheism, Silverman proclaimed, "Stand your ground!"
•Greta Christina, author of Why Are You Atheists So Angry?, attacked every major faith, even the teachings of the Dalai Lama. In a long litany of what makes her angry, she got all the way back to Galileo (overlooking the modern Catholic Church's restoration of his reputation).
LARED
(11,735 posts)Joseph8th
(228 posts)dmallind
(10,437 posts)Ridiculous ideas should be ridiculed, and despite her hateful intentionally dishonest opening, the article refers only to ridicule of ridiculous ideas.
rug
(82,333 posts)How ridiculous.
Rob H.
(5,352 posts)Here's the full video:
Here's part of what he actually said, around the 7:20 mark:
And starting around the 13-minute mark:
We just ran a poll by my foundation in Britain, just ran a poll in Britain, in which we talked to those people who ticked the "Christian" box in the census--and by the way, that figure has come down dramatically--we just took the people who ticked the "Christian" box, and we asked them, "Why did you tick the 'Christian' box?" The most popular answer to that question was, "Oh, well, I like to think of myself as a good person."
Well, we all like to think of ourselves as good people. Atheists do, Jews do, Muslims do, so when you meet somebody who claims to be Christian, ask her, ask him "What do you really believe?" and I think you'll find that in many cases, they give you an answer which is no more convincing than, "I like to be a good person."
By the way, when we went on to ask a specific question of these only 54% (of people who selected "Christian" as their religion in the census), "What do you do when you're faced with a moral dilemma, where do you turn?" only 10 percent turned to their religion when trying to solve a moral question. Only 10 percent. The majority of them said, "I turn to my innate sense of goodness," and the next most popular answer was, "I turn for advice to relatives and friends."
So, when I meet somebody who claims to be religious, my first impulse is don't believe you, I don't believe you until you tell me, "Do you really believe"--for example, if they say they're Catholic--"Do you really believe that when a priest blesses a wafer, it turns into the body of Christ? Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?" Mock them, ridicule them in public.
Don't fall for the convention that we're all too polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off-limits. Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated, and need to be challenged, and, if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt.
I'd like to echo what my colleagues from the Richard Dawkins Foundation have said: I am an outsider, but we have, we're well-staffed in America, and we're going to spread the word along with our colleagues in other organizations throughout the length and breadth of this land, this land which is the fountainhead, the birthplace of secularism in the world, and as I said before, don't let's let that tradition down. Thank you very much.
rug
(82,333 posts)"Mock them, ridicule them in public."
It's ironic to hear the argument that his words need to be placed in context
Rob H.
(5,352 posts)I'm not surprised that the only part you paid any attention to was the quote you posted, though.
Edited to add that it's also tied to this:
There are a lot of religious ideas that sound absurd when a person says them out loud, much less when a person articulates a ridiculous idea and then gets bent out of shape when someone calls them on it. Not only that, some people expect respect for their ridiculous ideas just because they're from some holy book in which they happen to believe. I can respect anyone's right to believe whatever they choose. The beliefs themselves? Not so much.
Further edit: the author writes...
Those quotes imply that's a direct quote, and it isn't. She should've written "...but to ridicule and show contempt for...." given that he didn't actually use the phrase she quoted. (I suppose it isn't technically quote mining, given that she did it wrong. Maybe she's just a bad writer.) I'm surprised she didn't use the part where he says, "We need intelligent design...."
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Which is precisely why it's a logical fallacy.
Whatever subjective need Dawkins has to ridicule does not translate to any objective need. Nor does a lack of respect for an idea require the need to ridicule that idea.
As I said, he's an ass.
Rob H.
(5,352 posts)Your earlier argumentum ad populum notwithstanding.
rug
(82,333 posts)Or are you confusing empiricism with logic?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)How do you feel saying 'your god"? All better now?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)grasp of reality.
rug
(82,333 posts)Rob H.
(5,352 posts)Wrong. In the original article, Grossman writes:
when Dawkins' complete statement was
That's a textbook example of quote mining. Deal with it.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)You've said that you're a Catholic - what do you say in answer to his question, "Do you really believe...." that the wafer is transformed into Jesus' flesh and the wine into his blood?
I'm an atheist, you are free to mock and ridicule my lack of belief as much as you like. Doesn't bother me, doesn't hurt me. BUT, there is nothing you can accuse me of that would generate as much ridicule as a "Yes" answer to the above question.
rug
(82,333 posts)As to your question, I accept the doctrine of transubstantiation, which is a bit more than your formulation.
That said, let's return to the topic at hand: Do you agree with Dawkins that this belief, inter alia, requires mockery and ridicule? If so, why?
Note, this is a precise question rhat requires a precise answer. I'm not asking about the Crusades, pedophilia or Santorum.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)using a hammer to place a screw in a wall. You can do it, it's usually done in anger, it tends to cause damage to the wall and there is an easier and better way to do the job .
rug
(82,333 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)in the Holy Communion (but I have participated in "mutual support discussion group" where more than half raised hand to the question 'have you ever tripped about being Christ), but the speculation about "quantum spirit" or rather, quantum body, brought to my mind that mr. Dawkins could be equally questioned, and as he suggestes, ridiculed, for his belief that "Body of Christ" in the mystery and metaphor refers only to classical matter, and not e.g. quantum body.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Yes, I know that the idea of transubstantiation is indeed a bit more than the formulation I gave.
My precise answer to your precise question is "Yes".
I can only look at the world in a rational way. We live, briefly, in an amazing, wonderful Universe. No Magic Thinking is required for the universe to exist or to continue. The universe does not require my belief and does not (can not) care whether or not I believe in it. This does not mean that I can't find meaning or purpose in my time on the planet. Like anyone else, I don't want to die, but I will. That doesn't frighten me.
I am not a scientist but I know as much as I can know anything that it is science to which I owe my continued existence (I have an illness the nature fwhich is of no relevance here). It is science which feeds the world, not prayer. Around the world I see ignorance sheltering proudly under the umbrella of "Faith" . I see people who accept the same doctrine that you do telling the rest of us how we are to live, and die.
Because I view the idea of gods as being generated out of fear, fantasy and superstition, then I must accept the actions performed in the service of gods as being fantasy and superstition. And, of course, fear. In the wake of Dawkins' 'The God Delusion', it's almost a cliche to refer to religious belief as being a form of mental instability. But that's what it is, to me, in the same way that the belief that the world is secretly run by giant shape-shifting lizards is a sign of mental instability. Arguing about the different points of theology is akin to two of those conspracy theorists arguing about whether the giant lizards are 14' high or, indeed, 24' high.
Because people who believe similar things to you and others here have a lot of power and influence, because they are afraid or ignorant of science - and in many cases wilfully and seemingly proudly ignorant - then ridicule and mockery seem to me to be perfectly legitimate responses. A reasoned response is a waste of time to people who do not believe rational things.
deacon_sephiroth
(731 posts)Hitchens would say it.
Hitchens DID say it.
"Religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt, and I claim that right."
I'm with Hitch
humblebum
(5,881 posts)deacon_sephiroth
(731 posts)Granted I haven't come here for a couple days, but it took me about 5 minutes to find out that one of the larger dialogues happening in MULTIPLE threads here is about the difference between disrespecting / hating / ridiculing PEOPLE or IDEAS...
I read the posts and it's been a real uphill battle with some people, and though there's been a clinic put on about it, I see nothing was gained from it. No progress made in the education department. You post shows me how much all those poor suckers wasted their breath trying to get a simple concept accross, and I will not be joining those ranks.
If you really don't get it by now, you never will I guess, and I'm sorry. Hitchens refers to RELIGON not THE RELIGIOUS.
forget it... 
humblebum
(5,881 posts)quite acceptable after all, huh? In spite of the prevailing attitude around here.
deacon_sephiroth
(731 posts)Hatred and ridicule of atheism? We're used to it, we expect it, and it's protected by the rules around here it seems. Just before I left for a bit the DU atheists were being called "fucking assholes"... there's some hatred and contempt for you, and not of an idea, but of individual people, hatred and contempt that was held up in MULTIPLE jury decisions as somehow being acceptable and justified around here.
So trust me Bummy, atheists are no strangers to "hate speech," and many around here feel we actually deserve it, so have at it. display all the ridicule and hatred you want, against our ideas, lack of faith in the unreal, or even just attack us on a personal level, you're in the right place, and on the right side to get away with it.
Here's the rub though... Our stance on religion is basically to reject the false or unwarrented claims, so to ridicule atheism properly, you'd have to find a major flaw in the rejection itself. By all means have at it, but if your idea of "displaying ridicule" is going to be more of the ussual "organized atheism is on the march and it's coming to get you" rhetoric then just be prepared to reap the whirlwind, because ridicule can be a double edged sword if the ideas you put forth are more ridiculous than the ones you seek to lampoon...
humblebum
(5,881 posts)That's not too hard to find. The most obvious is the limitation of logical empiricism. IOW, You know that you don't know, but are trying to convince others you do. Secondly, I have never used the phrase ""fucking assholes" toward atheists.
deacon_sephiroth
(731 posts)also, I never said YOU used those words, just pointing out that you could if you want to. I was obviously pointing out that your statement about this being an environment where you can't ridicule or be hateful toward atheists, is not entirely accurate.
People far less classy than yourself already set the bar for that, and it taught me a lot about this environment.
Joseph8th
(228 posts)We can take it. We're just starting to figure out that we can also dish it out. Ain't freedom grand?
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Joseph8th
(228 posts)... on teh one hand. On the other, 'deprogram and show compassion' for the plight of the believer.
I use both methods, myself... if I'm dealing with a know-it-all (usually male) pushing his beliefs, then I stand up to the bully and if needed, make him feel his ignorance. If I'm dealing with a sweet-coward (usually female) pushing her beliefs, then I tell them that courage is a virtue, too... and that it's their job as believers to police their own damn church...
Or we will.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)If the Theists think that makes me a bigot I don't really give a damn.
