Atheists vs. Atheists

[Wolfman]

I know that what I am going to say in this post is nothing new, and covers ground that has been hashed and re-hashed in numerous threads on this board. However, I always seem to end up presenting my own arguments piece-meal, responding to one particular issue without the opportunity to present the 'bigger picture'.

In the ongoing debate about religion versus atheism, there is not only a debate between the two different sides, there is also a debate between atheists. While there are numerous such groups, I will resort to a generalization of those atheists who are tolerant of others with religious beliefs, and those who are intolerant.

I would like to emphasize that this debate is intended primarily for those who actually are atheists, for each side to present their respective opinions/beliefs. Non-atheists are welcome to observe and comment, but I'd ask that you refrain from sidetracking or derailing the debate with arguments about the 'legitimacy' of your own religious beliefs; there are plenty of other threads where you can discuss and defend your beliefs. This thread is for atheists to discuss our beliefs.

I believe first and foremost that some clarification of terms is needed. There is a tendency to equate "atheism" with terms such as "rationalism" and "skepticism". Or to consider all atheists as believing in evolution. Or to consider all atheists as being scientific. Or to consider all atheists as favoring democracy, equality, etc.

The truth is that, just as there are all flavors of theists, there are likewise all flavors of atheist. There are atheists who are fascist, there are atheists who are communist, there are atheists who are Republican, there are atheists who are Democrat. There are atheists who believe in the continued unrestrained exploitation of our planet, and there are atheists who believe we are destroying our planet. There are atheists who believe in evolution, and there are atheists who do not believe in evolution. There are atheists who believe that psychic powers are complete nonsense; and there are atheists who believe they are completely real. There are atheists who practice slavery, and there are atheists who fight to end slavery.

So, first and foremost, let's get rid of the "moral superiority" that seems to be implicit in many atheistic arguments against religion. Atheists can and do commit atrocities just as bad as any atrocity attributed to theists. The only real difference is that theists have had a much longer time to wreak havok.

Next, I'd like to clarify my own position. I am not just an atheist; I am a Humanist. Being an atheist does not in any manner, shape, or form describe my beliefs (it defines only that I do not believe in any god); being a Humanist provides a basic structure to actually define my belief system. As a Humanist, I believe in a rational, scientific view of the world; I believe in the equality of all humans; I believe in promoting human rights and freedom; etc. For those who may not be terribly familiar with Humanism, you can check here (http://www.iheu.org/amsterdamdeclaration) for a concise summary of the main principles of Humanism.

I also believe that the 'value' of a person's beliefs are measured by two specific measures: how those beliefs affect you as an individual, and how those beliefs affect those around you. Beliefs that result in you living a happier life, and in helping (or at least not harming) those around you are "good" beliefs. Beliefs that result in you living an unhappy life, and/or in harming those around you, are "bad" beliefs.

As such, I know many people who hold religious beliefs...but those beliefs give them a personal sense of fulfillment and happiness, and those beliefs cause them to show love, charity, generosity, etc., to others. As such, I'd consider those beliefs to be "good", and would not make any significant effort to try to convince them that they are wrong, or should abandon their religious beliefs.

To take this a step further, I believe that there are people whose lives are happier and more beneficial as a result of their religious beliefs, than they would be if they became atheists. There are some people to whom the idea that their life has no real "purpose", that they are just an accident of evolution, is terribly demoralizing...why try to accomplish anything, if what I do has no higher purpose, no higher meaning? There are some people to whom the idea that once a loved one has died, they will never see them again, is debilitating...whereas the belief that they'll see them again some day in an afterlife provides solace and incentive to continue.

I personally don't have these problems; I'm quite happy and content with being an atheist. But I am not so arrogant as to think that everyone should be like me, or to expect that everyone should have the same reactions or motivations as me.

If a person lives a happier, more fulfilling life as a theist; and if that person's beliefs do not hurt others, or infringe the rights/freedoms of others, then what on earth is wrong with that person having such beliefs? How am I "helping" them by trying to force them into a world view that makes them less happy, that gives them less motivation or incentive for positive action?

Thus, I myself an not religious; but neither am I anti-religious. And this is a point central to the arguments I'm going to make in the following paragraphs.

I now wish to address some of the more extreme arguments or accusations made by the anti-religious portion of the atheistic spectrum. Let me begin with the most extreme, those I would classify as the "militant atheists". These are easy enough to identify...they make statements such as, "belief in god is a mental disorder", "parents who teach religion to their children are guilty of child abuse", or other such things. They are those who advocate not only that religion is bad, but who call for specific actions and policies to limit/eliminate the rights of those with religious beliefs to teach or propogate those beliefs to others.

I think that some context is important here; I have been living in China for 14 years now, and have seen plenty of examples of the abuses visited upon religious people in China. The Communist government in China originally dedicated itself to the destruction of religion. It classified religious belief as a mental disorder. It made it illegal for parents to teach religious beliefs to children under 18 years of age. It made it illegal to print or distribute religious texts or materials. It was a tremendously abusive and repressive policy that denied the most basic rights of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc.

And it is a policy that some of these militant atheists are today either actively calling for, or at least laying the groundwork for. If you say that "belief in god is a psychological disorder", then it is only a short step to prescribing treatments to people to "cure" their illness. If you say that teaching religion to your children is "child abuse", then it is only a short step to criminalizing religious families. This kind of argument is the extremist, the person who believes that he is justified in controlling the thoughts or beliefs of others based on his own perception of what is "right" or "wrong".

I am adamantly opposed to such policies, and to anyone who makes such arguments. Throughout history, whenever people have sought to marginalize or persecute a particular group, the first step has been to declare them "crazy", to characterize their beliefs and practices as abusive. Then, of course, any action that you take against such people is justified, because you are "stopping" those abuses, you are "curing" those people.

My own beliefs on this matter would be the dead opposite. I believe that a person's choices should be made based on full awareness of the range of possible options. Not on denying them the opportunity to learn about any option than the one you have decided is "right". I would fully advocate having religious classes in schools -- but not classes that taught just one particular religion. Rather, I'd advocate a kind of "introduction to religion" class in which students would have various religions explained to them, by people who come from those religions. This would include atheists and/or Humanists, and would include the opportunity for each person to not only explain their own beliefs, but also to express questions or criticisms of other beliefs. (And I do believe that in the science classroom, only evolution should be taught; creationism is not a scientific theory, and belongs in the religion class, not science).

Of course, I know that this is not terribly likely to happen, particularly in the U.S. Any such policy would be opposed both by Christians and by atheists! And thus doomed to failure.

It is my belief that the majority of people, if presented with such an education, would end up choosing atheism (or at least agnosticism). The main reason many people choose a particular religion is because they are often not presented with any other beliefs, any other options. And of those who chose religion, it would at least not be a decision based on ignorance; it would be a decision based on their evaluation of all the available information.

I'd also like to clarify, before some idiot extends this argument to an absurd degree (as in "would you teach every religion in the world then? That's impossible!), I am advocating only an overview of major religions. There could be a section that did something like "animistic religions" without including every animistic religion. The purpose is not to give them a detailed understanding of the complete theology of every religion; only to give them a broad picture, a basic understanding.

The thing is, to me, a "choice" cannot be made without understanding the possible options. If you refuse a person the right to learn about a particular belief, then you deny that person's right to choose; you have made the decision for them. And I have a fundamental problem with anyone having the right to choose what others may think or believe.

Another major argument made by the anti-religious atheists is the argument that assumes some sort of moral superiority of atheism over theism. They will cite the numerous (and undeniable) abuses committed in the name of atheism. They will argue (or at least assume) that atheists are less prone to these abuses.

Now, I am not in any manner, shape, or form denying or justifying the abuses committed throughout history in the name of religion. I'm only arguing that atheism does not have any inherent tendency to be any different.

As I've pointed out already, atheists can be fascists. Atheists can be communists. Atheists can be dictators. Atheists can be slave-owners, wife-beater, and racists. There is absolutely nothing involved in being an atheist that prevents or decreases such beliefs or actions.

Now, right away, I can hear the anti-religious groups shouting, "You are wrong! Religious people use their god as an excuse to commit these abuses! Religious people don't question or challenge these things, because they must do what their god tells them!"

I'd agree -- as far as that goes. The problem is that all you people screaming this objection also seem to implicitly assume that atheists are immune to such things (or at least less prone to them). This is a fatal error, one based on ignorance, or on wishful thinking.

Let us assume a 100% atheistic world view...we successfully eradicate all religion. Let us assume that everyone accepts science rather than woo. We'll still have the fascists, the communists, the racists, etc. Every one of these groups will look at the available information, and twist or distort that information in such a manner as to support their own actions. In exactly the same way that religious people have twisted and distorted their scriptures to support their actions!

Science has nothing whatsoever to do with morality. Being scientific, and looking only at the "proven facts", does not in any manner predispose you to be a more "moral" person. Two people can easily look at the "facts" of evolution, and reach radically opposed moral conclusions. One looks at evolution, and uses it to justify racism, genocide, and euthanasia, all in the name of "survival of the fittest"...getting rid of the weak so that we'll be left only with the strongest, the best. Another looks at evolution, and sees that despite superficial differences in appearance, all humans are in fact genetically almost identical; and concludes therefore that all humans should be treated as equals, and given equal rights.

And mindlessly following orders? You don't need a god to accomplish that. Numerous dictatorships require mindless, unquestioning obedience to their leaders, without any appeal to a god or any other supernatural entity.

I am an ardent advocate of freedom. Freedom of speech. Freedom of choice. Freedom of religion. Etc. I do believe in restrictions, to a certain degree. Where a person's speech causes actual harm to others, there should be restrictions. Where a person's choices cause actual harm to others, there should be restrictions. Where are person's religious beliefs cause actual harm to others, it should be restricted.

But so long as any belief does not cause harm to the individual holding that belief; and does not cause that individual to harm (or infringe on the rights/freedoms of) others; then that person has every right to have that belief, and to share that belief with others (not to force others to believe it, but to explain it).

I've seen more than enough of the "thought police". Those individuals who are so convinced they are right, and others are wrong, that they assume the right to dictate what people may believe, they assume the right to determine what people may or may not be taught. It so happens, in this case, that I do believe that atheism is correct; but that does not give me the right to dictate to others what they may or may not learn, or what they may or may not believe.

I think that a world in which people rejected religious beliefs because they were given all the choices, and they decided that atheism was the most rational, would be world based on real freedom and individual rights. I think that a world in which people were atheists simply because they were denied the opportunity to learn of any other possibility would be a world based on repression and abuse.

And I believe that, regardless of whether we are theist or atheist, we are subject to exactly the same temptations, the same abuses, the same weaknesses. Getting rid of all religious beliefs would not even result in a decrease in war, suffering, abuse, repression, etc. We'd just find another excuse.

And one of the biggest dangers is those who think that, because they don't believe in god, they are somehow less prone to commit the abuses of those who do believe in god.

Since I've written an awful lot here, allow me to summarize a few major points or questions; and I would welcome one and all to respond to any of these points:

1) Atheists are not less predisposed or disinclined to abuses than theists. Atheist leaders are just as capable of demanding unquestioning obedience as theist leaders. There is no implied or stated morality in atheism. One can be an atheist and have pretty much any moral belief you please, from a radical believer in human rights to a radical fascist dictator.

2) There are people whose lives are happier and more fulfilling as a result of their religious beliefs, than they would be as atheists. Successfully convincing them that their beliefs are wrong would actually result in making their lives less happy, less fulfilling. Thus, so long as those beliefs do not harm others, or infringe on the rights of others, we should be perfectly happy to let those people continue in their beliefs, even though we believe they are wrong.

3) Removing theism from our world would not in any way decrease the potential for abuse, repression, and general "evil".

You are welcome to respond to any or all of these points; I ask only that you do more than say, "I disagree". If you disagree, that's fine -- that's why I started this topic, to have a debate on these issues. But I've gone out of my way to give clear examples, and fully explain the reasons for my beliefs; I would expect you to do the same.

[Jorghnassen]

Post too long. I'm an atheist with a short attention span. :D

[Hokulele]

Hey Wolfie, good OP. I agree with 99% of what you have written, even though my beliefs are a bit different. I guess I would be considered an atheist, in that I do not believe there are any gods, but if pressed on larger questions (the whole meaning of life thing), I like many of the concepts in philosophies/religions such as Taoism or Zen Buddhism for how to guide my own life, with a bit of Humanism thrown in for how to act regarding other people's lives. I certainly would prefer reading Chuang Tzu over the bible any day! I do agree however that what one person believes should never be imposed on others.

I did have one quibble with a part of your post.

I also believe that the 'value' of a person's beliefs are measured by two specific measures: how those beliefs affect you as an individual, and how those beliefs affect those around you. Beliefs that result in you living a happier life, and in helping (or at least not harming) those around you are "good" beliefs. Beliefs that result in you living an unhappy life, and/or in harming those around you, are "bad" beliefs.

As such, I know many people who hold religious beliefs...but those beliefs give them a personal sense of fulfillment and happiness, and those beliefs cause them to show love, charity, generosity, etc., to others. As such, I'd consider those beliefs to be "good", and would not make any significant effort to try to convince them that they are wrong, or should abandon their religious beliefs.


The quibble is that I have met people who are so convinced that their brand of religion is correct, that they can inadvertently cause harm to family members who do not share their beliefs. It is fairly common in parts of the US to have a very Christian parent or grandparent who can make things uncomfortable for an agnostic or atheist person, not by being harsh, but by being too caring. "I just hate the thought of you burning in hell because I love you" is meant with the best of intents, but can cause friction, guilt, and other not-so-good feelings between the two people.

I am not suggesting that the fix for this would be to convert either one, but I am merely noting that while the belief may be "good" for one person, it can still have "bad" unintended consequences. I have no idea if this can or even should be fixed.

[arthwollipot]

Post too long. I'm an atheist with a short attention span. :D

Agreed.

[vexed]

One can be an atheist and have pretty much any moral belief you please, from a radical believer in human rights to a radical fascist dictator.



So can theists, theists just twist their 'word of gawd' to fit their ideas by cherry picking scriptures and false interpretations.

[blobru]

Get the feeling this is going to be a lively thread, Wolf... ;)

Science has nothing whatsoever to do with morality. Being scientific, and looking only at the "proven facts", does not in any manner predispose you to be a more "moral" person. Two people can easily look at the "facts" of evolution, and reach radically opposed moral conclusions. One looks at evolution, and uses it to justify racism, genocide, and euthanasia, all in the name of "survival of the fittest"...getting rid of the weak so that we'll be left only with the strongest, the best. Another looks at evolution, and sees that despite superficial differences in appearance, all humans are in fact genetically almost identical; and concludes therefore that all humans should be treated as equals, and given equal rights.

I started a thread yesterday which sort of addresses this so sort of a "cross-over" post:
I don't agree that "science has nothing whatsoever to do with morality." Scientific thinking opposes dogma, and dogma is the greatest enemy to morality I can think of. Scientific theories may be amoral in the strict sense of not prescribing conduct, but the practice of science is not. Medicine for example. If morality is "doing good", it's hard to argue that medicine has nothing to do with morality. It certainly has moral worth. And without the theories of medicine, there can be no practice of medicine, so it's not clear to me that treating science and morality as mutually irrelevant is fair.
The abuses of scientific theory in the name of some heinous morality -- such as Nazism based on a flawed and self-serving interpretation of evolution's "survival of the fittest" -- are well-known. I don't want to argue anyway that evolution and science are a complete guide to and guarantee of morality; I do see them however as effective goads to making informed, rational, choices; and my belief in the basic decency of the vast majority of us convinces me such choices are more likely to be "moral".

Ok, your three summary questions:

1) No disagreement here. As I said above, dogma, via whatever ideology it cloaks itself in, is IMO the biggest threat to social justice.

2) Outside of this forum, I only ever argue religion with evangelists. Otherwise, if people are fine with my beliefs, I'm cool with theirs (where those beliefs don't do obvious harm, that is).

3) That's a tough one. I don't know. It would sure make things a heckuva lot more boring! And there are many traditions of theism I would miss: Zen koans, Jewish midrash, Catholic stained glass, Negro spirituals, How the Grinch Stole Xmas, to name just a few. :)

[The Atheist]

1) Atheists are not less predisposed or disinclined to abuses than theists. Atheist leaders are just as capable of demanding unquestioning obedience as theist leaders. There is no implied or stated morality in atheism. One can be an atheist and have pretty much any moral belief you please, from a radical believer in human rights to a radical fascist dictator.

2) There are people whose lives are happier and more fulfilling as a result of their religious beliefs, than they would be as atheists. Successfully convincing them that their beliefs are wrong would actually result in making their lives less happy, less fulfilling. Thus, so long as those beliefs do not harm others, or infringe on the rights of others, we should be perfectly happy to let those people continue in their beliefs, even though we believe they are wrong.

3) Removing theism from our world would not in any way decrease the potential for abuse, repression, and general "evil".

You are welcome to respond to any or all of these points; I ask only that you do more than say, "I disagree". If you disagree, that's fine -- that's why I started this topic, to have a debate on these issues. But I've gone out of my way to give clear examples, and fully explain the reasons for my beliefs; I would expect you to do the same.

Holy novella, Wolfman!

I agree with pretty much every word and it's really only my sheer bloody-mindedness and contrarian nature which makes me use "The Atheist", because I'm a rationalist/humanist at heart.

I'm glad you started this thread and not me, but this is something I've long argued - that atheism doesn't stand for anything, but it should. If we've divested the baggage of thousands of years of superstition, we ought to be able to focus on actually helping our fellow man. Unfortunately, the converse has been shown to be true, with atheists' altruism lagging behind religious altruism. I don't care why people do good work, just that they do it.

I said a month or so that I was disgusted by a few attitudes which went against what I feel should be an atheist mantra - (stealing mercilessly from Hippocrates) do no harm. When there's no sky-daddy to kiss it better, it must be more incumbent upon atheists to show a greater care for human life than theists.

Bertrand Russell was the complete atheist/humanist. A man who stood up for his right not to be forced to kill his fellow man that he refused to be conscripted.

I go along with your premise that removal of religion wouldn't reduce the evil it causes, that evil would surely find other outlets, but I also think there's a further stage which needs to be explored: how much evil does religion keep in check by its very nature? It's not a question which should be dismissed lightly.

[arthwollipot]

Ah, now that I see these summary points, I have to say that I agree with each one of them.

1) Agree. Theists have no monopoly on asshattery.
2) Agree, up to the point where they infringe on my rights or the rights of those I care about. This includes trying to get creationism or ID added to the science curriculum.
3) Agree. Again, theists have no monopoly on asshattery.

As to how much evil does religion keep in check? I'd say very little. How many theists are currently awaiting death sentences? How many atheists? (BTW, I really don't know the answers to these questions, but it appears to me that the former number is overwhelmingly likely to be larger than the latter).

I would go so far as to say that religion is the cause - direct or indirect - of an appreciable amount of evil in the world, today and in the past. But not all evil is caused by religion, and not all religion causes evil.

[Caius Textor]

OK, I´ll answer to your summary questions, Wolfman. Fell free to not read it all. :)

1) OK. Stupid people can have rational beliefs. That is empirically true.

2) I don´t agree. There is a big implicit "IF" there. Religion is NOT a personal thing, and never has been. Religion is an organized practice, social by nature. So you´ll go from "Oh, this is just MY belief, I´m happy with it, what do you care?" to "I´ll just pass along this harmless thing I believe in to this large and naïve community, but hey, it makes me happy, might make them happy too!" And there you have it all over again. There is no religion without spreading it, teaching it or otherwise trying to bring people over to your side. The degrees of "agressiveness" vary of course, so I urge people to NOT throw some "Have you ever had a Buddhist/Wiccan knocking at your door????" at me.
The assertion "many people are happy with religion" is denied by the opposite, just as true one, "many people are unhappy/miserable/dead because of religion". It´s not a really tough choice.


3) I don´t see how this makes sense. One wouldn´t eliminate ALL evil, but that is all too obvious. Eliminating religion, on the other hand, would of course eliminate ITS potential harm. Obvious too.

3 continued) That said, I´m against "getting rid" of things like that. I´m against religion, but it doesn´t mean I want it tore down and set on fire! I said before: religion HAS spawned some very, VERY good things for humanity (I will not list them. Whoever isn´t blind and stupid can find them for themselves), but not out of being a religion! It has produced good because it has humans doing it, and humans will do stuff. Every assembly of people will have cultural traits and those will contribute to our general embetterment (is this a word?). However, it HAS brought out countless harms and suffering OUT OF BEING A RELIGION. So having it is enduring certain harm for the uncertain benefit, while not having it will negate the benefit and ALSO the harm. I´ll go with the latter any time.

The above explains why I will never go for some sort of heated prohibition of religion, a purge if you will, but at the same time I think religions shouldn´t be encouraged and people should be compelled, using the same proselytising tools (ok, not the same, only the good ones,) to abandon them.

[Carnegiea]

Although men and women who aren't priests sexually victimize children and adolescents, I can't think of any institution other than the Roman Catholic Church that's handled sex abuse cases in such a negligent way.

If religion really instilled superior morals in people, would we really see the volume of sex abuse complaints that we see with the Catholic clergy? The priests involved aren't just Christians, they're professional Christians who have spent years in special schools studying Christian theology. And wouldn't an organization with superior moral values do the right thing by investigating allegations of abuse as soon as they became aware of the alleged misconduct, and report the actions to the police if necessary? If it became known that one of the representatives of their organization was harming children, wouldn't the ethical thing to do involve keeping that individual away from children, not relocating him to another community where it's likely he'll abuse other children and teens?

And morality aside, wouldn't the logical PR move be to publicly distance your organization from any child molesters you may have hired, not hush the whole thing up?

While the vast majority of sex offenders have never served as clergy, wouldn't it stand to reason that people whose full-time job is adhering to and promoting the tenets of Christianity would have an almost non-existent level of sex offenders among their ranks? According to Christianity everyone sins, but here we're talking about felonies against children.

Obviously not all Christians belong to the Roman Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church is the oldest and one of the largest promoters of Jesus' teachings. And of course the vast majority of clergy aren't sex offenders. But, it has happened before, and the church authorities have historically had a very cavalier attitude towards all of it. Wouldn't you expect better from them, if their religion gave them superior values?

To me, it seems like believing in a supernatural power who automatically forgives anything one might do wrong just absolves the person from any kind of earthly responsibility or accountability.

[Leif Roar]

If religion really instilled superior morals in people, would we really see the volume of sex abuse complaints that we see with the Catholic clergy?

That does raise the question of what this volum actually is, though. What's the percentage of Catholic clergy that abuses children compared to the percentage of, say, plumbers that does the same?

[Nick Bogaerts]

1) Atheists are not less predisposed or disinclined to abuses than theists. Atheist leaders are just as capable of demanding unquestioning obedience as theist leaders. There is no implied or stated morality in atheism. One can be an atheist and have pretty much any moral belief you please, from a radical believer in human rights to a radical fascist dictator.

While I agree with your assesment regarding morality, regarding violence I must disagree. While atheists can conduct violence, atheism is not a prism through which people are divided between the 'us' and 'them' necessary for large-scale violence. Yes, there has been atheist persecution of religion, for example by Communist countries, but it has been directed against the institutions of religion, not the people of that religion (the French revolutionaries sacked churches as an attack on the religious institutions which they wanted destroyed, and despite their propensity for mass killings, they did not kill ordinary Christians for not being Deists). Likewise, being an atheist is of no help during a religious war. In Ireland you may be an atheist, but you are either a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist.

2) There are people whose lives are happier and more fulfilling as a result of their religious beliefs, than they would be as atheists. Successfully convincing them that their beliefs are wrong would actually result in making their lives less happy, less fulfilling. Thus, so long as those beliefs do not harm others, or infringe on the rights of others, we should be perfectly happy to let those people continue in their beliefs, even though we believe they are wrong.

I don't believe that ignorance is bliss. Through a better understanding of the Universe we have a better chance of making the correct decisions as to what will make us, and the people around us, happy. The existence of an afterlife is an enormous mistake. If I believed in an afterlife, and I thought someone I loved was doomed to eternal punishment, I would probably do all I can to save them. Even if it makes their entire earthly life a misery--because that would be nothing compared to what would be coming.

3) Removing theism from our world would not in any way decrease the potential for abuse, repression, and general "evil".

It is beyond my ability to remove theism from the world. I can only aim to slightly reduce the amount of superstition which hinders people from making correct assumptions as to how to improve the world.

[Herzblut]

Wolfman, I hate your post! There is nothing in it I could critizise or even disagree with - damn it! #poking my nose into it frenetically seeking a minuscule error#

Let me just add to your prefectly correct statement:
As I've pointed out already, atheists can be fascists. Atheists can be communists. Atheists can be dictators. Atheists can be slave-owners, wife-beater, and racists. There is absolutely nothing involved in being an atheist that prevents or decreases such beliefs or actions.

The psychological mechanisms for social manipulation have long been discovered. For instance

- we obey authorities
this was starkly demonstrated by two classical experiments of social psychology,
namely the Milgram experiment and Stanford prison experiment

Humans have been shown to be surprisingly obedient in the presence of perceived legitimate authority figures, as demonstrated by the Milgram experiment in the 1960s. Milgram carried out his experiments to discover how the Nazis had managed to get ordinary people to take part in the mass murder of the Holocaust. The experiment showed that compliance to authority was the norm, not the exception.
(Wikipedia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obedience_%28human_behavior%29

It makes no difference whatsoever whether it's religious or secular authority. History clearly prooves this point. I would speculate that secular authorities can be more devastating (Stalin et al) without a strong secular moral codex in society, I mean humanism. That kind of morality is intrinsic to religions (at least the christian one) and might lead to a higher degree of reluctance to obey "evil" authorities.

- we admit to group conformity
group pressure seems less salient than authority pressure, but it is still powerfull; again a well-known classics of social psychology here: the Asch conformity experiments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

Herzblut

[Tricky]

At the Houston Skeptics Round Table and Feeding Frenzy (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84538)last night (to which only good atheists were invited) the topic of Christopher Hitchens came up. Many of us have seen him at a TAM or elsewhere and the consensus (among good atheists) was that while the man is a brilliant writer and powerful debater of the atheist position, in person he is a total dick. He's one of the most arrogant, self-centered people I've ever been aware of. Sometimes I wish he were not on my side. Penn Jillette can be an ass too, but not to everybody like Hitchens.

I'm sorry Wolfman. Were you saying something?

[Anacoluthon64]

Any fear-based, absolutist, authoritarian ideology is likely to result in abuses against those perceived to be outsiders or transgressors. However, where an atheistic position is arrived at through reasoned introspection, it is, I think, less likely to be held with sufficient zeal to prompt such abuses.
Where exactly is one to draw the line between harmful and harmless? And to whom? Do we not each have an individual obligation to minimise harm, direct or indirect, potential or actual, by considering at all times the best available knowledge and information?
That would depend on what it is that will replace theism.

'Luthon64

[Wolfman]

Thanks, everyone, for your replies thus far...and especially for working your way through what is by any standards a very long OP (or at least reading the summary at the end). For those who've basically agreed with me...well, thanks, no more need be said! In response to some of the objections or counter-arguments that have been made, I will do my best to respond in kind (and thanks to one and all for, thus far, keeping this a fairly level-headed and rational debate). Instead of quoting specific people, I will respond to main points that have been raised (sometimes by more than one person):

There is no religion without spreading it, proselytizing is necessary, etc.

This argument is mostly in response to my point that "if a religion isn't hurting the individual, or people around them, then it is ok". I believe there are several errors here, the most glaring error being that forcing people to listen to you, or to share your beliefs, is not in any way part-and-parcel of religion, and in fact many religions believe the dead opposite. Buddhists, Baha'i, and many other religions believe that it doesn't matter what you believe, we'll all eventually get to the same place. No need to convert people.

In addition, sharing your beliefs with others is hugely different than forcing your beliefs on others. In Christianity, for example, there is a movement called "lifestyle evangelism"...that is, you 'preach' through your actions, not through words. You get involved in the community, you help other people, you show love and concern for those people. If they don't ask you about your beliefs, you say nothing. If they ask you, you explain your beliefs. You do not force it down their throats. And you leave them complete freedom to examine other beliefs also.

The idea that all religions must, by their nature, force everyone to convert, or must deny everyone the right/ability to study other beliefs, is plainly fallacious. I share the concern with any religious person who forces their beliefs on others, or denies others the right to learn of other beliefs. But that is not inseparable from "religion".

In addition, there are many atheists who seek to deny people the rights to learn about certain beliefs, who try to force people to act/think in a certain way. This is hardly a problem limited to religious people.

Eliminating religion won't eliminate evil, but it will eliminate religion as a source of evil

Sorry, I just don't get this argument at all. I mean, religious people do good things, too...by this logic, would that not mean that eliminating religion would eliminate a source of good, also?

Or, to take the argument to its logical extreme, since atheists are subject to the same abuses and evils as theists, would it not be equally valid that getting rid of atheists would eliminate one source of evil?

Besides which, it would quantitatively make no difference. Let me give a slightly fanciful illustration -- let us say that we have a person who's body is riddled with cancer. In fact, they have two different kinds of cancer. There is a treatment that will get rid of one of the cancers...by transforming it into the other cancer. Thus, by using this treatment, yes, you have arguably eliminated one of the sources of that problem, but the net result is that the patient still has the same amount of cancer. It has simply been transformed from one form to another. Same goes with this; we need to address the root human causes of these problems, problems that are shared by all humanity, regardless of whether they are theist or atheist.

Guilt By Association

This is one of the most common forms of the argument that I see. For example: Roman Catholics are theists. Roman Catholics did bad things. Therefore, theists are bad.

Yet, if I were to turn it around and say something like, "Communists are atheists. Communists did bad things. Therefore, atheists are bad", well, every atheist in here would be up in arms screaming about the obvious logical fallacy being committed here.

I have not anywhere argued that theists have not done bad things. But the 'crimes' that you ascribe to one religion are not shared by all religions. And, by the same token, some atheists have been just as guilty of committing similar crimes.

Too many people, when engaging in these discussions, make the mistake of confusing "Christianity" with "religion". They look at how certain groups of Christians act, and then paint all people who hold religious beliefs as being the same. They are not. This is not a debate about Christianity. This is a debate about religion. Those are two entirely different debates. Even if you could prove with 100% certainty that Christianity is 'bad' or 'evil', it wouldn't do anything to prove that religion is evil. Just as if I can prove that atheistic Communists are evil, it doesn't prove that other atheists are evil.

I won't bother responding any more to the "look what people in this religion did" argument; my response will be exactly the same as what I've said here, there's no point in repeating myself. If you can state characteristics that are shared by all religions, that is relevant to the discussion at hand.

Oops...I've changed my mind, I am going to put a specific quote here, from Nick:
While atheists can conduct violence, atheism is not a prism through which people are divided between the 'us' and 'them' necessary for large-scale violence
Theists don't fight in the name of theism. They fight in the name of their specific beliefs, be those Christian, Muslim, or whatever. By the same token, atheists don't fight in the name of atheism. They fight in the name of a particular ideology. It could be communism, it could be fascism, it could be racism, it could be nationalism, etc.

And atheists don't divide people up into "us" and "them"? Exactly what planet's history have you been studying? The entire history of humanity -- theist or atheist -- has been the story of dividing humanity into "us" and "them", and then coming up with excuses to attack "them". If you're a theist, you can use your religion as your excuse. If you're an atheist, you can use political ideology, or nationality, or race, or any other such thing as your excuse.
I don't believe that ignorance is bliss. Through a better understanding of the Universe we have a better chance of making the correct decisions as to what will make us, and the people around us, happy.
I believe this is one of the most fundamental errors of the anti-religious atheist argument. "If only people thought like me, they'd be happier" "The truth will set you free" Such people fail entirely to recognize the phenomenal variety in human personalities, desires, etc.

To demonstrate the fallacy of this argument, I will use the simplest and most obvious illustration. Take a group of theists, and a group of atheists. Test to see how many of them are "happy", how many are "unhappy". How many feel "fulfilled", how many feel "unfulfilled". How many have successful marriages; how many have unsuccessful marriages. Use any criteria you want.

You will quickly find, time after time after time, that there is no appreciable difference between the two populations. There are theists who are very happy and content in their lives, and there are theists who are miserable and fed up with their lives. And there are atheists who are very happy and content in their lives, and there are atheists who are miserable and fed up with their lives.

If this argument were true, atheists would live happier lives, have lower stress levels, less depression, happier marriages, etc. Yet that is not the case. Atheists are every bit as subject to all the 'weaknesses' and 'sufferings' of human nature that theists are.

Furthermore, let me point out again, but you seem to be assuming certain values as "implicit" with atheism...belief in science, human rights, etc. Yet as I've already demonstrated, "atheists" can have beliefs that are just as wrong as those of theists. An example I love to use -- the Raelian 'religion'. This is a religion that is 100% atheist; they do not believe in any god, any supernatural power. They do, however, believe that all life on our planet is a result of alien biological programs, not a result of evolution. And they believe that those same aliens speak to their leader, a French farmer named Rael.

So please demonstrate to me how atheism -- the lack of belief in god -- has put these people any closer to the "truth" than theism has. I could use the same argument for atheistic communists, atheistic fascists, atheistic racists, etc.

[Wolfman]

Any fear-based, absolutist, authoritarian ideology is likely to result in abuses against those perceived to be outsiders or transgressors. However, where an atheistic position is arrived at through reasoned introspection, it is, I think, less likely to be held with sufficient zeal to prompt such abuses.I'm sorry...can't agree. There are many atheists who are atheists simply because they were never taught anything else; they didn't arrive at that through reasoned introspection, they were simply never presented with any other option.

Furthermore -- as I've pointed out numerous times -- atheists can be Communist, fascist, racist, etc. In my previous post, I discussed Raelians, who are also atheist...please explain to me how their "atheistic positioin is arrived at through reasoned introspection". You are, like many others here, making the mistake of confusing "atheism" with one very specific, limited range of beliefs; beliefs which are certainly valid for atheists, but by no means necessary to or integral with atheism.

Give me four armies. Two are entirely atheist. Two are entirely theist. The two atheist armies are Communist, and Fascist. The two theistic armies are Christian, and Muslim. Please explain to me how the two armies which have a 100% atheistic leadership and membership are any less prone to abuse, or any less susceptible to authoritarian ideology. (And before someone says, "Not all Communists/Fascists are atheists", I know that. I am giving an illustration here; if we had two armies that were entirely atheist)
Where exactly is one to draw the line between harmful and harmless? And to whom? Do we not each have an individual obligation to minimise harm, direct or indirect, potential or actual, by considering at all times the best available knowledge and information?
If you're going to apply that argument, you must logically apply it to atheists as well as theists. It is illogical and inconsistent that it is wrong to let theists have their beliefs, or teach their beliefs, because "we can't quantitatively determine what constitutes harmful", but not hold atheists to the same standard. Which leaves us in a situation where we cannot teach anyone anything.

I think there's a very reasonable standard that can be applied rationally for both theists and atheists. If you share your beliefs with others, but allow them to make the decision for themselves, it is ok. If you share your beliefs with others, and try to force them to believe the same way, it is wrong (this applies to both theists and atheists, remember). If you share your beliefs with others, but allow/encourage them to study other beliefs before making a decision, it is ok. If you share your beliefs with others, but seek to deny them the right to learn any other beliefs, then it is wrong. If your beliefs do not cause you to deny others their own freedoms, their own rights, then it is ok. If your beliefs cause you to deny others their freedoms, their own rights, then it is wrong.

I could go on and on like this. But remember the basic principle...any standard you apply to theists must equally be applied to atheists.

[Anacoluthon64]

I'm sorry...can't agree. …Please read what I wrote with greater care. Nothing in your response either refutes or follows logically from my point 1.


If you're going to apply that argument, you must logically apply it to atheists as well as theists. It is illogical and inconsistent that it is wrong to let theists have their beliefs, or teach their beliefs, because "we can't quantitatively determine what constitutes harmful", but not hold atheists to the same standard.

…

I could go on and on like this. But remember the basic principle...any standard you apply to theists must equally be applied to atheists.Of course, but isn't this especially important where standards of reasoning and evidence are concerned?

'Luthon64

[Lanzy]

Agnostic, can I play anyway?

Too long, But...There are Atheists that Don't believe in evolution? They can't believe god created the universe can they? Then what else is left? I can't come up with a logical third choice.

[Wolfman]

Please read what I wrote with greater care. Nothing in your response either refutes or follows logically from my point 1.

You stated that, "...where an atheistic position is arrived at through reasoned introspection, it is, I think, less likely to be held with sufficient zeal to prompt such abuses."

I provided the example of atheistic armies verses theistic armies. Are you claiming that those atheist armies could not have arrived at their position through "reasoned introspection"? Or that atheistic Communists or fascists would hold their beliefs with less zeal? Or that their beliefs would not prompt such abuses?

I have, in fact, responded quite specifically to your post. A Communist who is also atheist can arrive at his conclusions through a very logical process, and as a result of "reasoned introspection". So can a fascist who is an atheist. So can a racist who is atheist. Etc., etc., etc.
Agnostic, can I play anyway?

Too long, But...There are Atheists that Don't believe in evolution? They can't believe god created the universe can they? Then what else is left? I can't come up with a logical third choice.
Sure. An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in god. It doesn't mean they cannot have bizarre alternate theories about life, the universe, and everything.

One example I've already given: the Raelians. If you're not familiar with the, google them, they're quite interesting in a "do people really believe that" kind of way. They state categorically that there is no god, no supernatural realm, that the universe is 100% explainable using only science. They also believe that humans (and all life on earth) is a result not of evolution, but of genetic tinkering by advanced aliens. Raelians hold science as the "highest standard", and promote unrestricted experimentation in all fields; they have tried human cloning (claimed to have successfully made a human clone, but never revealed it publicly) as one example. And they believe that the aliens will return to earth to enlighten us some day.

There are other people who believe that the universe as a whole is "intelligent", or has an "awareness" of its own. This is not considered supernatural, or god-like; they consider it to simply be a natural phenomenon. And they believe that it is this 'awareness' that guides the development of life on Earth, and on other planets (so instead of being a natural, random process, it is a process that is controlled and guided by a particular intelligence)

And consider this point -- evolution is a relatively modern theory in terms of human history; yet there were atheists long before the theory of evolution was developed. If belief in evolution is an inseparable aspect of being an atheist...how could anyone prior to Darwin have been an atheist?

[Anacoluthon64]

I provided the example of atheistic armies verses theistic armies. Are you claiming that those atheist armies could not have arrived at their position through "reasoned introspection"?(My emphasis.) No, I don't claim any such thing. But they wouldn't be fighting one another in the name of atheism.


I have, in fact, responded quite specifically to your post.No, you only think you have:
Or that atheistic Communists or fascists would hold their beliefs with less zeal? Or that their beliefs would not prompt such abuses?
A Communist who is also atheist can arrive at his conclusions through a very logical process, and as a result of "reasoned introspection". So can a fascist who is an atheist. So can a racist who is atheist. Etc., etc., etc.Each of which belief systems qualifies for at least one of the epithets absolutist, authoritarian or fear-based, and it's a truism to say that "a very logical process" can be made to yield apparently reasonable conclusions from faulty premisses.

'Luthon64

[Marquis de Carabas]

It is telling that your two armies comprised of atheists are not brought together under inherently atheistic banners.

[ImaginalDisc]

I must disagree with most of your main points, Wolfman. Science does contribute to morality. Each person must be responsible for their own actions, and should be free to do as they please as long as it does no harm to others. However, raising one's children to believe that there is a watchful, angry, invisible man in the sky waiting to punish them forever for touching themselves is, in my opinion, harmful. I think it's child abuse, and I think religions indulge in harming children, because it effectively perpetuates the religion into the future as those children grow up, and go on to abuse their children the same way, believing that condition to be "normal."

Being clear-headed and capable of making moral decisions with the best facts available is the essence of personal responsibility, and religion opposes this. Ergo, religion is amoral. Religion is inherently an affront to reason. A person may be free to believe that there is a god who was a wandering Israelite who was crucified, as much as they are free to believe that the sun is a person and has a pendulous male member visible only to them. The later example I didn't pull out thin air. Karl Jung treated a patient who believed precisely that, a patient deemed insane and confined to a mental institution simply because his irrational belief was uncommon, not because it was irrational. Religion isn't a private matter. By its nature, religions are social institutions which allow for otherwise laughable and dangerous ideas to be treated with grave respect by people who would shy away from schizophrenics and the delusional. Because religions are social institutions, which we somehow respect, the ideas they contain are protected from the same scrutiny given to other ideas. Political and economic doctrines are fiercely debated by people in society, usually without resorting to violence. But, debating the core claims of religion is verboten. When political or economic doctrines are used to justify actions those actions, and the doctrines underlying them, are challenged in the marketplace of ideas. When actions are taken under the name of religion, otherwise critical and active participants in the public discourse delicately avoid getting to heart of the matter.

The abortion debate in America is primarily a religious one. Whether they would choose to have an abortion or not, the majority of atheists and non-believers support the right to choose. The majority of people who oppose the right to choose cite religious reasons, but when the public debate focuses on abortion, the validity of the claims of the religious are not examined. We give respect to the "right" of people to get involved in public discourse without justifying anything they are saying. What would be a mental disorder in an individual, seeing a swinging penis hanging from the sun, would be considered mainstream and worthy of respect when exhibited by large groups. Furthermore, if policial activists cited the scriptures of the Solar Foreskin as compelling them, morally, to act in a certain fashion, our society would delicately tip toe around the issue stellar genitals.

Religion provides a safe haven for beliefs which fly in the face of reason and evidence, and people make decisions based on those beliefs. That's why I'm a mild anti-theist, as well as an atheist. I wouldn't support making religion illegal, I consider that to be strong anti-theism and inherently self-destructive, but I do support relentless, rigorous, detailed criticism of religious claims whenever they are aired. I support laughing clerics and pastors off stage when those unqualified boobs are consulted on matters of morality by news anchors, such as the current debate about the HPV vaccine. I support marginalizing and ridiculing religion. Religious people are free to promote their ideas, and I am free to criticize them. Religious people are free to cite the word of their imaginary friends as justification for the policies they wish to enact, and I am free to point out that they have no sound basis for wanting those policies enacted.

A society of atheists would, of course, include despots, liars, frauds, and charlatans. However, those people would not be able to take refuge behind the protection we currently afford to religious beliefs as they do now. Scientific frauds are usually exposed and marginalized quite quickly, because the culture of the scientific community demands evidence, independent corroboration, and does not coddle unjustified beliefs. If society had no sacred cows, no one could hide behind them.

Yes, there most certainly are people who are pleased and comforted by their false beliefs. However, those nice feelings are no reason to leave those beliefs alone. The universe does not owe us comfort, and the survival of our species is not helped by such foolishness. We face numerous serious problems, global warming, falling aquifers across the United States, emergent diseases and old diseases becoming impervious to the weapons we used to wield effectively against them, I could go on. Pretending those problems don't exist, or that an imaginary friend will solve them, or that it won't matter anyway because we get to go to a magical happy land full of cake and puppies if we die, is not only unhelpful, it's a hurdle to addressing those problems. I'd much rather be worried and alive than chipper and dead, and I do not support letting delusional people block progress into the urgent problems based on their pleasant idiocies.

ETA: Gee, that was longer than I expected.

[Wolfman]

(My emphasis.) No, I don't claim any such thing. But they wouldn't be fighting one another in the name of atheism.
Dude, Christians aren't fighting in the name of theism, either. Your argument has no consistency. Theists don't fight for "theism"; they fight for their specific brand of theism. And atheists don't fight for "atheism"; they fight for their specific brand of atheism.
Each of which belief systems qualifies for at least one of the epithets absolutist, authoritarian or fear-based, and it's a truism to say that "a very logical process" can be made to yield apparently reasonable conclusions from faulty premisses.
Ah...so now you are defining a "logical process" as one that excludes absolutism, or authoritarianism. People such as Marx, or the numerous very brilliant intellectuals who followed him, did not use a "logical process" in evaluating their beliefs?

You play the definition game. You get to determine the definition of what is "logical" or "rational", and define it as being those who have essentially the same beliefs as you. Anyone else who comes to an alternate conclusion, therefore, could not have done so through a "logical" or "rational" process, and you can dismiss them, and win the argument by default.

I will concede a point -- I do think that if everyone in the world became a Humanist (not an "atheist"), that there would be a net positive gain. However, the plain fact is that simply ceasing to believe in god does not suddenly make one more "rational" or "logical". Check out the studies that Hezblut referred to above, that demonstrate that mindlessly following an authority figure has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

You seem to feel that by becoming an atheist, people somehow then become more rational. Whereas I'd say that human history more than adequately demonstrates the opposite. One can, in fact, be an atheist for entirely irrational reasons, and can hold entirely irrational beliefs.

[tsg]

For the record: I am an atheist. I use the word to mean "no belief in god" whether that is a conscious decision or not. I see no point in differentiating people who don't go to church and don't pray and don't believe in an invisible sky king because they don't know any different from those who don't go to church and don't pray and don't believe in an invisible sky king on purpose. If you found an isolated tribe of island natives that didn't even have a word for god because the concept never occurred to them, they would be atheists. Just as silence is the absence of sound, atheism is the absence of religion. If there were no sound, there would still be silence, we just wouldn't have a word for it. If there were no religion, there would still be atheism, we just wouldn't have a word for it. If a tree doesn't fall in the woods and no one's there to not hear it, it does, indeed, still not make a sound. Whether that absence is intentional or not isn't the point. Insisting that atheism is an intentional disbelief in god to "make it mean something" is, in my opinion, giving religion far too much credit.

My atheism isn't a response to religion. It isn't a rebellion against the status quo. It is the result of the facts as I see them.

I don't see any difference between "no belief in god" and "belief in no god". I say there is no god and that it is not a positive position requiring evidence. I don't have to prove god doesn't exist to say he doesn't exist any more than I have to prove Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, fairies or leprechauns don't exist to say they don't.

I respect the right of the individual to believe whatever the hell he wants to. That doesn't mean I have to respect the belief. If someone wants to walk around believing that 2+2=5, he should be free to do so. Thinking he's a fool for doing it doesn't make me intolerant. I can believe that making the choice should be allowed and still think the one made is a bad one.

I reject the claims of religion the same way I reject the claims of any other woo. I don't go actively seeking religious arguments, but I won't shy away from them either out of some perceived obligation of respect. "It's what I believe" is not an argument ender, nor should it be.

That probably puts me just this side of "militant".

I now wish to address some of the more extreme arguments or accusations made by the anti-religious portion of the atheistic spectrum. Let me begin with the most extreme, those I would classify as the "militant atheists". These are easy enough to identify...they make statements such as, "belief in god is a mental disorder", "parents who teach religion to their children are guilty of child abuse", or other such things. They are those who advocate not only that religion is bad, but who call for specific actions and policies to limit/eliminate the rights of those with religious beliefs to teach or propogate those beliefs to others.

[...]

And it is a policy that some of these militant atheists are today either actively calling for, or at least laying the groundwork for. If you say that "belief in god is a psychological disorder", then it is only a short step to prescribing treatments to people to "cure" their illness. If you say that teaching religion to your children is "child abuse", then it is only a short step to criminalizing religious families. This kind of argument is the extremist, the person who believes that he is justified in controlling the thoughts or beliefs of others based on his own perception of what is "right" or "wrong".

I am adamantly opposed to such policies, and to anyone who makes such arguments. Throughout history, whenever people have sought to marginalize or persecute a particular group, the first step has been to declare them "crazy", to characterize their beliefs and practices as abusive. Then, of course, any action that you take against such people is justified, because you are "stopping" those abuses, you are "curing" those people.


I take exception to this. First of all, if you believe it is harmful to children to teach them falsehoods, like 2+2=5 or that Henry Ford was the first President of the United States, then religious beliefs must be examined too. To say otherwise is giving religion a free pass simply because it's religion. If teaching children to believe in something is harmful, that qualifies as a "bad" belief by your own criteria. And there are plenty of arguments that teaching religion to children can be harmful.

Second, the implication that, because I believe teaching children religious beliefs is harmful, I also believe the parents should be prevented from or punished for doing so is nothing more than a slippery slope. There is a big difference between saying a thing should not be done and saying it should not be allowed.

The absolute last thing I want to give the government is the power to tell others what they can and can't believe or teach to their children. That doesn't mean I can't criticize what they choose to teach them, or say that they shouldn't be teaching it to them. And anyone who wants to give them that power will find me arguing just as adamantly, if not more so, against that as I do against the practice they are trying to stop. I can believe that people shouldn't smoke because it is harmful without also believing they should be put in jail for it. I can believe a decision is a bad one without also believing people shouldn't be allowed to make it.

[Wolfman]

ID,

I've been waiting for your response, and it is pretty much what I expected. Thanks for chiming in, you are definitely one of those I'd put in the more "militant atheist" category.

To address your comments...
However, raising one's children to believe that there is a watchful, angry, invisible man in the sky waiting to punish them forever for touching themselves is, in my opinion, harmful.DING! DING! DING!

Please refer to my comments previously, under the "Guilt By Association" heading. The beliefs you refer to -- "a watchful, angry, invisible man in the sky waiting to punish them forever for touching themselves" -- is not only an inaccurate and biased characterization of beliefs, but is also a belief system that is limited only to certain religions (ie. Christianity, Islam). A Buddhist would never teach such a thing. Baha'i don't teach such a thing. Wiccans don't teach such a thing.

In fact, there are quite a number of religions that do not believe in any hell or damnation whatsoever, who believe that all humans will achieve some higher state some day, whether that be heaven, nirvana, or whatever.

So your characterization of "theism" is flawed from the very beginning. This is an argument that might have some validity if we were discussing Christianity...but that is not our discussion.
think it's child abuse, and I think religions indulge in harming children, because it effectively perpetuates the religion into the future as those children grow up, and go on to abuse their children the same way, believing that condition to be "normal."If the parents refuse to allow the children to learn any other system, and try to force them to accept the parents' beliefs, I'd agree with you. However, again, many religions do not do that. And again, religions such as Buddhism and Baha'i would have no problem whatsoever if their children sought to learn about other beliefs, or chose other religions.

Meanwhile, while there are theists who would encourage their children to learn about different beliefs, we have you, and others like you, who are atheists, yet seeking to dictate what children can or cannot learn about...to remove that choice and that freedom. You inaccurately condemn all theists for supposedly forcing their children to learn only one belief, but then turn around and justify doing exactly the same thing, so long as the belief being taught happens to be the one you think is right.

And again, you are not talking about theism. You are talking about Christianity. There's a whole world of different beliefs out there, I'd suggest that you try actually learning about what you're talking about, rather than basing your judgments of all religions on your limited experiences of one or two religions.

Let me emphasize this point -- I am debating theism as a whole, not one specific religion that you happen to disagree with.
Being clear-headed and capable of making moral decisions with the best facts available is the essence of personal responsibility, and religion opposes this.See above comments
Ergo, religion is amoral.So is atheism. There is no morality or moral code implicit in being an atheist. The simple state of not believing in a god is 100% amoral.
I support laughing clerics and pastors off stage when those unqualified boobs are consulted on matters of morality by news anchors, such as the current debate about the HPV vaccineAnd this is where you and I would differ so very, very much. You look at a particular label -- "theist" or "atheist" -- and prejudge the value of what that person says based on that label.

On the other hand, I would listen to what the person is saying. If a theist is up there teaching that racism is wrong, I'll applaud him; if an atheist is up there teaching that racism is right, I'll boo him. Once again, you try to play the game of taking the moral beliefs of a limited number of theists, and then ascribe that condemnation to all theists.

Yet you entirely ignore that there are numerous atheists who promote wholly immoral and abusive agendas; if a theist teaches something you consider "immoral", that proves that "theism" is wrong. But if an atheist teaches something that is immoral, that has nothing to do with other atheists. If a theist teaches something you consider moral, that should not be factored in, it is irrelevant to the argument; but if an atheist teaches something that is moral, it somehow proves the superiority of atheism over theism.
Religious people are free to promote their ideas, and I am free to criticize them. Religious people are free to cite the word of their imaginary friends as justification for the policies they wish to enact, and I am free to point out that they have no sound basis for wanting those policies enacted.Well, in this regard, I would agree with you at least in part. You do have the right to express your disagreement. I engage regularly in debates with people who have theistic beliefs, pointing out why I believe they are wrong. However, based on your comments about religion here, it seems to me blatantly apparent that you don't really understand religion as a whole, and are more than happy to rely on stereotypes and generalizations that are, in fact, wholly untrue of a great number of theists. Honest debate comes from a desire to first learn and understand the opposite side's beliefs, and then use that as a basis for discussion.

If you're going to rely on stereotypes and generalizations that a theist instantly recognizes as not representing his own beliefs and practices, then there's no reason at all for him to listen to you, or attempt to understand you. He sees you simply as an ignorant bigot...and why should he attempt to understand your arguments, if you can't be bothered to try to understand his?
However, those people would not be able to take refuge behind the protection we currently afford to religious beliefs as they do now. Scientific frauds are usually exposed and marginalized quite quickly, because the culture of the scientific community demands evidence, independent corroboration, and does not coddle unjustified beliefs. If society had no sacred cows, no one could hide behind them.*sigh* How many times do I have to say this. Being an "atheist" does not implicitly mean being "scientific", or "open-minded", or anything like that. Humanism would be much closer to that particular definition...but that's only one form of atheism. I'm not going to bother repeating my numerous examples of atheists who are not democratic, who are not scientific, who do not practice equality or freedom, or anything else like that; I've already done so more than enough times.
Yes, there most certainly are people who are pleased and comforted by their false beliefs. However, those nice feelings are no reason to leave those beliefs alone. The universe does not owe us comfort, and the survival of our species is not helped by such foolishness. We face numerous serious problems, global warming, falling aquifers across the United States, emergent diseases and old diseases becoming impervious to the weapons we used to wield effectively against them, I could go on. Pretending those problems don't exist, or that an imaginary friend will solve them, or that it won't matter anyway because we get to go to a magical happy land full of cake and puppies if we die, is not only unhelpful, it's a hurdle to addressing those problems. I'd much rather be worried and alive than chipper and dead, and I do not support letting delusional people block progress into the urgent problems based on their pleasant idiocies.And I applaud your efforts to bring people "the truth", regardless of how miserable it may make them. This sounds remarkably similar to the arguments used by me past missionary friends, in fact.

Being a "theist" doesn't somehow mean that you oppose medicine, or science, or any of those other things. In fact, you will find that a great number of our most significant scientific findings were made by *gasp* theists! If your argument had any validity, it would only be atheists making those discoveries, yet a great deal of our scientific progress is being carried out by people with theistic beliefs. The two are not mutually incompatible.

[Wolfman]

I take exception to this. First of all, if you believe it is harmful to children to teach them falsehoods, like 2+2=5 or that Henry Ford was the first President of the United States, then religious beliefs must be examined too. To say otherwise is giving religion a free pass simply because it's religion. If teaching children to believe in something is harmful, that qualifies as a "bad" belief by your own criteria. And there are plenty of arguments that teaching religion to children can be harmful.
tsg,

I'll respond only to this particular comment; I think that you and I are actually fairly close in regards to your other statements.

Is it harmful to teach a child a falsehood such as 2+2=5? Yes, it is...if the child is not allowed to be taught anything else. However, if a child were taught by his parents that 2+2=5, by his preacher that 2+2=3, and by his teacher that 2+2=4, along with the respective reasons for that belief, he'd quickly be able to determine for himself which one was true.

When I learned basic addition, I was told not just what was 'right', but also was explained why it was right, and how it worked. I was given a the opportunity to evaluate the answers for myself, and determine if I believed they were right. I don't believe that 2+2=4 just because I was told so; I believe it because I was able to test it against other possibilities, and determine for myself that this was, in fact, the correct answer.

I would argue that the same argument holds here; that it is harmful/abusive to teach any system of belief (be it theistic or atheistic) if you try to force the child to believe it, or deny the child the right to hear alternative theories. But if a person is given the opportunity to hear different theories, both the ones that you believe in, and the ones that others believe in, along with the respective reasons and rationalizations for those beliefs, then I believe that the majority of people will make the 'right' decision.

[Wolfman]

Anacoluthon,

You made the argument earlier that, "I don't believe that ignorance is bliss. Through a better understanding of the Universe we have a better chance of making the correct decisions as to what will make us, and the people around us, happy." You gave no supporting arguments for this statement, you basically just submit it as an article of faith (which apparently is acceptable from atheists, but not from theists).

I responded as follows:
I believe this is one of the most fundamental errors of the anti-religious atheist argument. "If only people thought like me, they'd be happier" "The truth will set you free" Such people fail entirely to recognize the phenomenal variety in human personalities, desires, etc.

To demonstrate the fallacy of this argument, I will use the simplest and most obvious illustration. Take a group of theists, and a group of atheists. Test to see how many of them are "happy", how many are "unhappy". How many feel "fulfilled", how many feel "unfulfilled". How many have successful marriages; how many have unsuccessful marriages. Use any criteria you want.

You will quickly find, time after time after time, that there is no appreciable difference between the two populations. There are theists who are very happy and content in their lives, and there are theists who are miserable and fed up with their lives. And there are atheists who are very happy and content in their lives, and there are atheists who are miserable and fed up with their lives.

If this argument were true, atheists would live happier lives, have lower stress levels, less depression, happier marriages, etc. Yet that is not the case. Atheists are every bit as subject to all the 'weaknesses' and 'sufferings' of human nature that theists are.You entirely ignored this, despite the fact that I've made every effort to respond to every one of your points.

If your argument is correct, you should be able to demonstrate that atheists are "happier", and have a "better understanding of the universe". Raelians are atheists; do they have a "better understanding of the universe"? Many Communists are atheists; are they "happier"?

In my experience of atheists and theists alike, spanning many different countries and cultures, I have found atheists no more likely to be "happy" or "satisfied" with their lives than theists are; and have found atheists to be no less prone to depression, frustration, fear, and all those other negative emotions than theists are.

So I'm gonna' need a lot more than "I believe that..." to justify accepting your argument.

[Anacoluthon64]

Dude, Christians aren't fighting in the name of theism, either. Your argument has no consistency. Theists don't fight for "theism"; they fight for their specific brand of theism. And atheists don't fight for "atheism"; they fight for their specific brand of atheism.And what might these "specific brand(s) of atheism" be? ("My no-god is less existent than your no-god! So there.")


Ah...so now you are defining a "logical process" as one that excludes absolutism, or authoritarianism. People such as Marx, or the numerous very brilliant intellectuals who followed him, did not use a "logical process" in evaluating their beliefs?.No, they started from faulty premisses. Just like all manner of religious zealots usually do.


You play the definition game. You get to determine the definition of what is "logical" or "rational", and define it as being those who have essentially the same beliefs as you. Anyone else who comes to an alternate conclusion, therefore, could not have done so through a "logical" or "rational" process, and you can dismiss them, and win the argument by default.No, it's the quality of those unexamined premisses again.


However, the plain fact is that simply ceasing to believe in god does not suddenly make one more "rational" or "logical".Where, please, have I claimed that it is otherwise?


Check out the studies that Hezblut referred to above, that demonstrate that mindlessly following an authority figure has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.No, they show that people are inclined to blindly obey perceived authority, irrespective of its pedigree. But that's exactly my point: Most religion derives from authority, and where atheism similarly derives from authority – as opposed to deriving from choice resulting from free rational enquiry – it is an attendant, a peripheral, feature of the underlying ideology, e.g. as in communism, not the principal defining one. It would thus be misleading to say, "political ideology X is a brand of atheism," or similar. A bankrupt political ideology can make for as good a rallying point for the uncritically-minded as a religion can.


You seem to feel that by becoming an atheist, people somehow then become more rational.No, just the converse.


One can, in fact, be an atheist for entirely irrational reasons, and can hold entirely irrational beliefs.A point I never refuted.

'Luthon64

[Anacoluthon64]

Anacoluthon,

You made the argument earlier that, "I don't believe that ignorance is bliss. Through a better understanding of the Universe we have a better chance of making the correct decisions as to what will make us, and the people around us, happy."You have me confused with another.

'Luthon64

[Wolfman]

And what might these "specific brand(s) of atheism" be? ("My no-god is less existent than your no-god! So there.")
Let me explain this again.

Theists can be Christians. Theists can be Muslims. Theists can be Buddhists. Theists can be Wiccans. Theists can be animists.

Atheists can be humanists. Atheists can be Communists. Atheists can be Fascists. Atheists can be democratic. Atheists can be autocratic.

There is no moral code or belief system implicit in being a theist, beyond the simple belief that some kind of god exists. There is no moral code or belief system implicit in being an atheist, beyond the simple belief that god does not exist (or, if you prefer, the non-belief in the existence of a god).

Theists do not fight for theism; they fight for a specific belief system (Christianity, Islam, etc.). Atheists do not fight for atheism; they fight for a specific belief system (Communism, Fascism, etc.).

Not all theists believe in violence (Mennonites, for example, are devoutly religious, and are radical pacifists). And obviously, not all atheists believe in violence. But trying to claim that just because someone is an "atheist", they are less prone to committing the same crimes as theists, flies in the face of human history and experience, where more than enough atrocities have been committed by people with no belief in god whatsoever.

[Wolfman]

You have me confused with another.

'Luthon64
Ai ya...you are quite right, and I offer my most sincere apologies. We (obviously) don't agree, but I appreciate the comments you've made, and regret this erroneous attribution.

[Anacoluthon64]

Theists do not fight for theism; they fight for a specific belief system (Christianity, Islam, etc.). Atheists do not fight for atheism; they fight for a specific belief system (Communism, Fascism, etc.).Yes, much as I said.


But trying to claim that just because someone is an "atheist", they are less prone to committing the same crimes as theists, flies in the face of human history and experience, where more than enough atrocities have been committed by people with no belief in god whatsoever.(My emphasis.) Sure, but that isn't what I said, now is it?

'Luthon64

[tsg]

tsg,

I'll respond only to this particular comment; I think that you and I are actually fairly close in regards to your other statements.

Is it harmful to teach a child a falsehood such as 2+2=5? Yes, it is...if the child is not allowed to be taught anything else. However, if a child were taught by his parents that 2+2=5, by his preacher that 2+2=3, and by his teacher that 2+2=4, along with the respective reasons for that belief, he'd quickly be able to determine for himself which one was true.

When I learned basic addition, I was told not just what was 'right', but also was explained why it was right, and how it worked. I was given a the opportunity to evaluate the answers for myself, and determine if I believed they were right. I don't believe that 2+2=4 just because I was told so; I believe it because I was able to test it against other possibilities, and determine for myself that this was, in fact, the correct answer.


If this were the case for religion, I would agree with you. But the fact is that 99% of religious teachings are of the "because I said so and don't question it" variety, which I believe is harmful. Beyond the implications of encouraging the belief in that which can't be supported, it is encouraging the practice of belief without question. Add to that the practice of teaching "and anyone else who tells you different is evil and trying to corrupt you" and I think it clearly falls into the harmful category, specifically because it precludes the opportunity to evaluate other beliefs. That is to say nothing of the few who add "and must be destroyed because he angers god."

I would argue that the same argument holds here; that it is harmful/abusive to teach any system of belief (be it theistic or atheistic) if you try to force the child to believe it, or deny the child the right to hear alternative theories. But if a person is given the opportunity to hear different theories, both the ones that you believe in, and the ones that others believe in, along with the respective reasons and rationalizations for those beliefs, then I believe that the majority of people will make the 'right' decision.

Again, I agree. Except in practice, for the most part, that isn't what happens. Religion, pretty much by definition, isn't taught as "here is what I believe, make up your own mind". It is the "belief without question" aspect of religion that people believe is harmful and what most mean when they say "religion". We aren't saying religion is necessarily harmful because it's religion. We're saying that teaching belief without question is harmful. It's the same distinction we (well, at least I) make in arguments about "teaching religion" in public schools: teaching about religion is acceptable; teaching religion as truth is not. It's the difference between "this is what some people believe" and "this is what you should believe". Assuming we aren't making that distinction is ignoring what we find harmful about it. Saying we aren't making that distinction is misrepresenting the argument.

[Wolfman]

But the fact is that 99% of religious teachings are of the "because I said so and don't question it" variety, which I believe is harmful.
I would agree that it is harmful. But would disagree that this represents "99% of religious teachings". I grew up in a very strong Christian family, and they actually were pretty much like this...only study Christian beliefs, to study any other belief could lead to temptation (and damnation). So I'm very familiar with what you are referring to.

However, as I've stated above, there are quite a number of religions that would not teach this. Most Buddhists would not. Most Baha'i would not. I even know a number of 'liberal' Christian families who encourage their children to explore different beliefs, and make their own decisions.

What of the numerous cases of marriage between peoples of different religious backgrounds, where the children are raised in both systems, and it is left up to the child to decide for themselves...if your argument were true, this would be impossible.

On the other hand, I know of quite a few atheist parents who, if their child expresses interest in going to church, or learning about another religion, will forbid it and react exactly the same as any theist objecting to their child learning about another religion.

I agree with you completely that any theist who forces their child to accept their beliefs, or who forbids their children from learning any other beliefs, is wrong. Just as I believe that any atheist who does the same thing is wrong.

But where you and I differ is that I actually see a number of cases and situations where that is not what happens. It is more than possible to be a theist, and still allow your children to learn different beliefs, and choose their beliefs for themselves.

We should oppose people based on their actual actions; not by making exaggerations and generalizations and painting everyone with the same brush. Again, and again, and again, people here make arguments that are very obviously based on their experiences of Christianity (and perhaps Islam); and they take these as representing all theistic beliefs and moralities. If you cannot differentiate, then you don't understand the topic to begin with.

[ImaginalDisc]

Wolfman,

I deeply resent the implication that I am misrepresenting religion. Unfortunately, I'm at work at the moment and aside from having work to get back to, the server blocks most of the websites I'd like to cite. (Perhaps I should have thought of that before bringing up solar ding-dongs and masturbation.) I'll just say in passing that while it is fashionable to claim that religious sects that teach the existence of hell, the eternity of punishment, and that use untennable, unfounded beliefs to justify irrational policies are small and marginalized extremists factions, that is simply untrue, as the most casual examination of the current American government, the Blair Administration, and the Catholic Church will indicate. While you may personally know many mild and harmless religious people, and they may even be the majority (a point I do not agree with, but which is irrelvant) the fact is that the most vocal and politically powerful religious sects are guided not by reason, facts, evidence, or morality, but by the dictates of Bronze Age scribblings and can admit no deviation.

[Lanzy]

Raelians? Huh.

OK, lets replace god with, any being of any kind that used science or magic to go "poof" universe appear. This process could take lots of time and ignores the question where did the first poofer come from. This is basically what I think of when I refer to God creating the universe.

Now replace evolution with, it just happened or natural processes. Even ancient atheists could believe in nature even without understanding it.

That leaves me; with Somebody did it, or it just happened or Somebody started it and then it naturally kept going or Somebody did it and are still doing it.

Any other options? Because I still can't imagine an atheist believing somebody did it.

So my question to this group, Are you an Atheist that believes in some kind of intelligence that either started "it" all or is keeping "it" going?

I did read up on Raeliens and put them squarely with the FSM and scientologist folks.

[Wolfman]

ID,

Your limited worldview is sad. Allow me to make an attempt to illustrate here:

Buddhism is a religion. Buddhism does not believe in hell, or eternal punishment. Buddhism does not teach one specific set of rules or laws that you must follow, or be condemned. Buddhism teaches that everyone will some day achieve some state of "enlightenment", but some will reach it more quickly than others.

Your characterization of religion does not describe Buddhism at all.

There are Christian groups who believe that Hell does not exist, that it is only allegorical, and that all humans will end up in Heaven (in fact, a popular fire-and-brimstone fundamentalist Christian preacher recently changed his beliefs and now teaches exactly this).

Your characterization of religion does not describe this branch of Christianity at all.

Numerous animist religions do not have any concept of hell or eternal punishment; they have a view of the afterlife where they go to a pain-free existence that is a mirror of their earthly existence, but better.

Your characterization of religion does not describe such religions at all.

Baha'i believe that many different religions all lead to enlightenment, and many of them will actively encourage their children to explore other beliefs, including atheism, and choose for themselves what they think is best.

Your characterization of religion does not describe Baha'i at all.

I could go on and on and on like this. The range of possible religious beliefs is quite varied and diverse. Yet you make a simple summation that religious people are guilty of "raising one's children to believe that there is a watchful, angry, invisible man in the sky waiting to punish them forever for touching themselves".

There are many religions that don't believe in a "watchful, angry, invisible man in the sky". There are many religions that do not consider "touching themselves" to be evil or wrong. There are many religions that do not believe in eternal punishment.

And then you get upset that I say you are "misrepresenting religion".

Please, you want to prove me wrong, go ahead. Do not just give me examples of Christians. Show me where Buddhists teach Heaven and Hell. Show me where every religion teaches eternal punishment.

If all you can do is give me limited examples from a few religions, don't even bother; you'll only be further demonstrating your ignorance of the topic.
that is simply untrue, as the most casual examination of the current American government, the Blair Administration, and the Catholic Church will indicateHmmmm...and what do all of those have in common?

Oh, yeah...they're all Christian!

Just as I stated; you rely on the actions of a very limited group of people, who represent only one form of theistic belief, and extend that condemnation to all theists, all religions.

In my opinion, every theist should ignore you. In absolutely every statement that I've seen you make about Christianity or theism in general, you begin by stating your version of what "religion teaches". If that person states that they don't actually believe that, you just shut them out, and deny them the right/ability to have any belief other than that which you've defined.

A Christian says that he believes it is wrong for another Christian to teach hatred; you immediately jump on him and tell him that he cannot believe that as a Christian. You set yourself as the arbiter of "religious beliefs", and will not listen to anything else.

You plainly demonstrate that you're not interested in learning what others actually believe. You've already decided. Not just for Christians, either...the Amazing ID has managed, in one sentence, to summarize the beliefs of every religion on the planet.

And if your religion actually doesn't believe that?

Its irrelevant. The Amazing ID has spoken, he's defined your beliefs for you, would you kindly stop disagreeing and just fit yourself into his neat and tidy little world view?

[Wolfman]

I did read up on Raeliens and put them squarely with the FSM and scientologist folks.
Ah, but that's the thing.

What is an "atheist"? An atheist is a person who does not believe in god. Do Raelians believe in god? Absolutely not; in fact, they actively disavow belief in any supernatural force or entity. The fact that they're bonkers doesn't relegate them to some safe "non-atheist" category.

It is just as possible for atheists to hold completely woo-ish ideas as it is for theists.
Any other options? Because I still can't imagine an atheist believing somebody did it. Again, atheism means only that you don't believe in a god. It has nothing whatsoever to do with defining how you believe the universe was created. An atheist can believe it was created completely at random by the "big bang". An atheist can believe that it was created by intelligent beings in another universe. An atheist could believe that universes are "alive" in their own right, and that our universe was "born" from another one. An atheist could believe that our universe has always existed, and was never created. An atheist can believe that our entire universe is an illusion, a dream created in their own mind.

Being an atheist does not mean in any way that you need to be scientific, or believe in science at all. You could believe that science is wrong, and that religions are wrong (just think of all the atheist woo scientists regularly coming up with "inventions" that they claim violate the laws of physics; and there are plenty of atheists who eschew scientifically proven medicines for 'holistic' medicines that have no basis in science whatsoever).

Too many people think that being an atheist automatically means having certain beliefs; that being an atheist means you believe in science; that being an atheist means you believe in evolution; that being an atheist means that you are a rational thinker.

True, this would be a true description of certain groups of atheists. But it is in no way an inevitable or innate aspect of being an atheist.

[tsg]

I would agree that it is harmful. But would disagree that this represents "99% of religious teachings". I grew up in a very strong Christian family, and they actually were pretty much like this...only study Christian beliefs, to study any other belief could lead to temptation (and damnation). So I'm very familiar with what you are referring to.

However, as I've stated above, there are quite a number of religions that would not teach this. Most Buddhists would not. Most Baha'i would not. I even know a number of 'liberal' Christian families who encourage their children to explore different beliefs, and make their own decisions.

I have no doubt there are families who encourage their children to find their own belief systems. I'm willing to bet they are a small minority. But I'm not talking about them. You are ignoring the distinction between teaching about religion (ie. "this is what we believe") and teaching religion (ie "this is what you should believe"). It is the latter I am talking about when I say "teaching religion is harmful".

What of the numerous cases of marriage between peoples of different religious backgrounds, where the children are raised in both systems, and it is left up to the child to decide for themselves...if your argument were true, this would be impossible.

And what of the numerous cases people of differing faiths who can only marry by being disowned by their families, or at least causing a lot of unnecessary friction? No one is saying that tolerance is absent. That the intolerance, a direct result of religious teachings, exists at all is what I have a problem with.

On the other hand, I know of quite a few atheist parents who, if their child expresses interest in going to church, or learning about another religion, will forbid it and react exactly the same as any theist objecting to their child learning about another religion.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I'm willing to bet it's the exception rather than the rule. If my child decided to follow any particular religion, I wouldn't forbid it. I would, however, seriously question why he chose to do so. I would strongly encourage him to think rationally and critically about why he is making that decision. And I have to wonder if you're not including that behavior in your characterization.

I agree with you completely that any theist who forces their child to accept their beliefs, or who forbids their children from learning any other beliefs, is wrong. Just as I believe that any atheist who does the same thing is wrong.

Again, it depends on the behavior you are including in that statement. I believe that belief without question and absolute trust in authority are harmful and would discourage my child from engaging in them. Would I forbid him from reading the bible? Absolutely not. Am I going to simply sit back and let him believe what it says without engaging him in a critical discussion of it? Absolutely not.

But where you and I differ is that I actually see a number of cases and situations where that is not what happens. It is more than possible to be a theist, and still allow your children to learn different beliefs, and choose their beliefs for themselves.

I'm not saying otherwise. But I'm not talking about them.

We should oppose people based on their actual actions; not by making exaggerations and generalizations and painting everyone with the same brush. Again, and again, and again, people here make arguments that are very obviously based on their experiences of Christianity (and perhaps Islam); and they take these as representing all theistic beliefs and moralities. If you cannot differentiate, then you don't understand the topic to begin with.

First of all, Christianity and Islam are not the only culprits. I know quite a few Jews who would suffer an untold amount of shame should their child marry outside the faith. But more to the point, I am differentiating and that's what you are missing. I am making a distinction between teaching about religion ("this is what we believe, make your own decision") and teaching religion ("this is what you should believe"). Insisting that I am not making the distinction is misrepresenting my argument.

[bignickel]

In the ongoing debate about religion versus atheism, there is not only a debate between the two different sides, there is also a debate between atheists. While there are numerous such groups, I will resort to a generalization of those atheists who are tolerant of others with religious beliefs, and those who are intolerant.
I started to read your post, Wolfman, but before I continue, I'm going to need some explanation about what you meant by 'intolerant atheists'.

How exactly is the second group intolerant?

[Faithkills]

How is it not problematic that religion spreads fabrication as truth? How is it not problematic that religion teaches people to believe crap?

We know religion causes a lot of harm. We know it spreads lies. I don't advocate a state religion or a state nonreligion, but why can't we call a spade a spade?

[Dogdoctor]

The quibble is that I have met people who are so convinced that their brand of religion is correct, that they can inadvertently cause harm to family members who do not share their beliefs. It is fairly common in parts of the US to have a very Christian parent or grandparent who can make things uncomfortable for an agnostic or atheist person, not by being harsh, but by being too caring. "I just hate the thought of you burning in hell because I love you" is meant with the best of intents, but can cause friction, guilt, and other not-so-good feelings between the two people.

I am not suggesting that the fix for this would be to convert either one, but I am merely noting that while the belief may be "good" for one person, it can still have "bad" unintended consequences. I have no idea if this can or even should be fixed.

These problems are due to inherent weakness in most peoples personalities. If one side or the other would try to understand and give room for the other persons point of view then there would be no problem but people feel a need to support their own point of view since it is all they believe they can do. If the religious person would look at the poor helpless atheist who gets bent out of shape from their constant religious conversion attempts then they may realize that they are lacking compassion for the atheist or letting their passion override their compassion and it is better to find a less harmful approach to the situation. If the poor helpless atheist could truly grasp what the religious person is doing and can find some room for compassion for that individual then every attempt to save their soul will be a compliment and not a bother.
So to me the unintended consequences are due to shortcomings of the people involved.
Overall besides my basic agreement with the OP I would go further and say there are logical reasons to "allow" religion. The primary one being that you can't get rid of it and you need other people to accomplish your goals (unless you are independently wealthy enough to buy cooperation).

[ImaginalDisc]

ID,

Your limited worldview is sad. Allow me to make an attempt to illustrate here. . .

Try again, this time without disingenuous pity and bulleted contempt.

I'm just curious, are you inviting a debate, or courting agreement?

[SusanB-M1]

If a person lives a happier, more fulfilling life as a theist; and if that person's beliefs do not hurt others, or infringe the rights/freedoms of others, then what on earth is wrong with that person having such beliefs? How am I "helping" them by trying to force them into a world view that makes them less happy, that gives them less motivation or incentive for positive action?

******
2) There are people whose lives are happier and more fulfilling as a result of their religious beliefs, than they would be as atheists. Successfully convincing them that their beliefs are wrong would actually result in making their lives less happy, less fulfilling. Thus, so long as those beliefs do not harm others, or infringe on the rights of others, we should be perfectly happy to let those people continue in their beliefs, even though we believe they are wrong.
I have listened right through your very interesting OP and just chose two parts to quote, and am posting this before I read the rest of the thread. In The Atheist's poll about whether religion is totally bad: true or false, I thought for quite a while then ticked false because until there is a strong, reliable structure for believers to move to and in which to still feel fulfilled, then moderate religions have an important role. I think this is a pity, but there are so many practical things to be considered.

However, I do not like at all the idea of teaching children from birth that a deity is watching over them, must be prayed to, etc and feel much more strongly against this than trying to change adults' entrenched beliefs. Religions, as you say, should be taught as history. I see no logical reason why religious parents should not be able to teach their children to be moral and do what is right because it is right to do so, not because God says so or something similar but it's not going to happen for a long time.

By the way, have you considered sending the BHA a copy of your article?

[The Atheist]

Agnostic, can I play anyway?

Too long, But...There are Atheists that Don't believe in evolution? They can't believe god created the universe can they? Then what else is left? I can't come up with a logical third choice.

Great Green Arkleseizure.

Live it. You do use underarm deodorant, don't you?

It is telling that your two armies comprised of atheists are not brought together under inherently atheistic banners.

Ah, but they are! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87979) The lines are drawn, the battle is begun.

I started to read your post, Wolfman, but before I continue, I'm going to need some explanation about what you meant by 'intolerant atheists'.

How exactly is the second group intolerant?

If you follow this link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87979) - which is the same one I just gave MdC - you should be able to figure which ones are intolerant and what they won't tolerate.

I don't advocate a state religion or a state nonreligion, but why can't we call a spade a spade?

Funnily enough, as pointed out in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87997), "western" countries with state religions are about the least religious and those countries where religion is just a back-seat thingy that some weirdos do, rather than as in USA where the lack of state guidance has allowed insanity to run unchecked among the clergy.

[Steven Howard]

Let me explain this again.

Theists can be Christians. Theists can be Muslims. Theists can be Buddhists. Theists can be Wiccans. Theists can be animists.

Atheists can be humanists. Atheists can be Communists. Atheists can be Fascists. Atheists can be democratic. Atheists can be autocratic.

Despite your parallel construction, these are not parallel statements. Communism and Fascism are not varieties of atheism in the same way that Christianity and Islam are varieties of theism. To demonstrate, let's turn it around:

Theists can be humanists. Theists can be Communists. Theists can be Fascists. Theists can be democratic. Theists can be autocratic.

So far so good. However:

Atheists can be Christians. Atheists can be Muslims. Atheists can be Buddhists. Atheists can be Wiccans. Atheists can be animists.

Except maybe for the one about Buddhists, that's patent nonsense.

Theists do not fight for theism; they fight for a specific belief system (Christianity, Islam, etc.). Atheists do not fight for atheism; they fight for a specific belief system (Communism, Fascism, etc.).

Again, this is not a parallel situation. A theist may fight for Fascism, say, but I imagine you'll find precious few atheists willing to fight for Christianity.

[bignickel]

If you follow this link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87979) - which is the same one I just gave MdC - you should be able to figure which ones are intolerant and what they won't tolerate.
I'm afraid that I'm going to have to stick with asking Wolfman to clarify his point.

[skeptifem]

However, raising one's children to believe that there is a watchful, angry, invisible man in the sky waiting to punish them forever for touching themselves is, in my opinion, harmful. I think it's child abuse, and I think religions indulge in harming children, because it effectively perpetuates the religion into the future as those children grow up, and go on to abuse their children the same way, believing that condition to be "normal."

you forgot the part where they teach their kids that god will forgive them for anything, which is of course comforting to a lot of kids. im an athiest (obviously) and totally disagree with you.

i said the same thing to you in chat, but the fact that some children feel traumatized by religion doesnt make religion inherently abusive. children are traumatized by many things that are not abusive, often enough its education that traumatizes them(and we certainly dont want to stop educating children). learning about war or germs or.. well kids imaginations can make a lot of things extremely scary to them. you name it, its probably been a source of terror for some kids. where as physical and sexual abuse messes kids up the vast majority of the time.

The later example I didn't pull out thin air. Karl Jung treated a patient who believed precisely that, a patient deemed insane and confined to a mental institution simply because his irrational belief was uncommon, not because it was irrational.

uh maybe the patient was deemed insane because he was INSANE. there is a lot more to schitzophrenia than odd beliefs, there are plenty of dsm definitions floating around on the net, or perhaps you own one like i do and can look it up for yourself.

Religion isn't a private matter. By its nature, religions are social institutions which allow for otherwise laughable and dangerous ideas to be treated with grave respect by people who would shy away from schizophrenics and the delusional. Because religions are social institutions, which we somehow respect, the ideas they contain are protected from the same scrutiny given to other ideas.

maybe we respect the people who have them rather than the beliefs themselves. thats how ive always felt about religious people in my life.

Political and economic doctrines are fiercely debated by people in society, usually without resorting to violence. But, debating the core claims of religion is verboten. When political or economic doctrines are used to justify actions those actions, and the doctrines underlying them, are challenged in the marketplace of ideas. When actions are taken under the name of religion, otherwise critical and active participants in the public discourse delicately avoid getting to heart of the matter.

theres plenty of discussion about the merit of religion (or lack there of).

The abortion debate in America is primarily a religious one. Whether they would choose to have an abortion or not, the majority of atheists and non-believers support the right to choose. The majority of people who oppose the right to choose cite religious reasons, but when the public debate focuses on abortion, the validity of the claims of the religious are not examined.

yeah, planned parenthood and feminist orgs just sit on their hands and say nothing. :rolleyes: PLEASE.



Religion provides a safe haven for beliefs which fly in the face of reason and evidence, and people make decisions based on those beliefs. That's why I'm a mild anti-theist, as well as an atheist. I wouldn't support making religion illegal, I consider that to be strong anti-theism and inherently self-destructive, but I do support relentless, rigorous, detailed criticism of religious claims whenever they are aired. I support laughing clerics and pastors off stage when those unqualified boobs are consulted on matters of morality by news anchors, such as the current debate about the HPV vaccine. I support marginalizing and ridiculing religion. Religious people are free to promote their ideas, and I am free to criticize them. Religious people are free to cite the word of their imaginary friends as justification for the policies they wish to enact, and I am free to point out that they have no sound basis for wanting those policies enacted.

it seems to me from your suggestions that you think that religion is a mental problem that needs proffessional intervention and parents who teach thier kids religious ideas should be charged with child abuse. if whats in this paragraph is all you want then i would agree with you.

[/quote]A society of atheists would, of course, include despots, liars, frauds, and charlatans. However, those people would not be able to take refuge behind the protection we currently afford to religious beliefs as they do now.[/quote]

once there was a criminal who convinced a bunch of college aged white women that they owed him because of slavery- yeah, seriously. he got the women to recruit other women and he had tons of babies with all of them. he sat at home and smoked drugs all day while the women worked and no one took care of the kids and a lot of them died, the ones alive were severely malnourished. he had a ton of women to hide behind, using racism as a reason for them to protect him. on crime library they refer to him as 'the black charlie manson'.


Scientific frauds are usually exposed and marginalized quite quickly, because the culture of the scientific community demands evidence, independent corroboration, and does not coddle unjustified beliefs. If society had no sacred cows, no one could hide behind them.

people will just find new reasons and causes to hide behind.

and some science frauds arent exposed for decades- like money's research on gender identity. that didnt surface as a fraud for a long time, and no doubt caused a ton of emotional damage to other people.

Yes, there most certainly are people who are pleased and comforted by their false beliefs. However, those nice feelings are no reason to leave those beliefs alone.

i am not going to be a 'witness' for athiesm. sorry, that whole 'im right so im going to try and make you think like i do' thing is pretty disgusting no matter who is doing it. i dont really care if they are right or not.


The universe does not owe us comfort, and the survival of our species is not helped by such foolishness. We face numerous serious problems, global warming, falling aquifers across the United States, emergent diseases and old diseases becoming impervious to the weapons we used to wield effectively against them, I could go on. Pretending those problems don't exist, or that an imaginary friend will solve them, or that it won't matter anyway because we get to go to a magical happy land full of cake and puppies if we die, is not only unhelpful, it's a hurdle to addressing those problems. I'd much rather be worried and alive than chipper and dead, and I do not support letting delusional people block progress into the urgent problems based on their pleasant idiocies.

for one this does not describe all religious people (obviously), and two someone using religion as a tool to mess with others by telling them comforting lies does NOT make religion inherently bad- there are plenty of people who use religion as a tool to improve the lives of others. I didnt mind watching joel osteen preach despite being an athiest because he didnt get into anything political, he just talked about dealing with life and it was awesome. he is extremely popular(he has the biggest church ive ever seen its like a friggin football stadium), there are a lot of christians who are not into preachers who tell them what to vote for. check out the CT forum for proof of non religious political brainwashing. there are plenty of apathetic athiest people my age as well, young people who just dont really care about a lot of anything.

[arthwollipot]

That does raise the question of what this volum actually is, though. What's the percentage of Catholic clergy that abuses children compared to the percentage of, say, plumbers that does the same?

Off topic a little, but I'm not sure that's relevant. The problem with the Catholic church was not the individual clergymen (ok, that was not entirely not the problem...) but the way in which the institution dealt with that problem. There is no such corresponding institution of plumbers which systematically covers up abuse.

Returning to lurk mode...

[qayak]

you forgot the part where they teach their kids that god will forgive them for anything, which is of course comforting to a lot of kids.

Do you think it is comforting to the children abused by priests to know that god and the catholic church have forgiven their abusers and then allowed them to abuse again?

[VanillaCone]

It seems like the femur of contention with Wolfman's very thoughtful OP is his opinion about the extent to which theistic proliferation tactics affect the indoctrinated. To those who argue it hurts them, Wolfman offers two rebuttals:

1) The percentage of theistic variants that employs heavy-handed indoctrination methods is minimal, and

2) That indoctrination strategies are not exclusive to theism.

I have no real frame of reference to support or refute the first argument, because I don't know enough about the proliferation practices of every world religion to know what percentage indoctrinate children into their religion to the exclusion of any alternative belief system. But my common sense is reluctant to accept that most religions don't pressure their youth in some manner to buy into the parents' beliefs. Even if it's subtle, the words and actions of parents have a tremendous effect on their offspring. If dad likes football, then son grows to like football, because son wants to please dad. That's just human nature. And so is: If dad likes football, and dad is a creep, son will reject football just to piss off dad. But in either case the son is deeply affected by the opinions of the father.

As for point two, I agree that every institution, whether it's theistic, atheistic or spiritually neutral, seeks self-preservation -- political parties, ideologies, philosophies, etc. But one important thing distinguishes religious sectarian self-preservation from the others: In the minds of the believers, the stakes are incredibly, incomparably high. So high that some believers are willing to die, and even let their children die, in anti-religious societies in order to save their eternal souls. Wolfman, can you provide an atheistic equivalent to this? I can't think of one, which leads me to believe it's not the same.

[Complexity]

Too long. Can't bring myself to read it. Sorry.

[Wolfman]

Try again, this time without disingenuous pity and bulleted contempt.

I'm just curious, are you inviting a debate, or courting agreement?
Okay, remove the more personal statements.

My argument still stands. Your characterizations of "religion" do not represent "religion" at all, but rather a very limited interpretation of "Christian" beliefs. I gave all the necessary arguments and illustrations of how your description is not in any way accurate when discussing "theism" in general.

You said that you're offended that I called your description "ignorant"; I have given you the opportunity to prove that you are right. Simply go ahead and demonstrate that your description is accurate in describing all religions, and not just one or two.

Time and time and time again you rely on unsubstantiated generalizations. You say "this is what religious people believe", entirely disregarding the fact that a huge portion of the world's religions don't believe or teach that at all. In another thread, you made claims about what the Bible says/teaches which, when I actually called you on it, you were entirely unable to support.

And it should be obvious that I'm seeking debate...not agreement. A topic where everyone just says, "That is right" is boring. The purpose here is to examine different perspectives.

However, while others here who disagree with me have responded in an intelligent and thoughtful manner, you continue to employ the same tactic of simply defining what "religion" teaches, then ignoring or dismissing any other opinion. When I point out that your description of "religious beliefs" is entirely incorrect, you just continue to say that you're right, without offering any actual evidence, and in direct contradiction of the plentiful evidence that I've supplied to support my argument.

I'm constantly calling you to task on your claims. When you made claims about "what the Bible says", and I called you on it, you were entirely unable to support it. Now I'm calling you to task on your current claims about "religion". And, just like last time, you will be entirely unable to actually support that argument, and will inevitably use your tactic of ignoring your gross errors and instead introducing other, equally erroneous arguments.

The challenge is simple.

Demonstrate that all religions teach the things that you attribute to "religion". Not just Christianity, or Islam.

I'm waiting. If you can do so, I'll gladly revoke every comment I've made about you. If not...well, that more than adequately demonstrates the validity of my claims regarding the veracity of your statements.

[Wolfman]

I started to read your post, Wolfman, but before I continue, I'm going to need some explanation about what you meant by 'intolerant atheists'.

How exactly is the second group intolerant?

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to stick with asking Wolfman to clarify his point.
The easiest way for me to answer your question is by defining what I consider "intolerant"; then the remainder would be "tolerant".

In my books, "intolerant" are those who not only disagree with theism in general (I am talking here about all religions and religious beliefs, not just certain ones), and seek to depict all such beliefs as "bad" or "evil". They will make claims such as "belief in god is a mental illness", and "teaching religion to children is child abuse". The more extreme variants of this will actively seek to control what parents may or may not teach their children.

Such people tend to rely on stereotypes and generalizations -- "this is what theists believe" -- and to ignore the fact that any such statement will never apply to all theists, but only to a certain portion.

By contrast, the "tolerant" would say, "I disagree with your beliefs", but would take each situation on a case-by-case basis. They would not simply lump all theists together, but rather examine the specific beliefs of the people involved, and the actual effects of those beliefs.

To illustrate...consider we have a man, a theist, who believes in a god of some kind. His religious beliefs dictate that he should hold all humans as equal, and should help others in need. As a result of his beliefs, he spends a lifetime helping others (regardless of their beliefs), and a great many lives are improved because of his efforts. He teaches his children the very same beliefs. He is very devout in his religious beliefs, and does not question his god's teachings.

The "tolerant" atheist would look at such a person and say, "I don't agree with him that there is a god, but his religious beliefs not only do not hurt others, but actually help others. Therefore, I have no problem with him holding such beliefs, or sharing them with others"

The "intolerant" atheist would look at such a person and say things like, "It doesn't matter what he does, his beliefs are wrong. The fact that he does good things is irrelevant, because his reason for doing them is incorrect". Such people would also be very likely to ascribe untrue characteristics to him, based on the actions of others who also have religious beliefs. For example, even if he does not 'force' his children to follow his beliefs, and allows or encourages them to learn about other beliefs, they will still say things like, "Religious people force their children to believe the same as their parents".

Examples of the latter form of argument are plentiful and obvious in this thread. No effort is made by such types to view "religious people" as individuals; in fact, almost their entire argument is based on treating them as some sort of faceless group who are all ascribed the same beliefs, the same practices, the same actions.

And that's not surprising; preaching intolerance is best served if you can rely on negative stereotypes, regardless of whether or not those stereotypes are actually true of the specific people being discussed.

[ImaginalDisc]

Okay, remove the more personal statements.

My argument still stands. Your characterizations of "religion" do not represent "religion" at all, but rather a very limited interpretation of "Christian" beliefs. I gave all the necessary arguments and illustrations of how your description is not in any way accurate when discussing "theism" in general.

You said that you're offended that I called your description "ignorant"; I have given you the opportunity to prove that you are right. Simply go ahead and demonstrate that your description is accurate in describing all religions, and not just one or two.

Time and time and time again you rely on unsubstantiated generalizations. You say "this is what religious people believe", entirely disregarding the fact that a huge portion of the world's religions don't believe or teach that at all. In another thread, you made claims about what the Bible says/teaches which, when I actually called you on it, you were entirely unable to support.

And it should be obvious that I'm seeking debate...not agreement. A topic where everyone just says, "That is right" is boring. The purpose here is to examine different perspectives.

However, while others here who disagree with me have responded in an intelligent and thoughtful manner, you continue to employ the same tactic of simply defining what "religion" teaches, then ignoring or dismissing any other opinion. When I point out that your description of "religious beliefs" is entirely incorrect, you just continue to say that you're right, without offering any actual evidence, and in direct contradiction of the plentiful evidence that I've supplied to support my argument.

I'm constantly calling you to task on your claims. When you made claims about "what the Bible says", and I called you on it, you were entirely unable to support it. Now I'm calling you to task on your current claims about "religion". And, just like last time, you will be entirely unable to actually support that argument, and will inevitably use your tactic of ignoring your gross errors and instead introducing other, equally erroneous arguments.

The challenge is simple.

Demonstrate that all religions teach the things that you attribute to "religion". Not just Christianity, or Islam.

I'm waiting. If you can do so, I'll gladly revoke every comment I've made about you. If not...well, that more than adequately demonstrates the validity of my claims regarding the veracity of your statements.

Are you really so worked up about this? Do you really deny that 16 states in the U.S. have passed religiously motivated anti-gay laws forbidding two people of the same sex for marrying? Do you deny that the Catholic Church, the largest, richest, most powerful religion in the world teaches that hell is real, and the people suffer there forever for crimes as trivial as touching themselves? Do you understand that an Evangelical American President proclaims that god talks to him and tells him to invade other countries?

What planet do you live on that you can claim, with a straight face, that the wild, rabid, mindless religious people who avoid reason as though it was poisonous are "marginal," "extreme," and a "minority?"

Religion, by its very nature, involves believing things simply because you want them to be true, rather than looking at what there is. That is why I consider religion an affront to humanity. Even if religion really did make people happier, more cheerful more successful, increased sexual stamina and whitened teeth, I would still be against it because it involves enshrining things that aren't true in people's minds merely because we want them to be true.

It's two in the morning. I am going to bed. Take comfort in your mealy-mouthed platitudes towards religion and your insults towards religious critics.

[Wolfman]

Are you really so worked up about this? Do you really deny that 16 states in the U.S. have passed religiously motivated anti-gay laws forbidding two people of the same sex for marrying? Do you deny that the Catholic Church, the largest, richest, most powerful religion in the world teaches that hell is real, and the people suffer there forever for crimes as trivial as touching themselves? Do you understand that an Evangelical American President proclaims that god talks to him and tells him to invade other countries?

What planet do you live on that you can claim, with a straight face, that the wild, rabid, mindless religious people who avoid reason as though it was poisonous are "marginal," "extreme," and a "minority?"

Religion, by its very nature, involves believing things simply because you want them to be true, rather than looking at what there is. That is why I consider religion an affront to humanity. Even if religion really did make people happier, more cheerful more successful, increased sexual stamina and whitened teeth, I would still be against it because it involves enshrining things that aren't true in people's minds merely because we want them to be true.

It's two in the morning. I am going to bed. Take comfort in your mealy-mouthed platitudes towards religion and your insults towards religious critics.
*noting the complete lack of any demonstration that your description of "religious beliefs" applies to all religions, instead of just a few*

*noting that, once again, you use only examples drawn from Christianity, and again attempt to extend that to all religions*

Dude, I do not deny that people with religious beliefs do terrible things. I don't deny that a LOT of religious people act in manners that I believe are wrong, and should stop.

The difference between you and me is that I can see that although many religious people do act in these ways, many other religious people do not act in these ways. I am capable of seeing them as individuals, I am capable of comprehending that they do not all think the same way, nor share the same beliefs.

You, on the other hand, time after time after time after time after time, refer to examples of what Christians do (and not even all Christians do those things), and then extend it to all religions.

Come on, where's your spine? Where's your backbone? I gave you a very simple challenge! Demonstrate how the claims that you make about "religion" apply to all religions...not just to Christianity. Because, as I have attempted to point out out many times (and apparently has not managed to penetrate your skull), this topic is about all religions. Not just one.

[EverLastingGodStopper]

Dude, Christians aren't fighting in the name of theism, either. Your argument has no consistency. Theists don't fight for "theism"; they fight for their specific brand of theism. And atheists don't fight for "atheism"; they fight for their specific brand of atheism.


Oooh, do me next! What specific brand of atheism am I fighting for? I'm in a lot of groups and stuff, I can't wait to find out what I'm doing!

[Wolfman]

I'm going to now add another component to the discussion/debate. I mentioned this in the "All Religion Is Bad" thread, but want to expand on it here.

First, again, let us be clear about our definitions. I am talking here about "theists", who are defined simply by a belief in a god of some kind. They can believe in any kind of god, and have any kind of beliefs about that god, and still be "religious", and still be "theists".

In my first post, I mentioned Humanism. While Humanism tends to be perceived as atheist, in fact that is not entirely the case. There are Christian Humanists, Jewish Humanists, Muslim Humanists, and an entire movement called Religious Humanism.

These people all believe in a god; they are all theists. However, they also believe either that their god is not infallible, or that man's ability to interpret god's will is not infallible. Therefore, rather than "mindlessly obeying the laws of their religion/god/scriptures", they evaluate and question all their moral teachings in a rational manner. Unlike many theists, they do not examine their beliefs with the goal of proving they are right; rather, they examine their beliefs with the goal of determining which are right, and which are wrong.

The standard that they use to make this determination is Humanism; if a particular religious teaching does not contradict the principles of Humanism, then it is accepted as "moral". If it contradicts the principles of Humanism, then it is considered "immoral". These principles generally focus on things such as equality, human rights, freedom, democracy, etc.

Religious Humanists would generally consider that god does not expect them to mindlessly follow the dictates of some religious leader; they believe that their god gave them a brain, and the ability to think rationally on their own, and that it is their responsibility to rationally examine the teachings of their religious leaders. They believe that the "right" answer can be found through a purely logical, rational process, without appealing to scriptures, or to some faceless god.

Many here have made the accusation that "theists must accept their religious teachings without question"; yet these people are theists, and not only do they question religious teachings, they believe that all their beliefs must be exposed to a rational examination.

Now, I know what the responses from some people here will be. ID will again tell me "what religious people believe", and tell me that, in fact, these people do not or cannot believe what they believe. Others will object that these people "are not real Christians" or "are not real Muslims", etc.

The question here is not "are they Christians". The question is "are they theists". They believe in a god. Therefore, they are theists.

My apologies to those of you for whom these particular people do not fit within your pretty, pre-defined pictures of "what religious people believe" and "how theists act". However, I'm not terribly concerned, I'm quite confident in your ability to dismiss it entirely, and continue to rely on your stereotypes and generalizations.

[The Atheist]

Sorry, Wolfman, quick derail while I get rid of some accumulated incoreect assertions - aka Ignorant Strawmen of Religion.

Do you deny that the Catholic Church, the largest, richest, most powerful religion in the world teaches that hell is real, and the people suffer there forever for crimes as trivial as touching themselves?

That's not as funny as your post about religion causing the Irish Troubles, but it's equally wrong.

In fact, I lie, the Irish post contained one error, the quote above contains two, so that makes it twice as bad.

I certainly deny - as will anyone with even a passing knowledge of the RCC - that people suffer in hell, according to official RCC doctrine.

I further deny that "touching themselves" causes one to go to hell, according to official RCC doctrine.

As usual, ID:

:pythonfoot:

Feel free to comment on the pope's infallibility!

[MetalPig]

The "tolerant" atheist would look at such a person and say, "I don't agree with him that there is a god, but his religious beliefs not only do not hurt others, but actually help others. Therefore, I have no problem with him holding such beliefs, or sharing them with others"

The "intolerant" atheist would look at such a person and say things like, "It doesn't matter what he does, his beliefs are wrong. The fact that he does good things is irrelevant, because his reason for doing them is incorrect".
I'm somewhere in between. I applaud him for helping others, but I do feel that he does it for the wrong reasons.

Is there a word between tolerant and intolerant to describe me?

[blobru]

I'm somewhere in between. I applaud him for helping others, but I do feel that he does it for the wrong reasons.

Is there a word between tolerant and intolerant to describe me?


"Tolerable?" ;)

[VanillaCone]

"Tolerable?" ;)

I'd go for "ambivalent," but tolerable is way funnier.

[MetalPig]

"Tolerable?" ;)
;)

My next question is unrelated: is buddhism considered a theist religion? In other words, is the Buddha a god?

In my first post, I mentioned Humanism. While Humanism tends to be perceived as atheist, in fact that is not entirely the case. There are Christian Humanists, Jewish Humanists, Muslim Humanists, and an entire movement called Religious Humanism.
Apparently Humanism does not require belief in a god, nor the absence of belief. So it seems silly to associate it with either theism or atheism.
It's a bit like saying driving a car is a bit of a religious experience, since some drivers are theists.

[ImaginalDisc]

*noting the complete lack of any demonstration that your description of "religious beliefs" applies to all religions, instead of just a few*

*noting that, once again, you use only examples drawn from Christianity, and again attempt to extend that to all religions*

Dude, I do not deny that people with religious beliefs do terrible things. I don't deny that a LOT of religious people act in manners that I believe are wrong, and should stop.

The difference between you and me is that I can see that although many religious people do act in these ways, many other religious people do not act in these ways. I am capable of seeing them as individuals, I am capable of comprehending that they do not all think the same way, nor share the same beliefs.

You, on the other hand, time after time after time after time after time, refer to examples of what Christians do (and not even all Christians do those things), and then extend it to all religions.

Come on, where's your spine? Where's your backbone? I gave you a very simple challenge! Demonstrate how the claims that you make about "religion" apply to all religions...not just to Christianity. Because, as I have attempted to point out out many times (and apparently has not managed to penetrate your skull), this topic is about all religions. Not just one.

Improve your reading skills.

Religion, by its very nature, involves believing things simply because you want them to be true, rather than looking at what there is. That is why I consider religion an affront to humanity. Even if religion really did make people happier, more cheerful more successful, increased sexual stamina and whitened teeth, I would still be against it because it involves enshrining things that aren't true in people's minds merely because we want them to be true.

[Steven Howard]

Back to the OP for a second:

Throughout history, whenever people have sought to marginalize or persecute a particular group, the first step has been to declare them "crazy", to characterize their beliefs and practices as abusive.

I'm pretty sure this isn't true. And even if it were, the converse doesn't necessarily follow. It's not the case that any time we call someone "crazy" or "abusive" it's because we want to marginalize and persecute them. Sometimes it's because they really are crazy and abusive.

I think between this bit, and your earlier talk about the early days of Chinese Communism, there might be a tiny bit of well-poisoning going on here.

[Steven Howard]

And it should be obvious that I'm seeking debate...not agreement. A topic where everyone just says, "That is right" is boring. The purpose here is to examine different perspectives.


Now, I know what the responses from some people here will be. ID will again tell me "what religious people believe", and tell me that, in fact, these people do not or cannot believe what they believe. Others will object that these people "are not real Christians" or "are not real Muslims", etc.

Seems to me you'd get a better and more honest debate if you'd go ahead and let the other side actually present their own arguments.

[Foster Zygote]

;)

My next question is unrelated: is buddhism considered a theist religion? In other words, is the Buddha a god?

I don't think so, although the Buddhists on this forum could certainly answer better than myself. As I understand it, Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a theistic religion. One can be a Buddhist and an atheist.

[Anacoluthon64]

Seems to me you'd get a better and more honest debate if you'd go ahead and let the other side actually present their own arguments.And considering them carefully before pulling the ripcord attached to your knee.

'Luthon64

[ImaginalDisc]

I don't think so, although the Buddhists on this forum could certainly answer better than myself. As I understand it, Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a theistic religion. One can be a Buddhist and an atheist.

One can also be a Bhuddist and a theist. Thibetan Bhuddism is some sort of comingling of prexisting shamanism with importated Indian religious Bhuddism from the 5th Century or so.

What bothers me about Bhuddism is the "Four Noble Truths" (Life is suffering, suffering is caused by desire, to elminate suffering eliminate desire, to elminate desire, follow our eight easy steps to happiness and financial freedom through the real estate market!) are "These Four Noble Truths, monks, are actual, unerring, not otherwise. Therefore, they are called noble truths." (Siddy, Tha Bhudda) P.S., he was talkin' to monks.

Ergo, "We have the TRUTH, and our truth is subject to nether doubt nor criticism."

I'll run the risk of repeating myself by saying that even if Bhuddism magically makes everyone happy, productive, real estate brokers, it still ignores crticial inquiry into its central claims. More overtly theistic Bhuddism includes concepts like reincarnation, which are even less tennable.

[kbm99]

I don't think so, although the Buddhists on this forum could certainly answer better than myself. As I understand it, Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a theistic religion. One can be a Buddhist and an atheist.

There are at least as many varieties of Buddhism as there are of Christianity, of varying degrees of theism/atheism. The central tenets of Buddhism have very little if anything to say about god, whether or not there is an afterlife, etc. but individual traditions almost always do.

It is certainly possible to be a Buddhist and an Atheist.

[Jekyll]

I don't think so, although the Buddhists on this forum could certainly answer better than myself. As I understand it, Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a theistic religion. One can be a Buddhist and an atheist.

Well, it depends on the Buddhists, I guess, but if the Ralians are being classed as atheist we should get the most of the Buddhist as well.

I'm not sure I like where Wolfman is placing the boundaries in this conversation though. The majority of angry atheists (I guess I'm kind of one of them) disagree with all supernatural-ly religions, not just the ones that believe in a big-G.

Even if Scientologists don't believe in a god (I can't remember if they do or not which shows how unimportant this is), they'd still get the same amount of grief from us about their beliefs.

But even if we repaint the line to exclude the Ralians from atheism, what with alien is just being 20th century slang for space fairy, we'd still get a fair number of the not supernaturally inclined Buddhists counted as atheists.

[ceo_esq]

Apparently Humanism does not require belief in a god, nor the absence of belief. So it seems silly to associate it with either theism or atheism.
It's a bit like saying driving a car is a bit of a religious experience, since some drivers are theists.

Except that there are some specifically theistic forms of humanism, whereas I'm not sure there are specifically theistic forms of driving.

[Father Dagon]

So far so good. However:

Atheists can be Christians. Atheists can be Muslims. Atheists can be Buddhists. Atheists can be Wiccans. Atheists can be animists.

Except maybe for the one about Buddhists, that's patent nonsense.Not really. I consider myself a non-believing, non-practicing christian. Religion and culture are mostly overlapping.

[ImaginalDisc]

Not really. I consider myself a non-believing, non-practicing christian. Religion and culture are mostly overlapping.

Please explain, using pictures and diagrams where appropriate, how you can simulataneously believe that god died on the cross for your sins and not believe it at the same time.

ETA: That's just a very confusing statement. Unless you're Amish, or belong to some other insular sect, it's difficult to claim that Christian culture is so unique as to justify it as a cultural identity.

[Father Dagon]

Please explain, using pictures and diagrams where appropriate, how you can simulataneously believe that god died on the cross for your sins and not believe it at the same time.I don't believe that. However, I'm more familiar with the story of Jesus Christ than with the story of Siddharta Gautama. And if we should comb trough all the memes that's makes my apparatus of thoughts and attitudes, most of them would probably be of christian origin.

[Herzblut]

Please explain, using pictures and diagrams where appropriate, how you can simulataneously believe that god died on the cross for your sins and not believe it at the same time.

Christianity has got an ethical part and a transcendental portion. One might easily support the former without believing the latter. I assume, this is valid for many other religions.

Herzblut

[ImaginalDisc]

I don't believe that. However, I'm more familiar with the story of Jesus Christ than with the story of Siddharta Gautama. And if we should comb trough all the memes that's makes my apparatus of thoughts and attitudes, most of them would probably be of christian origin.

If you don't believe god died on a cross for your sins, in what way are you "Christian?"

[Father Dagon]

If you don't believe god died on a cross for your sins, in what way are you "Christian?"Christian on a purley cultural level.

[ImaginalDisc]

Christian on a purley cultural level.

"Christian" is not a nationality or ethnic group, so what is the "Christian" culture?

[ImaginalDisc]

Christianity has got an ethical part and a transcendental portion. One might easily support the former without believing the latter. I assume, this is valid for many other religions.

Herzblut

What ethics? The Bible is completely contradictory on mathers of ethics.

[Steven Howard]

Not really. I consider myself a non-believing, non-practicing christian. Religion and culture are mostly overlapping.

I was using the word Christian the way I understood Wolfman to be using it, in the sense of "one who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus." (http://www.bartleby.com/61/20/C0332000.html) By your statement above you do neither, thus you are not a Christian in the sense that I meant and do not constitute a counter-example to my statement.

[Steven Howard]

I'm working my way up to making a longer post in response to some of Wolfman's points, but it may be quite some time before I get it organized. In the meantime, Father Dagon's little drive-by derail there reminded me of something I wanted to say first.

I think there's been some slippage on this thread in what exactly we're talking about when we use the word religion. Sometimes it's a synonym for theism. Other times, it's a blanket term for all religious organizations and institutions, the same way we might say "the movies" when we mean "the movie industry." It's not like one of these usages is right and the other one's wrong, but it is important to be clear which one we mean, and equally important to be reasonable and fair when trying to understand what other people are saying.

For my part, I'll try to be consistent and say "theism" when I mean "belief in the existence of a god or gods" and "religion" when I mean "an institutionalized system of beliefs and practices for the worship of a god or gods." For the purposes of this thread, I don't care if my definition of religion includes Buddhism or not. We can leave Buddhism aside for a bit. My concern at this point is the distinction between theism and religion, and the hope that we can all agree that it is not a valid criticism of an argument against religion to point out that it is not an argument against theism, and vice versa.

[VanillaCone]

Hey, Wolfman, I hope this doesn't seem too pushy, but I'd like to get your thoughts on my previous post. (No. 52) I respect your opinion on this issue overall, and so I am curious to know what you think. Whenever you have the chance.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Subbing. But I won't reply until after I've read the OP, the last 2 Harry Potter Books and the unabridged The Stand.

[VanillaCone]

Subbing. But I won't reply until after I've read the OP, the last 2 Harry Potter Books and the unabridged The Stand.

I actually bought the "audio books" version of the OP, which I'm hoping to get through while driving to Miami. I'm in Seattle right now.

[blobru]

Reader's Digest condensed version:

Atheists, ease up, eh?

[Father Dagon]

"Christian" is not a nationality or ethnic group, so what is the "Christian" culture?But cultures doesn't know any national or ethnical borders. And every person belongs to more than one culture. The cultures I belong to, barring subcultures, are: Western civilization, christian, protestant, european, nordic, swedish and urban.