Atheists and Fundamentalists

[mklsgl]

I'm wondering, in your opinion, was his opinion all that much more self-reflexive and unconditionally biased than your critique of it?

No; not at all, in fact. My reply is not self-reflexive (I don't talk about myself) or unconditionally biased (I'm not a Christian or an Atheist; my biases are quite conditional).

You didn't answer my question: what is his point?

Edited June 15, 2010 by mklsgl

[Tiggs]

Interesting. It's an article that criticises broadbrush attacks by broadbrushing a group and accusing them of making them.

No irony there, then.

[Doc Socks Junior]

Hmm, his point couldn't be found in the title, could it?

[Doc Socks Junior]

Interesting. It's an article that criticises broadbrush attacks by broadbrushing a group and accusing them of making them.

No irony there, then.

It is a little self-serving, I'll admit. But there is much less difference of opinions and ideas that the group in question has, as opposed to the many differences which religion has as a whole.

[Michelle]

Doesn't the article explain why someone would try to hide their beliefs? Because they don't want to get labeled "loony" or "crazy." Which is what the eponymous (I know that I stretched the meaning of that word) article was getting at also.

So, it's getting to the point that Christians are afraid to let people know who they are. Isn't that something...gays are coming out of the closet and Christians are going in.

What's wrong with letting people be who they are without judgement and ridicule?

[mklsgl]

Hmm, his point couldn't be found in the title, could it?

His title, and the entire opinion he put forth, is nothing more than a sophomoric rant. His attempt at forming something akin to an argument (as in Argumentation) fails miserably.

What's wrong with letting people be who they are without [judgment] and ridicule?

Shoudn't the pastor abide these words?

[Doc Socks Junior]

His title, and the entire opinion he put forth, is nothing more than a sophomoric rant. His attempt at forming something akin to an argument (as in Argumentation) fails miserably.

And what you're saying is different how? I know you're using slightly better vocabulary, but that doesn't mean you're right and he's wrong. In fact, based on the fact that 90% of the people responding to this (or more) are atheist/agnostic/against religion...it basically proves his point.

[Michelle]

His title, and the entire opinion he put forth, is nothing more than a sophomoric rant. His attempt at forming something akin to an argument (as in Argumentation) fails miserably.

Shoudn't the pastor abide these words?

Most certainly...I think everyone should. Who is going to start that trend? Tit for tat doesn't get anyone anywhere.

[mklsgl]

And what you're saying is different how? I know you're using slightly better vocabulary, but that doesn't mean you're right and he's wrong. In fact, based on the fact that 90% of the people responding to this (or more) are atheist/agnostic/against religion...it basically proves his point.

This is not about me, s.jr.; indeed, it is only about his opinion. Can we agree on that?

Proves his point? In fact? Basically? C'mon, s.jr., the lack of support in this thread evidences nothing but a lack of support in this thread.

Where in his opinion do you find the two most vital elements of an intellectual argument: ethos and logos? His column is pure pathos--a tool of persuasion, not argumentation.

[mklsgl]

Most certainly...I think everyone should. Who is going to start that trend? Tit for tat doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Red: I nominate you!

Black: Absolutely. It only furthers deeper entrenchment. It does not promote the free-flowing exchange of ideas.

[Tiggs]

It is a little self-serving, I'll admit. But there is much less difference of opinions and ideas that the group in question has, as opposed to the many differences which religion has as a whole.

I'm pretty sure that theists believe in a God and Atheists don't. As such, whilst Theists can differ with regard in how they perceive the aspects of their given God, there's not really so much that atheists can disagree on when it comes to an absent God.

[Michelle]

Red: I nominate you!

Black: Absolutely. It only furthers deeper entrenchment. It does not promote the free-flowing exchange of ideas.

Thank you...I accept this nomination and will adhere to it to the best of my ability.

[MARAB0D]

a sophomoric rant

Thats the correct word!

[churchanddestroy]

I'm not trying to be grandiose, but I don't think anyone considers unicorns a threat to the future of civilisation.

No of course not.

I go to a small, private Lutheran College. Of course I am not a Lutheran, nor am I really anything as I don't believe in anything. However, on several occasions I've had non-Christian students here complain about the fact that this school is a Lutheran school, which always boggles my mind. For one, they chose to go here, and second, this school is nothing, NOTHING compared to Catholic school. I suppose that was my point in posting that image - that if you don't believe in something you shouldn't get your panties all up in a bunch about it. Sans of course things that affect society as a whole, like teaching creationism in schools. But I think that goes without saying.

[Halfwolf]

Most of the arguements against Religion here are based on the OT, which is not meant to be taken literally (according to some Rabbi's aand Catholic Priests I've talked to).

If the world does collapse and there are only 2 camps left 1. atheists and 2. Believers. I will go with the believers.

[Emma_Acid]

I suppose that was my point in posting that image - that if you don't believe in something you shouldn't get your panties all up in a bunch about it.

I respectfully disagree.

There are a host of issues in our society that are accepted as normal practice, yet objectively make little or no sense, and when viewed in the wider context are damaging, even dangerous.

The effect of Western nutritionism on AIDS treatment in South Africa is another conversation for another time, but illustrates my point that these things aren't benign and sometimes people shouldn't be let alone to believe what they what.

Basing a society in faith and superstition will always lead to Bad Things. Lets say one person believes that the earthquake in Haiti was caused by a pact with the devil. Fine. But what if 10 people believe that? 100? 10 million? How will that society function? How will that society view natural disasters, and how would it approach science?

Its all very funny hearing an Iranian cleric claim that scantily dressed women cause earthquakes, but it would be less funny of they were American or British, and not at all funny if it were the general consensus.

These things cannot be shrouded in taboo. Religion and its effects on progress, science and society must be addressed and debated properly, not swept under the carpet with a "let them believe what they want".

Edited June 16, 2010 by Emma_Acid

[Emma_Acid]

If the world does collapse and there are only 2 camps left 1. atheists and 2. Believers. I will go with the believers.

How embarrassingly selfish. Be my guest anyway, although I'm not sure how wailing at effigies, bending in front of crosses, apologising for all the bad things your species has ever done while throwing stones at the heathens will ever get society back on its feet again.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Emma_Acid

[Pseudo Intellectual]

I don't know how believing we're all an accidental cancer on a lonely planet that no one cares about, life has no ultimate meaning, we're all just space-dust in an uncaring universe, etc. is good for society either.

My point is, neither religion nor irreligion are cancers about to destroy civilization, so you might want to tone down your generalizations and hyperbole.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Pseudo Intellectual

[Emma_Acid]

I don't know how believing we're all an accidental cancer on a lonely planet that no one cares about, life has no ultimate meaning, we're all just space-dust in an uncaring universe, etc. is good for society either.

My point is, neither religion nor irreligion are cancers about to destroy civilization, so you might want to tone down your generalizations and hyperbole.

Those aren't the only two options you know, and I wasn't making a case for enlightenment - I was explaining why we should just "let people believe what they want to believe".

This is unimaginably important - Hitchens, who knows more than you, I or anyone else here on the subject - solidly believes theocracy will end civilisation. I try to state why I believe faith shouldn't be shrouded in taboo, and get told to "turn down the hyperbole". Unbelievable.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Emma_Acid

[Tiggs]

This is unimaginably important - Hitchens, who knows more than you, I or anyone else here on the subject - solidly believes theocracy will end civilisation. I try to state why I believe faith shouldn't be shrouded in taboo, and get told to "turn down the hyperbole". Unbelievable.

I totally agree with Hitchen's on that particular point.

You only have to look at the Middle East to know that.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

Basing a society in faith and superstition will always lead to Bad Things.

Sounds like hyperbole to me. Western society is, to an extent, based on (or at least influenced by) Judeo-Christianity. Where are the "bad things"? I see science, knowledge and tolerance have flourished in the West. There are good and bad things that come with religion (as well as irreligion). I don't see it ending civilization, though.

And I notice most of your examples of how "religion" always leads to bad things are about Islam... which is a totalitarian political ideology, and can hardly be called a religion.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Pseudo Intellectual

[Halfwolf]

How embarrassingly selfish. Be my guest anyway, although I'm not sure how wailing at effigies, bending in front of crosses, apologising for all the bad things your species has ever done while throwing stones at the heathens will ever get society back on its feet again.

Selfish? you lost me there. I don't wail at effigies or bow to anything or anybody, I don't even go to Church or belong to one, I just believe in GOD.

[Tiggs]

Sounds like hyperbole to me. Western society is, to an extent, based on (or at least influenced by) Judeo-Christianity. Where are the "bad things"? I see science, knowledge and tolerance have flourished in the West. There are good and bad things that come with religion (as well as irreligion). I don't see it ending civilization, though.

Then maybe you missed the whole Middle Eastern nuclear build up thing that's currently going on, all because two opposing groups of Theists literally believe that they have a God-given right to a particular tract of land.

You seriously think that's going to end well?

[Pseudo Intellectual]

Then maybe you missed the whole Middle Eastern nuclear build up thing that's currently going on, all because two opposing groups of Theists literally believe that they have a God-given right to a particular tract of land.

You seriously think that's going to end well?

What does that have to do with anything? How is that proof that "religion always leads to bad things"? Again, you only need to take a look at the West. Majority-religious, yet science, tolerance and everything that religion allegedly destroys, are the norm.

[Karlis]

Then maybe you missed the whole Middle Eastern nuclear build up thing that's currently going on, all because two opposing groups of Theists literally believe that they have a God-given right to a particular tract of land.

You seriously think that's going to end well?

Tiggs, I agree with you that there are “opposing groups of Theists” fighting each other (and fighting others of their own belief as well).

Where I’m not so sure about agreeing with you, is the idea that they are fighting mainly because they “literally believe that they have a God-given right to a particular tract of land.“

I think the fighting has more to do with the long-established human desire for control, power and supremacy, rather than for pure Theistic belief convictions -- not to mention the money trail either.

Karlis