Time to Pay Religion the Disrespect It Deserves

[Warren Stupidity]

Just because Jesus walked on water almost 2,000 years ago or Mohammed flew on a horse almost 1,500 years ago does not make their stories any more deserving of respect than the story of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Just because a story is centuries old and believed by billions doesn't mean that it should be afforded any more respect than a story days old and believed by barely anyone. The journalists at Charlie Hedbo knew this, and they expressed it so. Their deaths are not only testimony to their bravery but to the absurdity of the respect still paid to religion.

Religion may have been undermined in the Western world in recent decades, particularly in Western Europe, but it's still, despite the brave efforts of Charlie Hedbo, viewed with far too much respect, largely because it's still viewed as something it's not. Religion is not the same as race, gender or sexual orientation, it's a choice, something people choose to be. Criticising religion or being against is not, in any way, tantamount or equivalent to being racist, sexist or homophobic. Unfortunately many people, influence by a media spinning a false narrative, don't see it as so, viewing any criticism of religion, whether it be a joke about Jesus or a scholarly criticism of the Koran, as tantamount or equivalent to racism, sexism etc, thus affording religion an undue respect.

This undue respect that people afford people's religion has been in large part due to it been wrapped up with something else, namely national identity, which is always, always a terrible thing. In the Balkans to be Catholic is to be a Croat, Orthodox a Serb, and Muslim a Bosnian. In Northern Ireland being Catholic is to be a Nationalist, to be Protestant a Unionist. In the Balkans and Northern Ireland, much of the media, those responsible for spinning the public narrative, only perpetuated these terrible conflations (conflations responsible for thousands of deaths). And they're still doing it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/christopher-jackson/charlie-hebdo_b_6452128.html

Amen.

[AtheistCrusader]

1. Exactly.

[phil89]

2. We should respect rational beliefs

And discourage people from thinking mythology is literal truth.

[Brettongarcia]

139. metaphors are often bad too

[isobar]

3. All due respect...........

NONE is what is due.

[unblock]

4. i think all deeply held beliefs or non-beliefs deserve equal respect -- but not a free pass

i have a tough time with religious whining about not getting enough respect when some of the same people go around saying that jews are going to burn in hell for not accepting jesus, or insisting that non-believers are "heathens" in need of "seeing the light", or insist on appropriating public spaces and/or funds for their own private messages.

that said, everyone deserves to have their views, whether religious or not, respected; and if those views are deeply held, they should be respected all the more simply for being deeply held. society just works better if we start with that basic foundation of politeness.

the breaking point comes when those deeply held views are used to trump that politeness. holding views deeply does not entitle anyone to offend others or to break society's rules. mainly because everyone has views, and not everyone agrees.

[trotsky]

17. Hold on just a minute there.

...everyone deserves to have their views, whether religious or not, respected; and if those views are deeply held, they should be respected all the more simply for being deeply held.

Pope Frank and the men who run his church (along with several hundred million of its followers) deeply hold beliefs that homosexuality is "intrinsically disordered," that marriage equality is "from Satan," and that women should not be allowed to make their own reproductive choices.

Are you saying we all need to not only RESPECT those beliefs, but give them EXTRA respect because they're deeply held?

I am sorry but I can never respect a belief that other human beings should have fewer rights.

[unblock]

19. that's where we get into the 'but not a free pass' part.

respect for other people and their beliefs should be the automatic default, starting position. arguably, that's the cornerstone of civilization.

the problem with deeply held beliefs that involve disrespect for others is that those who hold such beliefs have a tough time not violating the basic rules of civility, such as not going about insulting others. once they do that they lose all respect in my book.

i can respect someone else's view that jesus is their ticket into heaven, but when they tell me that i'm going to hell because i don't, sorry, that i won't respect.

similarly, i have no problem disrespecting their insults of homosexuals, women, etc.

[trotsky]

20. We significantly disagree, then.

I don't think beliefs deserve automatic respect. They need to demonstrate they are worthy of it first. Respecting the right to hold and express opinions is the cornerstone of Western democracy, not respecting beliefs themselves simply because someone holds them.

[The Green Manalishi]

22. You, sir are completely

correct.

Religion, and god botherers, deserve nothing but ridicule.

.

[trotsky]

24. And hey, I've got no sacred cows.

EVERYTHING should be open to ridicule.

[Skittles]

112. yup - they all suck in their own way

[Bluenorthwest]

27. I've encountered some people with deeply held racist beliefs. Many with deeply held homophobia.

I do not respect those views.

[unblock]

33. agreed. such views are offensive to others and beyond the breaking point of polite society.

[trotsky]

38. What do we do with the folks who think abortion is murder?

They certainly find pro-choice beliefs unacceptable, and "beyond the breaking point of polite society" as well.

[unblock]

40. we ask them nicely not to have any abortions ;)

[trotsky]

43. It was a serious question. n/t

[unblock]

50. and a tough one. i might ask you the same thing.

in #17, you said, "I am sorry but I can never respect a belief that other human beings should have fewer rights".

so, pro-choicers believe that anti-choicers believe women should have fewer rights; anti-choicers believe pro-choicers believe fetuses (which they would call "human beings&quot should have fewer rights.

in the real world, many people apply those beliefs to themselves only. an anti-choicers might not have an abortion, a pro-choicer might have one. it's not until we get into the politics of it that people start in on each others' views and things get ugly.

wish i could solve that one and make everyone happy. you're welcome to take a stab at it.

[trotsky]

52. I think Barack Obama put it best:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.

In other words, religious beliefs must take a back seat to rational observation and analysis if we are to live together in peace.

[unblock]

60. that is indeed a good way to put it.

although i would draw a distinction between religious beliefs and dogmatic beliefs. religious beliefs being (barely, perhaps) negotiable and capable of compromise or coexistence; and dogmatic beliefs, effectively, not.

ideally, i'd prefer non-religious discourse when it comes to public policy, but i don't mind if someone invokes their religion to emphasize how strongly they feel about something. what i do mind is when someone invokes their religion to try to belittle or minimize or insult someone else's view.

[Jeff Murdoch]

125. Well, there's your problem,

Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality.

Facts not in evidence that there is a common reality when discussing religion.

[progressoid]

31. Equal respect for White Supremacists or Fred Phelps or Rush Limbaugh ?

re·spect
rəˈspekt/
noun
noun: respect

1. a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.

[unblock]

34. "the breaking point comes when those deeply held views are used to trump that politeness."

not sure which views those people have that don't trump that politeness.

[trotsky]

47. Kinda comes down to one's own idea of politeness, dontcha think?

They have a different notion of it than you do.

So all you've done is moved the conflict, you haven't resolved it.

[unblock]

62. oh, no, i don't think i've resolved anything, lol!

[progressoid]

68. So the line of politeness is rather nebulous.

Somewhere between Charlie Hebdo and Queen Elizabeth.

[unblock]

77. miss manners is the supreme court in such matters.

and she's never been at a loss for an opinion....

[notadmblnd]

89. If one's views are deeply held, then that is what one should do with them. Hold them.

Because if you are going to proselytize to me, I'm going to ridicule your religion. Don't bring it up and I won't either.

[Warpy]

119. The beliefs themselves deserve no respect at all

but even the Phelps family have individual rights to believe any ridiculous horseshit the old man came up with before he died. That's where the line is.

People deserve the kind of respect that says they have as much a right to their beliefs as you do.

The beliefs themselves, deserve nothing. The worst of them should be ridiculed because it's the only reality check a lot of people brought up in damaging systems get and sometimes that reality check can turn into a life line.

[unblock]

123. well, i don't quite agree, in the sense that the two are not always clearly separable.

it's a fine distinction if one, upon meeting someone who sincerely holds ridiculously silly beliefs, immediately proceeds to ridicule those beliefs. that person is very likely to be offended and to feel that you are laughing at them.

the beliefs themselves may be meritless, or even odious, but one invariably does best to remember and respect that some people really believe that crap.

i certainly will agree that there are times when it becomes appropriate to try to shatter someone else's horrible or non-functional worldview, but only after one has given proper respect and consideration. it is not something to be done cavalierly.

[Iggo]

199. No.

They don't.

[LiberalAndProud]

209. I think I could give you some examples of deeply held beliefs that you could have no respect for,

and a good number of them. Religious beliefs should not enjoy especially respected privilege because they are religious. We would do well to examine the role of Christian churches in pre-WWII Europe regarding rabid antisemitism, to invoke one particularly egregious example.

[rug]

5. He doesn't state what he considers due respect.

This undue respect that people afford people's religion has been in large part due to it been wrapped up with something else, namely national identity, which is always, always a terrible thing.

That's what distinguishes him, however slightly, from a bigot.

[hrmjustin]

7. I didn't care for his article either.

[rug]

8. I did some poking around on him.

Not much there. As to his copywriting gig at a PR firm, no respect.

[hrmjustin]

9. Lol. I am all for free speech and he got his moment.

[Skittles]

11. his moment?

a growing number of people from the outside looking in are fed up with being told they MUST respect what fails to respect so much of what we believe in

[hrmjustin]

12. I am not saying you have to respect my religious beliefs.

[Skittles]

13. maybe YOU aren't

but it's pretty much demanded that people respect religions that openly endorse misogyny, homophobia - it is sickening

[hrmjustin]

15. Challenging religion is fine and healthy.

I don't care for demeaning people of faith.

I think religion should be challenged and old bigotries in religion need to challenged.

[Skittles]

16. if a "faith" involves misogyny and homophobia it deserves to be challenged

END OF STORY

[hrmjustin]

18. agreed! when I came out I had to come to terms with my faith and what I believed and taught.

I felt the need to change churches because of it.

[Starboard Tack]

214. There is a difference between respecting a religion and respecting the followers of a religion

I have no respect for religion, but I respect many who are religious and I respect their right to believe and their sincerity. Why would I ridicule them for their personal spiritual devotion? Their actions may warrant ridicule and even contempt, but their beliefs, in and of themselves, are of no concern to others.

[Skittles]

215. I call bs

people can believe whatever they want but if they start talking bullshit they are getting called out and if you are part of a religion that openly endorses misgoyny and homophobica YOU'RE GETTING CALLED OUT

[Starboard Tack]

216. I agree. Calling someone out on a belief does not necessitate disrespect.

I have discussions with believers often over things like gender equality and LGBT issues. I can disrespect a belief without showing disrespect for the believer. Do you not see the difference?

[LiberalAndProud]

10. I tend to think copywriting is a more honorable profession than

fleecing the faithful. But if you can't address ideas, ad hominem works.

[Skittles]

14. and attacking the messenger

[NeoGreen]

42. argumentum ad hominem est...

... modus operandi

[rug]

88. You left out a pronoun. Why don't you supply it?

[NeoGreen]

108. One...

might presume, and one would presume too much.


Ūnus

[rug]

111. Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt

[NeoGreen]

113. falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus?...

... is that where this discussion is headed: a generally rejected principle (except in legal proceedings, that is, where it is commonly used as a modus operendi to discredit witnesses) of discussion/debate?

If so, don't bother.

Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.

Which, if you are willing to follow the theme, leads to De Rerum Natura
and an early (very early) description of the world, operating without divine intervention.

Here endth the lesson...

[rug]

115. That's operandi.

Thanks for the lesson.

BTW, that's a permissive inference a juror may make; it is not a means of discrediting.

[NeoGreen]

116. Touche' ...

...my typo...and you are most welcome.

Fas est et ab hoste doceri.

De omnibus dubitandum.

[rug]

87. He deserves it.

[Skittles]

109. I disagree

[rug]

86. PR copyrighting is no more than shilling for those who can afford to shill.

"fleecing the faithful" is a pretty ignorant statement about religion.

And the "ideas" he's recycling are as biased as they are unoriginal.

[LiberalAndProud]

92. Ignorant. Let the reader understand.

[rug]

94. Oh, I'm not in the least worried about a reader's ability to understand.

I don't think very many will accept your condensation of religion.

[LiberalAndProud]

96. Because fleecing the faithful never happens, amiright?

I condensed nothing. You, however, painted all PR copywriters with a very unsavory brush. It's not his religion, so I guess it's allowed.

[rug]

97. Let's see now, what do you call extrapolation of a part to the whole?

Broad brush? Bias? Ignorance? Logical fallacy?

Say, you wouldn't happen to be a PR copywriter, would you?

[NeoGreen]

6. faith...

...the real problem is the class-of-cultures that accept faith as a reasonable and governing principle: i.e. believing in the truth of ideas without evidence.

The acceptance of faith, by otherwise non-violent classes of people and cultures, gives "cover" for extremist beliefs and actions.

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg

[yourout]

21. The next(last) World War will start with one or both sides playing the God card.

Rational minds would never start a nuclear war.

Minds twisted by some "God told me to" would.

[Dorian Gray]

23. I don't give a crap

if people respect or disrespect my beliefs. My beliefs are always in flux, anyhow. I can question and attack what I believe much more viciously than you can.

Having said that, just don't be an ass to me, and we're good.

[The CCC]

25. Warren Stupidity

Atheists would like you to forget the twentieth century of Stalin, Mao, Tojo, Pol Pot, etc., etc., etc..

[trotsky]

28. What does CCC stand for? n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

29. thank you CCC for your thoughtful reply.

It is a tired argument, but I'll accept your faulty premise that the crimes of Stalin and, wait, what the fuck, TOJO? Oh for fuck sake, go back to the cave and get your talking points straight.

[NeoGreen]

32. Not so...

...we just do not agree with the (false) meme that atheism was the excuse for their atrocities...

[rogerashton]

81. I believe Hitler's religious ideas were pretty much new age mysticism, not particularly Christian.nt

[backscatter712]

201. Hitler was a Roman Catholic.

Maybe he wasn't especially observant, but he identified as Catholic to his dying day.

[rogerashton]

202. If you say so. eom.

[rug]

203. Was he saying the rosary when he put a bullet in his skull to avid the Red Army at his door?

[NeoGreen]

207. Are you suggesting that if he wasn't...

Last edited Thu Jan 15, 2015, 01:44 PM - Edit history (1)

...saying the rosary at that moment then he wasn't a True Christian™?

De omnibus dubitandum.

[rug]

212. I say his use of religion was a craven politcal expedient.

Produce contrsry evidence,

[NeoGreen]

213. I'm sorry...

...your last post seems incomplete.

Would you please restate or rephrase?

[rug]

217. It's a complete statement. Do you have an answer?

[NeoGreen]

219. Here we go again...

... down the path of:

falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

Whether or not Hitler used religion in a craven or expedient manner is irrelevant, since even if he did, it has no effect on the question of whether he was, and remains to this day, a True Christian™.

Being a True Christian™ does not preclude the capacity to use religion in a craven and/or expedient manner.

There are no reports that he claimed to be a Buddist, Baptist, Mormon, Islamist, Gaian, Zoroasterian or to be of any other creed or denomination.

If we are going to play the "produce the contrary evidence" game, document for me where it has ever been claimed, with evidence, that Hitler spoke of himself as something other than a Catholic.

De omnibus dubitandum.

[rug]

220. You waited two weeks for that?

What's the matter, nothing stimulating elsewhere?

The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.

— Adolf Hitler, from Hitler's Table Talk (1941–1944)

When one thinks of the opinions held concerning Christianity by our best minds a hundred, two hundred years ago, one is ashamed to realise how little we have since evolved. I didn't know that Julian the Apostate had passed judgment with such clear-sightedness on Christianity and Christians. ... Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism the destroyer. Nevertheless, the Galilean, who later was called the Christ, intended something quite different. He must be regarded as a popular leader who took up His position against Jewry.... and it's certain that Jesus was not a Jew. The Jews, by the way, regarded Him as the son of a whore—of a whore and a Roman soldier. The decisive falsification of Jesus's doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work with subtlety and for purposes of personal exploitation. For the Galilean's object was to liberate His country from Jewish oppression. He set Himself against Jewish capitalism, and that's why the Jews liquidated Him. Paul of Tarsus (his name was Saul, before the road to Damascus) was one of those who persecuted Jesus most savagely.

— Adolf Hitler, per transcript appearing in Hitler's Table Talk

[kwassa]

222. what a bullshit argument. A very old bullshit argument.

Hitler was born into Catholicism. This doesn't mean he practiced the faith in any way, shape, or form.

He identified as a Nazi, not a Catholic. Hitler had a melange of beliefs, or what he stated were his beliefs,

I would point out that atheists are born into Catholicism, too. Doesn't prove shit about what they do or do not believe.

[Major Nikon]

204. Hitler identified as Christian on numerous occassions

It's simply a Christian lie that Hitler was non-Christian. Certainly there were some Nazis who were into pagan occultism, but Hitler ridiculed them for it. Hitler spoke both publicly and privately of his Christian beliefs and even sought to "perfect" Christianity by removing the Jewish influences.

[trotsky]

208. Indeed.

If we want to simply declare someone "not a Catholic" because they didn't follow some of its official teachings, well, I don't imagine you'd have any Catholics left.

[Gore1FL]

35. I do not recall Stalin, Mao, Tojo, Pol Pot, etc., etc., etc. killing to fulfill nothing's will

and to make sure that nothing's teachings would be spread. After all, if nothing is for us, than who shall be against us?

[hrmjustin]

37. I don't think it is true to say that atheists want people to forget them..

I think many atheists would ask were their crimes committed in the name of atheism.

Atheists will admit that atheists can be violent as well but that atheists don't commit violence in the name of atheism.

I think our resident atheists can speak more to this.

As an aside what does your name stand for?

[zeemike]

59. Well there clearly were.

Ask the religious people and institutions before Stalin took over...how many of them were sent to Siberia or murdered...and same goes for Mao...they intended to stamp out religion with force and intimidation.
Any time you establish a belief system or non belief system as a government policy you have tyriny...that is why the separation of state and religion was established in our constitution.

What people believe or don't believe is not a crime...actions are crimes and individuals should be punished, but not ideas.

[hrmjustin]

61. Good points. Stalin did persecute religious people just for being religious.

[zeemike]

64. And Mao sent them to re education camps

To rid them of their delusions.
What should scare us all is that kind of attack on peoples thinking no matter what it is...or for whatever rational is used...I get nervous when people start saying there are dangerous ideas that must be eliminated.

[hrmjustin]

65. I hate it when they call us delusional, irrational, or mentally ill.

Sometimes I wonder why I post in this room.

[Warren Stupidity]

70. ah justin, religion is irrational, religious beliefs are very difficult

to sensibly distinguish from delusions, except by making the claim that "if popular enough not a delusion", which is an odd claim indeed, and you all re-interpret that as "you are calling us mentally ill" and then have a massive hissy fit over your misinterpreted alleged insult.

have a nice day, and please note that you brought this up yourself begging for the response you just got.

[hrmjustin]

72. I am not claiming you are calling the religious mentally ill.

There was a poster here during the summer to early fall who posted here who made the argument we are mentally ill.

That is where I get that from.

[Warren Stupidity]

74. I am not writing the thing I just wrote. nt.

[hrmjustin]

75. ok.

[okasha]

103. I wonder what happened to that one.

I suspect his computer privileges were revoked.

[hrmjustin]

106. The poster posts on and off.

[rug]

90. So sorry fot yor difficulty.

It's not in the least difficult to distinguish religious belief from delusion.

And why are you accusing a gay man of having a hissy fit?

The 1967 usage is the first recorded usage that they give, so the phrase is relatively new. They suggest that this use of hissy is tied to hysterics, and they add:

Also 19– hissie, hussy, huzzy.

U.S. [Perhaps influenced by hysteric n.] = hissy fit n. at Additions.

1934 Amer. Speech 9 71 Hissy is probably provincial slang. I have heard it for eight or ten years. He threw a hissy or He had a hissy means that a person in question was very disturbed and very angry.

1949 Publ. Amer. Dial. Soc.xi. 7 She had a hissy when I told her she couldn't go.

1973 N.Y. Times 13 July 25, I wasn't all that keen about him riding bulls, but he could do a good job so I never throwed a hissy about it.

1992 C. McCarthy All Pretty Horses (1993) i. 72 Rawlins will pitch a pure hissy when he sees you, he said.

It seems possible that hissy came first--someone would go into hysterics and throw a tantrum if they didn't get their way. This eventually changed to become a hissy fit, or a "fit of hysterics". Note that there isn't a firm indication of origins, but this is the theory presented by the OED.

[okasha]

102. I've always heard the expression used as Southern

for "having the vapors" or having a tantrum to gain attention. It's pretty much the equivalent of "PMS-ing."

I guess this means Warren hits a double: the expression is both sexist and homophobic.

[rug]

105. Especially since "hissy" is a derivative of hysteria.

[zeemike]

99. Well I don't post here often.

But when I do it is usually to shoot down the narrative that seems to come up all the time, that it is the belief in God that is the problem...I hate that narrative...just as I would hate the naritive that non belief is the problem.

[hrmjustin]

100. Well you are always welcome in the Interfaith room and the prayer circle.

[okasha]

101. As does the current regime in China.

They are currently engaged in the "ethnic cleansing" of Muslim Uyghurs. They also repress Tibetan Buddhists and Catholics loyal to Rome rather than to the state-run Catholic" Church.

[Major Nikon]

205. That's simply not true

Stalin persecuted organized religion because it was an affront to his totalitarian leadership. Every constitution under Stalin included the right to believe in whatever you wanted. What you couldn't do was criticize atheism and several initiatives were put into place to deter organized religion including state takeover and the destruction of churches, but that's not the same thing as persecuting religious people just for being religious.

[Warren Stupidity]

67. Is anyone denying that marxist-leninist states were anti-religion?

That was and is part of Marxist ideology. It is difficult to go from there to the claim that atheism motivated Stalin the way, for example, Islam motivated the murderers in Paris. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods, nothing more and nothing less. Marxism makes the claim that religion needs to be repressed as it is a tool of social control for the bourgeoisie, atheism doesn't make that claim.

[rug]

93. Ah, so the reason atheists in power did bad things to theists had nothing to do with atheism.

[Major Nikon]

206. Anti-theism and atheism are two different things

Marx and Lenin considered religion to be the opiate of the masses, or in other words a political tool to keep the poor in check.

Where people generally fuck up is they equate non-belief to specific beliefs when those two things are very different. Atheism is simply the rejection of belief. Attributing anything else to it is nonsensical. Organized religion typically has dogma, so-called sacred texts, observance of customs, and recognized authorities, all of which can (and frequently are) used to subjugate, discriminate, and persecute people. Without those things, none of the adverse actions would be possible. Atheism has none of those things.

[zeemike]

98. And religion is nothing more than a belief in God.

And it is difficult to claim that religion motivated them to murder too sense the religion teaches them not to kill...but never the less there are some that do and use religion as an excuse.
The same is true of a non belief...beliefe and non beliefe can lead to extreamism...and always has.
And it has when it makes an enemy out of those who believe or don't believe and suggests that the idea is the problem and not the criminal acts...and Atheism could go there just as well.

[Warren Stupidity]

121. ur no, religion proceeds from a belief in specific gods to long lists of rules

and regulations about how to believe in those gods, and more importantly, what these imaginary beings demand that you, as a believer must do to be a proper worshiper.

If religion simply stopped at belief in gods, it would not be a problem.

Non-belief doesn't come with this baggage, there are no rules for how to not believe, and no demands from the no gods you believe in that you as a non believer must follow to be a proper non believer. Atheism is the channel "off" on your tv. There is no programming when the tv is on off. Off is not the same as the other channels.

[zeemike]

128. So then Atheist don't believe in any rules at all then.

And we can all do what we want...but there is one rule that you have...you must not believe in anything you can't see or touch, because to do so is delusional.
And When it becomes the state believe they insist that no one may believe because it is criminal to do so.
So no the TV is not off...just tuned to another channel of belief in the existence of matter only.
You are not as different as you think you are.

[Warren Stupidity]

138. atheists don't believe in gods.

whatever else they do or do not believe in is independent of atheism. This really is pretty simple, you seem to be trying to make it complicated.

"And When it becomes the state " - it doesn't become the state. I assume you are referring to marxist-leninist totalitarian regimes. Those regimes were, in case you don't quite understand this, marxist-leninist regimes. One of their rules was the state was officially atheist, they had lots of other rules too. There is nothing about atheism that requires marxism, marxist-leninist states typically required atheism. That is not a transitive relationship. A requires B does not imply that B requires A.

"another channel of belief in the existence of matter only" - no that is not a requirement for atheism. That is materialism. There is no requirement that an atheist must also be a materialist. An atheist could, for example, also believe that consciousness is in whole or part non-material.

Atheism is the absence of belief in any gods. Period. End of story.

[zeemike]

140. A believer could make the exact same argument you just did.

Just change the subject words...
"whatever else they do or do not believe in is independent of believers."

So you separate out the beliefs and say they are independent of your beliefe...but on the other side all of it stems from believing in a God...and none of the bad things atheist do has anything to do with not believing. Thus framing the problems of the world and humanity with believing.
I am sure there is a name for that in logic but I don't know what it is.

But are there any materialist that are not also atheist?...and are there any spiritualist that are not believers?...I suppose you could say that there are because there are no rules for atheist except that they not believe in a god...but that is a rule.
And a spiritualist could argue the same thing, that the only rule is that they believe in a spiritual world...but not a god.

You like them want to carve out a special place for yourself as the one who has the truth, just as the believers sometimes do...so I see no difference in it...when the truth is that our existence itself is a grand mystery and none of us have the truth and probably can never have it completely because we are limited in our capacity to understand it.
And seeking the truth requires an open mind, not one that believes they know it already...and both sides have those kind of people.

[NeoGreen]

141. Atheism is not a claim...

...it is the rejection of a claim.



Simply stated...



It is only dependent on which claim of a deity is being rejected.

It can be said that all those who reject the claim of the divinity of Joseph Smith (i.e. most "true" christians, jews, muslims, buddists...etc.) are mormon atheists.

[zeemike]

163. I reject the claim of Joseph Smith.

But I do not say that I know he was full of shit, because I know I could never know the truth of it if it were so...and that is an honest agnostic position.

But if you reject it and are asked "is there a god" and you say no that is bullshit, then it is a beliefe you have not just a rejection of the theory...you have presented your own theroy that there is no god.

[NeoGreen]

168. You are conflating two different concepts...

...Gnostic/Agnostic and Theist/Atheist...



a common error.

For the record I am an Agnostic Atheist; the claim of existence of deity(ies) is merely "not proven".

[zeemike]

170. Well thanks for dissecting that for us.

And I have been through all 4 of those positions at one time or the other...but I am none of those because they all have their dogmas.

And I am aware that the only way to prove it is to die...and who wants to do that because it will only prove it to yourself...and I don't need the proof now.

[NeoGreen]

181. I do not own and did not create the "dissection"...

... it is the understood framework of what the words mean.

And I have been through all 4 of those positions at one time or the other...but I am none of those because they all have their dogmas.

Interesting statement.

I am curious, how do you define dogma (in general) and what Dogma(s) do you think atheists (as a class) hold?

Maybe there will be proof after life, may be not, who knows. For my part I am more interested in what can be understood in the here and now, because I live in the here and now.

You can make reasonable and verifiable observations, in the here and now, that provide information sufficient to get very, very close, and thus increase your confidence, in ruling out the claims made with respect to deity(ies), and the inherent supernatural attributes (i.e. magic) that is part and parcel with the claims of existence.

No magic required.

[zeemike]

182. Every belief system has it's dogmas laid down by the leaders.

In fact you ended with one...Magic.
The idea that if one observes something that defies the belief system it must be a magic trick of deception...and often it is and that lend credence to it.

But in general dogma is created by the leaders as tenants of the belief...this is what you must believe to be one of us.
The dogmas of atheism are no different in composition than any religion even though they take the opposite view...and this is true of any belief system...including science.

But look closer at every dogma...like the magic one...and you will see that even atheist believe in magic...like the Big Bang used to explain how it all got here, and as we learned more with better equipment we had a lot of unresolved things to explain it...so we invented other magic to explain it...dark matter, black holes, string theory...all so we could explain the mysteries that are all around us without discarding the basic big bang theory...Big Bang became the dogma of science.

And if any one of them doubts it he is out and ridiculed for it, so no one asks the question is time an illusion and there was no beginning and there is no end...that would be laughed at in science circles...of course time exist, look at the clock on the wall...we can observe time ticking away on the wall.

But these questions will be answered eventually...but not by the dogmatic approach to science and cosmology but by open minds.
And open minds do not seek to debunk other ideas but to learn from them...and yes you can learn from wrong ideas. The need to debunk them is to protect not to learn.

[LiberalAndProud]

183. Leaving alone the magical properties of the big bang,

Last edited Wed Jan 14, 2015, 12:55 PM - Edit history (1)

I will cop to being somewhat dogmatic about arguing with religious ideas that place women at a disadvantage from birth because God; about discounting, ignoring and discrediting scientific discoveries because God; about remaining ignorant and incurious lest we be cast from the garden of Eden. In my opinion, religious beliefs based on ancient texts are most often counter-evolutionary and ultimately harmful. So there's my dogma.

If your idea of an amorphous, unknown and unknowable deity helps you sleep better at night, you're welcome to it. And you may even be right, but I fail to see how such an entity is the least bit relevant in our understanding or in our day-to-day existence.

[zeemike]

187. My ideas have no effect at all on how I sleep at night.

But then I don't think of God as a creature...I think creatures are God.
But don't ask me to explain that because it would require too much work and you are not ready to hear it anyway.

But religion has it's dogmas too and their dogma is easy to attack but that does not mean there is no truth in what they claim...as usual with mankind, the truth is covered up with a pile of shit as soon as it hits the ground.

And the Adam and Eve allegorie is a good example of that...and the dogmatic Christians insist it is literal and no surprise, the Atheist agree it was ment that way.

[LiberalAndProud]

190. I really do not care about meanings of creation myths.

Erebus and Night and Ether might have some lessons for us. I do care about how beliefs in these stories as God's own immutable truth impact our world today. Every day. That's relevant. Whatever truth the Eden myth might contain, the real-world consequences of those beliefs are what concern me.

[zeemike]

191. Well as I have said before here.

That same standard could be applied to Atheism as well...by pointing out that Marxist were atheist who have their own myths that have real world consequences...although to those who believe don't think it is a myth.
I am not into condemning ideas only actions.
So the saying Doctor heal yourself can apply.

[LiberalAndProud]

193. Although I think Marx's ideas were not entirely bad,

I don't see anybody building churches to indoctrinate from the womb and to reinforce those ideas here or even in Russia in our modern world. Those ideas certainly are not enshrined in our society or invoked to begin town meetings. Just for the record, Marx didn't kill anybody. Stalin killed Trotsky, among many others. I think Stalin was a very bad person and I don't think a religious conversion experience would have changed that. Your continually pointing to the failure of the Soviet experiment with one particular atheist's philosophy and one despot's adherence to that philosophy is tired and not convincing.

[zeemike]

198. Well Jesus did not kill anyone ether.

But that did not stop some from using it as an excuse.

And it is fair to say that the USSR and Mao did exactly that, raise children from birth to believe in Marxist dogma including atheism...Mao's cultural revolution was the best example of it...and all we have left today is North Korea...and some religious persecution in Tibet...and a whole bunch of right wingers here who accept the principles of Ayn Rand.

So it is not one tired despot and you must own it like the people of faith own theirs.

[LiberalAndProud]

200. Ok. If I follow your logic

the Holocaust was a direct result of Hitler's Catholicism. Yea. That makes no sense. I don't have to own anything any more than people of faith own that historical travesty. You're drawing false equivalencies. Enjoy yourself. I don't have any further interest in this conversation.

[cleanhippie]

184. Have you studied/read Deepak Chopra?

[zeemike]

185. No I barely know what he says.

But I have read a lot of other stuff.

[cleanhippie]

186. You should. You would really enjoy it.

[zeemike]

188. I might check that out.

But I have read a lot of eastern mysticism...and much of the Buddhist works, so I may not find much new in it.

[cleanhippie]

189. While coincidental, his work is deep, like his name.

So much wisdom and insight. This should be right up your alley.

[zeemike]

192. Going now to Youtube to see what he has.

Thanks.

[cleanhippie]

218. Soooooo? I'm curious about what you thought about Chopra.

[zeemike]

221. Well he said some interesting things.

And I have heard most of them from other sources.
Eastern mysticism for the yupppies...which has got to be a good thing.

[cleanhippie]

223. Did you see where he recently said that HIV doesn't cause AIDS?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12313269

[zeemike]

224. Sorry but I replied to the link instead of here.

But here it is again.

So what?...he is talking about things you don't understand.
Like the nature of reallity...and of course the materialist will not understand because matter is the only reality that they believe in...
But I am not surprised that they would attack him because it conflicts with their view of things.

I don't know if that is a "protected" group but you have to be cautious about where you post.

[mr blur]

195. !!!

[NeoGreen]

194. Ok, I think I understand...

...your explanation/point of view:

But look closer at every dogma...like the magic one...and you will see that even atheist believe in magic...like the Big Bang used to explain how it all got here, and as we learned more with better equipment we had a lot of unresolved things to explain it...so we invented other magic to explain it...dark matter, black holes, string theory...all so we could explain the mysteries that are all around us without discarding the basic big bang theory...Big Bang became the dogma of science.

So, for you, Magic = Science, and conversely, Science = Magic, correct?

And the Big Bang Theory (BBT), which many (most?) scientists would accept as having been developed from direct and indirect observations of the physical world (and, granted, some untested {untestable?} hypotheses) but who would readily (might even say gleefully with a theatrical musical interlude..I see my PhD and Nobel!...) amend/revise/expand/toss-out, all or part of said BBT, at the drop of (a well tested, peer-reviewed, contradictory concluding) hat, is Scientific Dogma.

An extraordinary point of view, to say the least.

[zeemike]

196. No I don't think you understand at all

Science and Magic are two separate thing and one does not equal the other.
Science is a process and magic is an explanation for things that cannot be observed, or are observed and not understood.

Science did not observe the big bang...if they did it would be science...they observed the universe and did not understand it's mystery and so created the big bang to explain it...and so magic was used to explain it.

I like what Terence McKenna said once about the big bang...,"Science just asks for one small miracle and then they'll be sure to take care of the rest."

[NeoGreen]

197. Well then...

...I guess I stand corrected, and subsequently observe that your explanation is not so extraordinary after all.

[Warren Stupidity]

142. yes I mentioned above that if belief in gods stopped right there, then there wouldn't be a problem.

However, that is not where belief in gods stops, is it? Instead entire ideologies are built up around belief in gods, what we call "religions", and it is those ideology that are the problem. If there weren't religious fanatics slaughtering people we wouldn't be having this discussion. If there weren't religiously centered political forces actively trying to impose misogynist homophobic authoritarian governments on people, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If religion weren't a problem, it wouldn't be a problem.

It is sort of difficult to build an ideology around non belief. Perhaps you could come up with an ideology that is believed in by many people and that is equivalent to a religion and that is built around non belief in the existence of gods and then we could compare that to the numerous examples of religions. I do note that there are atheists, such as de Button, who are trying to construct atheist religions, they just aren't having much success. See also the Ethical Humanists who have been trying, with little success, to build the equivalent of an atheist religion for the last 100+ years. Probably because it is sort of difficult to build an ideology around non belief.

[zeemike]

158. Again, you could apply that to atheist too.

If non belief in God stooped right there there would be no problems...but it don't
Marxist did not stop right there but insisted it was stupid and no one should believe and proceeded to force them to not believe...but then we have the excuse that they were not really true atheist living by the principles you claim they have...but you do not allow that with believers...they cannot disavow another believer but that other becomes an example to you of how it is belief that causes it.

But your argument that no belief is not belief is not the case...If one is a number then is 0 a number too?...yes it is because it refers to a quanity...and likewise belief in a god is belief and belief in there being no god is also a belief...there is no such thing as non beliefe when you believe something to be true or not.
If you truly had non belief your answer to the question of whether there is a god would be "I don't know."

[Warren Stupidity]

161. You continue to assert without any foundation that marxism was created around atheism

that is just nonsense. Nice try though.

[zeemike]

164. Of course it was not created around atheism.

But atheism was a principle of it, that serves the same purpose you have for it, to blame it for economic problems and the sociopath of people.
Both religion and atheism can be used as a tool for power, and it has been throughout history whether it was the Greek gods, the Roman gods, Christianity or Atheism...it makes no difference.

[Warren Stupidity]

165. "But atheism was a principle of it" - no really it was a minor feature.

There are, for example, Christian Marxists. Stalin abandoned suppression of the Russian Church and instituted cooption instead.

"Both religion and atheism" - you have the construct wrong, I think you meant to say "Both theism and atheism", and yes they could, however there just aren't any good examples of atheism being used as a tool for power. The best you can come up with are ideologies that typically incorporated atheism being used as a tool for power, what you can't demonstrate is that atheism was essential to those ideologies.

[zeemike]

167. Well that WAS my point

That it was not constructed around atheism like you say it has to be in order to qualify.

But yes there are...The USSR and China...they set about to destroy it because it was a power base that they could not control...and it was the official belief of the party.
It does not have to be essential to be used.

[rug]

175. No, really, it was a major feature.

But unlike a lot of claptrap I see posted here about religion, it was a very intelligent criticism. The thrust of it, looking back from the mid-nineteenth century perspective, was the political - and economic - alliance between established religions and the established, and forming, states.

It was a raw and accurate analysis of the use of religious institutions by ruling classes. Nary a word about unicorns leprechauns or this infantile analysis: "religion proceeds from a belief in specific gods to long lists of rules and regulations about how to believe in those gods, and more importantly, what these imaginary beings demand that you, as a believer must do to be a proper worshiper."

[LiberalAndProud]

166. Just for the sake of discussion, let's take the atheist word out of it.

I think it is most likely that there is no god. I have experienced no evidence to support the assertion that there is a god. Your experience, I assume, has been different than mine. Fair enough.

Demanding evidence as a basis for believing isn't the same thing as believing even in the absence of evidence. You understand through the lens of faith, so I'm certain my explanation has fallen on deaf ears. Still, there it is.

[zeemike]

169. Not at all, I hear you well.

And that is an honest statement...you have not experienced anything that would lead you to believe it and so you doubt there is a god.
But that is quit different than saying you know there is no god and anyone who believes it is delusional or stupid...as if there is some un-divine revelation that gave you that insight into the nature of our universe.

What you fail to allow for is it might not be just blind faith that causes people to believe in the unseen world...information and science can lead you there too, although you might think that not the case.
But the universe is a hugh mystery wrapped in an enigma and we know very little about it despite the brave face we put on what we know.
If the universe were simple and easy to understand then you may be able to reach that conclusion that there is nothing else, but that is not the case at all.

[LiberalAndProud]

171. My disbelief goes beyond doubt.

I do not believe there is a god. That will be my position until I have evidence to the contrary. If you find it helpful to interpret our universe in unseen ways, I must leave you to it. Still, if I think you are misled I reserve the right to say so out loud.

If god begins where our understanding leaves off, then I take comfort that the god of the gaps is smaller today than it was yesterday.

[zeemike]

178. Unseen but not unknown.

There are lots of things unseen that we know about...in fact most of what the universe is is unseen.
The greatest mistake that is made is not recognizing how little we know...but that is where the ego fails us, because we have people we that we say are smart and it goes to some of therm's heads and they think they got it all figured our when most of what they think they know might well be wrong.

I have watched two series of videos in the last few months that bring into question our understanding of things...and not speculation but with facts and demonstrations.
The latest one is called The Electric Universe "The Primer Fields"-
Here;

It is a long one over an hour and there are 3 more parts and deals with the very fundamental building blocks of our universe and demonstrates it with experiments and shows how it works in all systems...sort of like a unified field theroy...and questions our understanding of physics as it should.
And this is not about god so feel free to watch.

[LiberalAndProud]

179. Thanks for the vid.

I'll put it on my viewing queue.

Is it your thinking then, that because our understanding of the universe is flawed, therefor God?

[zeemike]

180. No it is because our thinking about what God is is flawed.

We put human emotions and physical attributes to god when the truth must be that god is not human with all the limitations humans have.

Humans worship god not because god wants it or needs it, but because humans do.
God is a concept that we have and it is flawed too.

[NeoGreen]

210. So can we infer that...

... god has no human emotions or attributes?

And, what about all the humans who do not want or need to worship?

Are they somehow less than human? Not human?

What if the want/need to worship is merely a "flaw" of some humans?

[zeemike]

211. No I don't think we can infer that at all.

God is not human only.

Worship is a constructed thing that we made up to supplant the real need for community.
If you look at primitive religions you will notice that it creates a sense of belonging to a tribe or community of people...it is part of identify and brings people closer.
It is not a flaw, the flaw is in how it is manipulated for the sake of power...and it always is.

[Skittles]

110. they were psychopaths

[Jeff Murdoch]

127. They were that,

and their means were vile and brutal.
But they also didn't seem to care as long as it achieved the end result of eliminating the competition. Can't have the population looking up to anyone or anything other than the "Dear Leader."
IOW, it wasn't about religion or atheism so much as pure power and the desire to be the only power center remaining.
They were all ends justify the means kind of guys. Like Dick Cheney.

[zeemike]

129. Being oppressed by a psychopathic Atheist is no different than a psychopathic believer.

But if believers have to own it then so should the non believers own theirs.
But the rhetoric seems to say that it is believing that causes the problem and the cure is non beliefe...when history shows that not to be the case at all.

[Skittles]

130. atheist no different than pyschopathic believer?

WTF?

[zeemike]

131. A psychopathic Atheist is.

And don't tell us they don't exist...I give you Ayn Rand to name just one in this country.
If believers have to own Fred Phelps then Atheist have to own Ayn Rand.

[Skittles]

132. aw well GEE there's a qualifier for you

it's like saying a gay pedophile

[zeemike]

133. Well I said it in the post you replied to.

Did you not read it?
But no, it is like saying gay causes pedophilia and straight don't...or vice versa...it is wrongly identifying cause and effect.

[Skittles]

134. I don't like wasting my time

[longship]

135. Amongst the only places I profess my strong atheism is here.

Nevertheless, I do not find belief in gods, or a disagreement on such issues, as a rational argument to be an asshole.

Christopher Hitchens knew that to his dying day. When he went on his promotional tour for his book, god is not great, he insisted that the tour should take him through the heart of the Bible Belt, and that he would debate theists throughout the tour. What happened is kind of amazing. Although Hitchens may have a reputation as a evil, nasty atheist, he was above all a polite and gracious person. That is why when he went through his book tour debates, his theist debate opponents not only applauded his performance, they more than once agreed to rematches in order to accommodate those who were turned aside, to repeat the debate the next night. Of course, Hitchens would never turn such an offer away. And he didn't.

But Christopher Hitchens had a charisma that I wish I could grasp. Maybe it was the scotch, or the chain-smoking, although I doubt it. I have listened to him, and read his words, for decades. The reason why his book tour debates through the Bible Belt was so successful was that he did so respectively, politely, simultaneously while giving no ground.

Hitchens was a class act, no matter what ones believes.

If there is one thing I wish the world could learn is that.

[Burf-_-]

66. damned comment hierarchy lines ... sometimes i reply the wrong people... confusing at times.

But this is for you The CCC regarding the atheist atrocity fallacy.


https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/the-atheist-atrocities-fallacy-hitler-stalin-pol-pot-in-memory-of-christopher-hitchens/

[Warren Stupidity]

69. I was getting very upset, and then very confused.

Then you self deleted and I figured it out.

's'all good.

[Burf-_-]

73. my bad...

sorry bout that.... his use of Cap's and your user name in his title threw me off too....

[SoLeftIAmRight]

26. wrong on so many levels

i can not even find a place to start a reasoned reply

[Warren Stupidity]

30. I seem to have drawn flies.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. But not very clever flies, not one of the posters objecting to the article have managed to say what

they object to. Not one of them.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

91. is there really anything in the article that is worth talking about

the broad brush of "religion" as if that one word can, unmodified, be any reference point for meaningful discussion

[okasha]

107. Let me help you out.

The article is (a) badly written, and (b) historically and culturally ignorant.

No wonder ads are so bad these days.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

85. not you...

the post ...

some piles do attract flies

[okasha]

104. And we know what does that, don't we?

[Warren Stupidity]

120. yes, honey.

[Scuba]

39. Religion is a choice, yes, but virtually all religious people were brainwashed as children.

How many people do you know of who have a different religion than their parents?

[Warren Stupidity]

41. Actually I know a lot of people in that category.

[gcomeau]

46. In terms of overall percentages though...

The general rule is people are their parents religion, or some minor variation on it.

(Which in no way negates the "it's a choice" point. Deciding not to seriously critically question what you were taught by your parents is a choice in and of itself.)

[Warren Stupidity]

51. Um well lets see what Pew has to say:

More than one-quarter of American adults (28%) have left the faith in which they were raised in favor of another religion - or no religion at all. If change in affiliation from one type of Protestantism to another is included, 44% of adults have either switched religious affiliation, moved from being unaffiliated with any religion to being affiliated with a particular faith, or dropped any connection to a specific religious tradition altogether.

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

So I'm going to say the original statement was just wrong and that your revised statement is weak.

[gcomeau]

56. it just supported my point... so?

Even counting moving from Protestantism to slightly different Protestantism, which is ridiculous to categorize as rejecting the religious beliefs of your parents, only gets you to 44%.

And I specifically said that the general rule was people were their parents religions *or some minor variation on it* which both children and parents being a flavor of Protestantism most certainly is covered by. So we're back to that 28%. And frankly if someone even moved between one flavor of *Christianity* and another one I'd call that minor variations (they still believe in the same deity, the same Messianic figure, the same holy book... who gives a crap if they have disputed over the proper form of church governance or a random point of doctrine here and there....) but whatever, even if we don't do that 72% of the population remaining with essentially their parents religion certainly is more than solid enough support for a valid "general rule" characterization.

[Warren Stupidity]

63. I guess you and I disagree about what a "general rule" would be.

I think the generally understood meaning of a "general rule" is that violations of this rule are "rare", not that 28 or 44 per cent of the time the rule is violated.

For example if you brought your kids to a high end restaurant and the snobby maître d said:
As a general rule, we don’t allow children in here.
And you looked around and 25% of the people in the restaurant were kids, you would probably think that the maître d was full of shit, wouldn't you?

But fine, if you want to insist on your unusual definition of a "general rule" and claim victory, I cede the field.

[muriel_volestrangler]

136. However, of those 28%, 13% are people who have changed to 'unaffiliated'

Last edited Tue Jan 13, 2015, 09:14 AM - Edit history (1)

http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf

For Protestants, 54% are in the same denomination, 29% from another Protestant denomination, 9% from the Catholics, 2% from other faiths, and 6% from unaffiliated. Protestants are 51.3% of the poll. So that's about 8% of 51.3%, or 4% of the population, converted from outside to inside Christianity.

For Catholicism, 89% are non-converts; 8% are former Protestants (so, a move from one form or Christianity to another), 1% come from other faiths, and 2% from unaffiliated. Catholics are 23.9% of the poll. 3% of 23.9%, or under 1% of the population, converted from outside to inside Christianity.

The numbers of converts to other forms of Christianity are well under 1% of the total population, so it's about 5% of people that have converted to Christianity. 40% Of Muslims are converts from outside Islam, but they are 0.4% of the population so that's about 0.2%. 73% of Buddhists are from outside the religion, and they're 0.7%, so that's 0.5%. Add in other faiths, and that's probably another 1% in total. Call it 6% of the total population are now believers in a religion they did not belong to before.

The unaffiliated are 16.1% of the poll. 79% of them were formerly affiliated - 12.7%.

So, we have 13% unaffiliated that used to be in a religion, 3% that have always been unaffiliated, 6% that have changed religion, and 78% that have stayed in the religion they grew up in.

Or: 93% (78/(6+78)) of members of a religion grew up in that religion. "Virtually all"? Arguably true. "The general rule"? Indisputably true.

[Warren Stupidity]

143. You seem to be re-arranging the Pew study.

Um:

Looking only at changes from one major religious tradition to another (e.g., from Protestantism to Catholicism, or from Judaism to no religion), more than one-in-four U.S. adults (28%) have changed their religious affiliation from that in which they were raised.

The claim made was that children were brainwashed into their religious tradition and as a "general rule" did not change traditions. That is directly contradicted by the Pew Study. You can juggle the numbers and the definitions as you wish, but it is clear that this alleged brainwashing doesn't really stick "as a general rule".

[muriel_volestrangler]

145. Correct - I arrange it into Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam etc. and not affiliated

which, to me, seems the reasonable way of arranging religion. The difference between Baptist and Catholic in terms of the theological belief is very small - both believe in a trinity, the resurrection of Jesus, an afterlife with a heaven in it, a bible with almost the same selection of books in it, and so on.

When you look at those figures, you see that 93% of religious people are in the religion they grew up in. So "virtually all religious people" looks a reasonable characterisation. It's not 'directly contradicted' at all - 13 in 14.

[SoapBox]

44. I believe in aliens

much more than I do the other fables.

I would rather worry about this lifetime, than spend my days stewing about the "great beyond".

[Maineman]

45. Nice try with that respect idea. That would be nice, but harmful anti-science, anti-reason, and

anti-humane, and pro-war, etc., beliefs cannot and should not be respected.

[Maedhros]

49. The problem is that by disrespecting religion,

you also disrespect religious people, categorically.

It's fine to hold, in one's own mind, disrespect for religious views. But to engage in a public campaign of disrespect aimed at religious is callous, petulant and pointless.

[Act_of_Reparation]

53. Hogwash.

Disrespecting religion isn't any more disrespectful to religious people than disrespecting the Dallas Cowboys is to their fans.

[Maedhros]

79. Try that a sports bar in Dallas and you may be proven wrong. [n/t]

[Act_of_Reparation]

83. No. You're talking about perceived insult.

Any sensible person would tell a butthurt fan to harden the fuck up; that there's no sense getting piqued because some guy you don't know doesn't like a thing you like.

It's too much to expect grown-ass adults to act like grown-ass adults, I suppose.

[Maedhros]

95. It's just the way humans function.

If I start loudly mocking and sneering at Katy Perry because I think her music sucks*, all the Katy Perry fans will perceive it as if I'm mocking and sneering at them. Sure, they should "grow up" and not let it affect them, but humans (and human failings) being what they are, that's not how it works.

It's the same with mocking and sneering at religion, even more so since religion is a bit more serious than Katy Perry. People for whom religion is an important part of their lives tend to take the mocking and sneering personally. Some have their feelings hurt, some react with anger, some come right back to mock and deride atheism. No positive outcome results.

The question then remains: why is it so important to pour one's derision upon religion in the face of religious people? If the idea is to change their minds, or to open debate, then this is the worst way to begin

* I actually have no opinion of Katy Perry's music, but picked her as a representative sample.

[Fumesucker]

118. Do you really think atheists in the US are unfamiliar with being mocked and sneered at?

You do realize atheists are the most unpopular minority in the country, yes?

You do also realize that atheists can very easily "pass" as religious, that we hear a lot of comments about atheists when people have no idea an atheist is part of the conversation?

You do realize I hope that "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in order to mock and denigrate atheists?

Now that atheists are starting to return the mockery well of course mockery becomes a bad thing.

[Maedhros]

122. Didn't your mother teach you that two wrongs don't make a right? [n/t]

[Fumesucker]

124. A smart person wrote something very much like this...

It's just the way humans function.

If I start loudly mocking and sneering at Katy Perry because I think her music sucks*, all the Katy Perry fans will perceive it as if I'm mocking and sneering at them. Sure, they should "grow up" and not let it affect them, but humans (and human failings) being what they are, that's not how it works.

It's the same with mocking and sneering at atheism, even more so since atheism is a bit more serious than Katy Perry. People for whom atheism is an important part of their lives tend to take the mocking and sneering personally. Some have their feelings hurt, some react with anger, some come right back to mock and deride religion. No positive outcome results.

The question then remains: why is it so important to pour one's derision upon athiesm in the face of atheistic people? If the idea is to change their minds, or to open debate, then this is the worst way to begin.

It's odd how some Christians want atheists to be the ones to turn the other cheek and get all offended when they don't.

Matthew 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

[Maedhros]

147. I'm an atheist. I just don't see the value in sneering at religious people. [n/t]

[Fumesucker]

149. It's interesting that you see and condemn the sneering and mocking in one direction

But not in the other direction.

As I pointed out, "Under God" in the pledge was added within my lifetime specifically to tweak atheists, difficult to get much more deliberately in your face than that.

[Maedhros]

150. I disagree with the addition of "under God" to the Pledge, but then again I disagree

with the entire concept of a "Pledge of Allegiance." It's authoritarian nonsense.

I can disagree with an enforced culture of religion without badgering every religious person that posts on a message board, though.

[Fumesucker]

151. Again, you see the provocative behavior in one direction but not the other

You are belying your words I sort of quoted above.

Here's an interesting thread, Alabama town council votes to declare "God owns Winfield" and the athiests complaining about it are mocked and belittled starting in the very first post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218176249#post1

Is that counting the pigs and chickens? It's more like a hick village, not even worth notice.

And then in the third post we get this...

Out of a total village population of ~4700 in rural Alabama, I really doubt there are many or even any nontheists.

Of course, because simply everyone in Alabama is a Christian.

[Maedhros]

152. You are being deliberately obtuse.

I just told you that I see it, and disagree with it. Hell, I'll even denounce it.

But I don't need to mock every religious person I encounter.

[Act_of_Reparation]

146. Isn't it the purpose of religion to overcome base "human function"?

It's too much to expect people to behave like adults. It's too much to expect religious people to, you know, hold to the tenets of their religion. So, I should just shut the fuck up and listen to people praising Katy Perry day in and day out for the rest of my natural fucking life?

No thanks. Katy Perry sucks.

[Maedhros]

148. Do as you wish. I choose not to be abrasive. [n/t]

[muriel_volestrangler]

172. By likening religious people to drunken Cowboys fans, aren't you disrespecting them directly? (nt)

[rug]

176. It war AoR's metaphor he answered.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. And besides they might kill you, so I guess it is the prudent thing to do.

Best to just pretend that their misogynistic homophobic authoritarian irrational fairy tale beliefs are perfectly normal and acceptable.

[trotsky]

55. Are you basically saying that with regards to religion...

if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all?

That religion can't be criticized? Because that's what a lot of people think "disrespecting" their religion is - criticizing or even just merely disagreeing with it.

[hrmjustin]

58. If it is about challenging prejudices then I say go for it.

If it is about demeaning people of faith then they only hurt themselves and make themselves look bad.


The Flying Spaghetti monster is an example of this.

[muriel_volestrangler]

173. An example of which?

My friend who is a minister (United Reformed Church) said the FSM was funny, and a good riposte to creationist nonsense.

[hrmjustin]

174. I am Episcopalian and I find it demeaning.

We don't allow it in the prayer circle and it would not be welcome in Interfaith.

[Arugula Latte]

225. I guess you know how it feels to be non-religious now.

We are often in situations where we're expected to go along with a "prayer" to what we regard as as a ridiculous and fictional creature. It's insulting.

[hrmjustin]

226. Who makes you go along with it?

[Arugula Latte]

227. Often we'll be in a group or ceremony where someone will say "please bow your heads for a prayer"

I never do, of course. But the premise is there -- that we all believe in some invisible hovering creature that we are supposed to talk to and be in reverence of, even though if said creature existed it had demonstrated itself to be a murderous psychopath, time and again. And most people just assume that everyone there is going along with what to us feels like a charade. But there are always a few of us with our heads up and our eyes open, often giving each other a knowing look.

But, yeah, you're right. No one forcibly puts my head down.

[hrmjustin]

228. Where do you go that they ask you to pray? i am never aasked to pray at venues.

[PassingFair]

229. Have you NEVER been to a state Democratic convention?

Or a national one?

The last Dem convention opened with FOUR prayers, just so no one
religion was dissed. Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Hindu.

So I had to sit through ALL of them.

No Rationalist speaker was included, by the way.

[hrmjustin]

230. I have never been to a DNC event.

my personal experience is that I am only asked to pray in church.

[PassingFair]

231. Take my word for it then....others ARE subjected. nt

[hrmjustin]

232. I believe you and understand it can be annoying and offensive.

[rug]

177. I have a friend who likes lima beans.

I wouldn't cite him in an argument about vegetables.

[Trillo]

57. Minor bone to pick

Religion is not the same as race, gender or sexual orientation, it's a choice, something people choose to be.

It is not only a choice, it is also a means of propaganda and intentional training. In the martial arts, one of the reasons of repeated practice is to develop reflexes to the point that the movements become unconscious, without thought. Reflexes. The earlier in the age this occurs, the easier the training.

Thus kids that were sent to religious schools will most likely have some unconscious thoughts ("reflexes&quot that are not a matter of choice, but rather were deeply embedded as training.

[oneview]

71. Half right, but half wrong too.

A rejection of religion has undeniably led to progress often in history. The Enlightenment, Science, a certain humanitarianism -- sweet and progressive reason overall. A willingness to stand up to the powers that be and change the world rather than accept a lesser world with vague intimations of future reward.

And it is certain also that religion has often facilitated tyranny, conquest and repression.

But it is also undeniable that at times, religion provides something good for the world. The strength and the organization of the Roman Catholic Church certainly was essential for Western Europe in the dark ages to perserve learning, law and even simple literacy itself. And it is at least fair to say that, with the fall of the Roman Empire in the west, the Christian religion planted a seed in the destroyers of that Empire, the German Barbarians, that would soften their rough souls.

And there have been many great reformers and revolutionaries who have been animated and driven by their love of God -- MLK being the obvious example, Wilberforce who first helped to end slavery in the British Empire being another one. And don't forget, of course, all the Yankee, protestant abolitionists who clearly saw the crime that existed because they feared their God.

And even in day-to-day life, there are those amongst us who do good works among the poor who feel driven to do it out of love of God, there are those amongst us who find equanimity in the face of tragedy through God's promises and there are even those amongst us of a quiet, contemplative, mystic bent who touch the deepest of the real perhaps, in their meditations on the great Unknown.

Religion, in a way, seems as universal as music, or art. Wishing for a world without music and art would be sad, of course -- it is a dream, by the way, of Puritans and Salafists all over! -- but more imporatantly it would be a HOPELESS wish. The world will always have music, and art. And the world will always have religion.

Now how GOOD any particular music or art or religion is at any particular time, that's a whole nother can of worms...

[Skittles]

114. you don't need religion to "do good works among the poor"

I get tired of hearing the meme about church and charity, as if one requires the other

[oneview]

117. You're right, one doesn't require the other, but sometimes they go together.

A Christian imitating the example of the Good Samaritan, a Jew doing a Mitzvah, a Muslim paying Zakat (in those Muslims nations (most) where it is not enforced by the state.) -- a love of even a non-existent God often prompts people to show some love for their fellow human beings. Sure, many may not need that prompting, but many do.

[Fumesucker]

137. Interesting that you should use the Good Samaritan

That story was all about how people of faith are not better people than those without faith.

In that time Samaritans were despised as heathens by devout Jews to the point those Jews would go a considerable distance out of their way to avoid traveling through Samaria, this in an era when walking or donkey back were the only means of transportation.

That parable is all about how the heathen took care of the wounded man after two devout Jews had bypassed him like he was so much rotten meat.

[Burf-_-]

76. Atheist Experience:Tracy Harris and Martin Wagner

This is a good vid that talks about the "religion deserves respect" debate. Respect is not something you deserve automatically it must be earned.

[KT2000]

78. deference is the problem

our country would be over-run with bizarre Christian demands if not for Constitutional scholars, atheists and agnostics who challenge the creep of those demands.

I respect the right to religious freedom but I do not respect religions. As a woman, I am regarded as second class in the major religions - screw that!

[hrmjustin]

80. The presiding bishop of my church is a woman. You would be very welcome in my church.

[KT2000]

82. Yes - I was raised Episcopalian

but it flies under the flag of Christianity. It was progressive when I attended and participated in the social issues of the day. But even then, the stern and mean members were given great leeway because they donated the most time and money. They had the kids terrified in Sunday school and catechism and created and "in club" for themselves - they were the better believers, and men only. Human behavior and Politics.

Anyway, the fundamentalists, evangelicals, and nutcases have taken over the public perception of Christianity and the pressure on society and government is coming from those people. The progressive churches are not part of that perception.

[hrmjustin]

84. Well in my parish we don't scare the kids in Sunday School.

It is the media's fault that progressive Christians are not given airtime.

[The Rob Black Show]

126. I recently wrote on this in regards to Islam

Love to get some feedback on it from you guys

http://www.zerofiltered.com/islams-bad-apples/

[trotsky]

144. I don't think you will find much support for your position here.

Even those of us who think Islam has been a factor in terrorist incidents aren't calling for the eradication of the religion.

[NaturalHigh]

154. It's bigotry.

While I disagree with many of the tenets of Islam, your statement in that article that "Muslims are a problem" is simply bigoted and hateful. One of the founding principles of this nation was freedom to worship (or not) as one pleases, and I will always support that.

[NaturalHigh]

153. Not sure what the point of this is, Warren.

People have done some crazy things in the name of religion, but that doesn't make all religious people crazy or evil.

Just because some extremists used religion as an excuse for murder in Paris, should all Muslims be condemned? Should Christians be condemned for the actions of a very minute percentage when the vast majority of us agree with the teachings of Jesus, a man known as the Prince of Peace?

How far would you take this "disrespect"? Would you ban religious teachings like China and North Korea? Would you lock Christians who evangelize in prison "re-education" camps? Would you burn down the churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques?

Your disrespect frankly doesn't bother me, as Jesus said "Blessed are those who are persecuted in my Name." Persecuting people for their religious beliefs, though, has resulted in untold amounts of bloodshed throughout the centuries.

Hatred is not a progressive or liberal value.

[Warren Stupidity]

155. "that doesn't make all religious people crazy or evil" - duh.

Why is this strawman out here again?

"Just because some extremists used religion as an excuse for murder in Paris, should all Muslims be condemned? "

No. But as you seem to be the only person making that argument here, perhaps that is your recommendation?

"How far would you take this "disrespect"? " - as far as I choose within the constraints of civil society. For example, I think ridicule and satire are excellent choices for making it clear that religion is bullshit. I might even fart in their general direction.

But yes of course, secretly I am working on the Atheist Final Solution to the Religious Problem. Now you've gone and wrecked the surprise. All is lost!

[NaturalHigh]

156. I don't see the need for your attack mode.

Since the title of your OP is "Time to pay religion the disrespect it deserves," I thought it was fair to ask just how much disrespect you really think it does deserve.

I respect the right of anyone to not believe in God. I don't understand why those of us who do believe in God and a certain set of religious insults deserve all the scorn we get here sometimes.

[Warren Stupidity]

157. Dude you just accused me off all sorts of hideous bullshit.

So stop pretending that just didn't happen.

[NaturalHigh]

159. Actually, Warren, I asked a series of questions.

Were they over the top a little? Sure, but a lot of people who have the disdain for religion that you seem to have went in that direction through the years. The 20th century is full of examples.

[Warren Stupidity]

160. And you just did it again.

So get off your high horse.

[NaturalHigh]

162. Fair enough Warren.

If you think I truly accused you of any of those scenarios, then I apologize.