Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on March 19, 2012 at 2:58pm

"But, what do you call what you *do* believe?"

Beliefs!!!

But they aren't the same kind of beliefs as theism, they're commendatory, not existential claim beliefs.

I believe in things like the importance of:

• Human Rights
• Egalitarianism
• Peace
• Altruism
• Justice
• Fair distribution of wealth
• …stuff like this, …these things do exist and I "believe" they're important.
• These aren't "atheist" beliefs (as you said, there's no such thing)

"Why do atheists care what people believe in the privacy of their own homes?"

I don't know many who do care about this (as long as we're talking atheism and not …NAMBLA, or other nastiness).

"I get that religion in the public arena is a matter of concern; but what does it matter if anyone you know believes Jesus Christ walked on water?"

You just said it yourself, any religious beliefs encroaching on secular constructs, are matters "of concern".

"While I agree we should all have freedom from religion, do we sometimes lose sight that people still have freedom of religion as well?"

Some do I s'pose. It's also important to note, atheism does not mean, nor does it necessitate; "irreligion". Case in point, some religions are congruent with atheism, as they don't involve; creator deity(-ies) and/or supernatural creator deities - moral agencies.

"In the public atheist debate so much focus is put on how stupid religion is and how stupid anyone is to believe in it that I think we lose sight of the fact that people have a legal right to be stupid."

Sure, but they aren't supposed to be allowed to press this on others through co-opting a secular construct, …like the Constitution.

"The first words out of Dawkin's or Maher's mouths are always an attack on how stupid the beliefs are of Christian fundamentalists (and they are stupid, don't get me wrong)."

Maher maybe, but not Dawkins …and I wouldn't necessarily put these two on the same "team" either. But, they're pretty clear in their motivations, it's not what people "do" in the privacy of their homes and in their places of worship that concerns either, it's that threat to secularism thing. It's important to note here that not all those who advocate for a wall between church and state are atheists.

"They attack a caricature which, while it does exist, doesn't reflect the views of most self identified religious people.  Why is not the entire debate around the issue of pushing religious beliefs into the public arena, and solely on that point?"

I was under the impression that it was.

"Personally I don't care what anyone believes in the privacy of their own home and, in fact, I often find their beliefs highly entertaining.  It is only when they try to force their belief on others or into public policy that I have a concern.  Why does the atheist debate not focus entirely on that point rather than so much wasted effort knocking down the easy soft targets of religious fundamentalists?"

Those "soft-targets" control one of the two default political choices in the US. I don't know if you've being keeping tabs lately, but they certainly haven't been "knocked down". Take a look at how the GOP with the backing of Fundamentalist/Evangelical and Catholic constituencies; have turned the clock back nearly have a century already in several states (more than a handful) in just the last few years, re: War on Women.

"Back to the original question.  Define whatever it is you believe is responsible for life, the Universe, and everything, and whatever that 'is' call it God."

Why? …actually. This is equivocating, or at best …self delusory.

"Remember that God is a word that means something different to every person who states it.  It is not some solid form that you can use as a strict binary logical operator and align yourself with or against.  It's just a word.  Three characters.  And it means something different to almost every person who uses it.  When you identify yourself as an atheist you are clearly trying to distance yourself from the myriad definitions of that word as promulgated by various world religions and certain outspoken individuals"

Actually, in the broadest sense and at it's most concise and simplified, atheism is the non-belief in any god(s).

"Atheism is not a religion so much as it is a clear statement of what you do not believe in."

Exactly!

"Where it strays into gray territory is when the atheist movement begins to strongly imply or suggest a particular world view about 'Life, the Universe, and Everything'."

Not really, atheism isn't science (like atheism science isn't a creed, unlike atheism; science is a method of distilling truths about our universe). This does not preclude atheists from also being scientists …or secularists, human-rights advocates, skeptics, critical thinkers, etc. Nor are any of these thing necessitated by the single data point (a no) that atheism is.

"To many, atheism appears to be synonymous with material reductionism; a view not shared by all non-theists."

Such is diversity, …I wouldn't have it any other way. Some atheists are Ayn Rand Objectivists, I think they're just as batshit-crazy as Tea-bagger Taliban Fundamentalists. As always, YMMV.

"For the record, I consider myself a pantheist; someone who believes the entire Universe, collectively, is God.  It's a positive affirmation of what I do believe, and I find I make a lot more progress in conversation when I focus on discussing what I do believe rather than attacking those who's beliefs I disagree with."

Yes, see my list above. Hard to address my beliefs in the US without attacking their biggest threat, …no?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by booklover on March 19, 2012 at 3:05pm

I believe I don't know a lot of stuff, but I believe I am too smart to ignore how far science has come, and to believe stories written by men that didn't have that science, in the Bronze Age.  I also believe even though people believe ,what I deem to be ridiculous things in the privacy of their own homes, WAY too often they cannot separate that from their outside lives and then it affects me and mine, and THAT is unacceptable.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John W. Ratcliff on March 19, 2012 at 3:09pm

@booklover I completely agree.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by booklover on March 19, 2012 at 3:16pm

Thanks John!~ Melinda

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John W. Ratcliff on March 19, 2012 at 3:21pm

I don't think we disagree on any point here.  I'm not sure my post actually made my point very clear to begin with.  More concisely my point is this, the public spokespeople for the atheist movement, to me, seem to focus on attacking the stupidity of religious beliefs.  I think this is counter-productive as people have a legal right to believe stupid things.  This is what I call 'shooting fish in a barrel'; it's easy, and lazy, and counter-productive.

The dialogue should be about religious belief in the public arena and imposing those beliefs on others.  That should be the only issue of discussion, period.  I wish the public spokespeople for the atheist movement would preface and qualify every statement they make by showing respect for the right of each individual to hold their own personal religious beliefs.  I would ask them to refrain from attacking their beliefs directly as the product of ignorance and stupidity.  It may be true that their religious beliefs are, in fact, the product of stupidity and ignorance but, then again, it's probably counter-productive to do so.

Sam Harris is the only spokesperson I'm aware of who can speak respectfully about the personal religious beliefs of individuals while, at the same time, warning about the dangers of imposing religious belief as public policy.  

Everyone else comes off as a loud, arrogant, jack-ass who is condescending and disrespectful towards what are often deeply profound personal beliefs of individuals.  It must feel good to them to use this tone and language, but I argue, once again, it's counter productive.

And, personally, when I call the Universe God I think I'm saying something profound that means a great deal to me as an individual.  So, your call, am I an atheist if I belief the Universe is God?  See, it's all semantics.

John

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on March 19, 2012 at 6:41pm

"More concisely my point is this, the public spokespeople for the atheist movement, to me, seem to focus on attacking the stupidity of religious beliefs."

Again, how does one separate the blatant irrationality and ignorance of fundamentalist beliefs, from the same fundamentalist beliefs being the motivators behind so much fundamentalist; oppression, anti-science, anti-intellectualism and most importantly, the perceived entitlement to special privilege in co-opting the Constitution and the personal rights of others.

How do you propose to separate the two?

Aside from this, I don't see any systemic gratuitous abuse, …I see it being claimed by an overwhelming majority, …this doesn't mean that the claim has actual merit.In actuality I see it as a blatant expression of special privilege, nothing more.

War on Christmas? rubbish.

War on Religion? where, actually?

Some may fall for these culture war fallacies, I don't.

" I think this is counter-productive as people have a legal right to believe stupid things."

They don't have the right to be offended when these stupid things are attacked, ridiculed, lampooned or dragged through the mud. They have a choice to believe them after all. Nobody is trying to take that choice away.

"This is what I call 'shooting fish in a barrel'; it's easy, and lazy, and counter-productive."

I think it's arguable that it's not as you describe. It's this premise that I don't buy, as such the conclusion is moot.

"The dialogue should be about religious belief in the public arena and imposing those beliefs on others.  That should be the only issue of discussion, period."

Sorry, I don't agree, …there are many reasons why these beliefs are dangerous when they stop being just "personal" beliefs, not the least of which that they're, oppressive, irrational, stupid, etc. 

"I wish the public spokespeople for the atheist movement would preface and qualify every statement they make by showing respect for the right of each individual to hold their own personal religious beliefs."

Yeah, sure …since nobody has actually expressed the converse, …except the fundamentalists. I think you've got the two mixed up here.

"I would ask them to refrain from attacking their beliefs directly as the product of ignorance and stupidity.  It may be true that their religious beliefs are, in fact, the product of stupidity and ignorance but, then again, it's probably counter-productive to do so."

I still don't think this has merit.

"Sam Harris is the only spokesperson I'm aware of who can speak respectfully about the personal religious beliefs of individuals while, at the same time, warning about the dangers of imposing religious belief as public policy."

I've seen Sam Harris rip on fundie beliefs, try this on for size:

No public policy focus here… None needed, because it's implied.

"Everyone else comes off as a loud, arrogant, jack-ass who is condescending and disrespectful towards what are often deeply profound personal beliefs of individuals.  It must feel good to them to use this tone and language, but I argue, once again, it's counter productive."

I'm reminded of this...

"And, personally, when I call the Universe God I think I'm saying something profound that means a great deal to me as an individual.  So, your call, am I an atheist if I belief the Universe is God?  See, it's all semantics."

Actually, this is the opposite of being consistent semantically, rather; it's equivocation, an intellectual dishonesty.

As for the poor Christians being oppressed by the mean ol' atheists, let's not forget who started this "culture war", and …just one more image:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by booklover on March 19, 2012 at 7:02pm

Richard, I really like how you addressed each statement and even added visuals!  I am impressed by all the really smart people here.  I'm not saying I'm dumb, just a little intimidated! lol.  BTW I agree with all of your responses to the original post.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steph S. on March 19, 2012 at 7:46pm

Yeah .. wow .. impressive. Cool deal Richard!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John W. Ratcliff on March 19, 2012 at 10:59pm

>>How do you propose to separate the two?

 

By repeatedly reiterating your support for their right to their personal religious beliefs. By not calling them stupid superstitious idiots, even if that is what you believe, at least to their faces in public discourse. By framing the discussion solely about the issue of freedom of (and from) religion in public life.

 

That is the only issue it hand. People have the right to be stupid. People have the right to their religious beliefs. They just don't have a right to push their religious beliefs on others. Say that again, and again, and again, no matter how much they push back. But keep the conversation strictly limited to this point. If they quote scripture, then say, hey, I respect your right to that belief, now you have to respect that it is not my religion.

 

>>Sorry, I don't agree, …there are many reasons why these beliefs are dangerous when they stop being just "personal" beliefs, not the least of which that they're, oppressive, irrational, stupid, etc.

 

Well, personally I consider taking a child to Sunday school a form of child abuse. But, I also grant I'm never going to win that argument. My point is about how best to frame the rhetoric.

 

If a religious person wants to have a theological debate with you, then go to town, have fun. But, in the public arena, calling religious people stupid and making fun of there beliefs is not, in my opinion, helping our cause.

 

>>except the fundamentalists. I think you've got the two mixed up here.

 

I know that fundamentalists don't play nice, but that is no reason to stoop to their level. Turn the other cheek and focus the debate about our rights to religious freedom which, indeed, extends to our right to have no religion at all if we choose. Just keep saying that over and over again until they are sick of it.

 

In a debate, the person who sticks to arguing using logic, facts, and reason, and refrains from personal attack, while his opponent resorts to name calling and threats, it's usually the rational person who comes out looking better. But when some of the public speakers in the atheist movement resort to name calling out of the gate, I don't think it makes us look like we are the right side of the argument, most people just see us as two sides of the same coin.

 

Regarding your comic strip link implying that people like myself feel superior to both religious people as well as atheists, I would like to make a slight correction. While I may, indeed, feel superior to religious people who hold irrational beliefs, I don't feel superior to the vast majority of atheists who I consider my friends in this important battle for freedom. For practical purposes I am an atheist, and I certainly share the cause of all atheists in this forum as well as those in the public arena.

 

My point is that I think resorting to name calling and ridicule of those of religious faith is not the best approach to gain traction in this public relations campaign. I would focus exclusively on *our* rights to religious freedom (which extends to freedom *from* religion). I would make that the single key issue of discussion.

 

I fail to see how we accomplish anything productive by calling the religious names. And every time I see a fellow atheist in the public arena do so I sigh a bit in frustration as the debate gets side tracked by these pointless attacks. It is this descending to their level, where the 'debate' is reduced to name calling, that makes people thing atheists are just religious zealots of another form.

 

Say to yourself over and over and over again; people in the United States of America have the legal right to be stupid. They just don't have the right to force you, me, or anyone other than their poor defenseless children, into their stupid belief systems.

 

On your final point, where you accuse me of committing the logical fallacy of 'equivocation' I must strongly disagree. I am a computer scientist by profession and I take logic fairly seriously.

 

First of all, I did not commit this logical error, and let me explain why.

 

At the end of the day it's all semantics. Unless you and I are participating in a Vulcan mind meld I can assure you that we are using a frail, fragile, easily confused, and messy construct called the English language. The English language is not some kind of Boolean algebra. If it were then we would have had computers we could speak to fluently and without any confusion of context or grammar over 40 years ago. But, that has not happened. Even in the year 2012 it is extremely difficult to create a computer which can understand the English language without making mistakes. When IBM created Watson, the computer that played Jeopardy, even though it, quite naturally, did a great job of rapidly searching databases it made errors understanding syntax in context that a child could easily have understood.

 

So, let's be clear here. The English language is not a form of mathematics. It's a messy, nasty, thing that is fraught with confusion and pitfalls; causing us to often spend as much time misunderstanding each other as we do reaching shared meaning.

Even words in the English language which equate one to one with binary logical operators, such as 'and', 'not', 'or', can be completely confusing. Do you mean a logical or arithmetic operation, what is the order of precedence, and if arithmetic how many bits of precision? You can't even write an English sentence composed entirely of Boolean operations without introducing confusion.

 

So, with that preface, let me get to the specific issue of semantics at hand. Let's take a word like 'chair', or 'table', or 'bowling ball'. These words describe concrete physical objects with a fairly clear and coherent universal shared meaning. Even though there is some variety in chairs and tables, most of us would be able to agree on whether an object conforms to that word or not.

 

Now, let's take a word like God. Do you really think this word has some concrete universal shared meaning such that you can assign a Boolean operation to it? That's absurd.

Do you honestly believe that when a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Protestant, Catholic, Jehovah's Witness, or Mormon uses the word 'God' they all mean the same thing? I guarantee you that they do not. Moreover, I can assure you that if you ask any two given Catholics to explain their belief in God it is highly likely their personal expression of belief while vary dramatically. Moreover, when you actually question many religious people to provide details about their belief in the God word it usually exposes deep internal contradictions and confusion. Many Christians claim to believe in the Trinity, a bizarre concept which postulates that somehow their God word comprises three completely independent and separate beings, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit which, clearly, makes them polytheists. But, when you point this out to them they stumble and claim these three separate, highly disparate concepts, are somehow magically deliciously 'one'. Somehow their mind is able to ignore the complete cognitive dissonance and internal contradiction of these statements. The reason their mind can do this is that most religious people actually rarely think about any of these questions. It's only annoying atheists like us who like to point this sort of thing out.

 

Now that I have made clear that there is no one Universal definition for the word God, we can accept that different people define it in their own way.

 

I would argue, quite strongly, that one commonly held shared belief about the God word is that it is meant to describe the primary mover responsible for all of creation. Do you disagree with this statement?

 

Now, I believe the primary mover of all of creation is the Universe, most likely started by the big bang. Therefore, I find it completely reasonable and acceptable to define the Universe (primary first mover) as God.

 

This is *not* a false equivalency, it is a direct equivalency.

 

If you can't see that argument, well, I give up.

 

I grant that virtually no religious people would accept my definition of God; because they will sputter and complain that something cannot be self-created. That something (i.e. 'God') must have 'created the Universe'. Then somehow, without skipping a beat, they completely miss the clear and glaring contradiction in their statement. If nothing can be self-created, then who created 'God'? This points out the absurdity of their statement quite clearly, leading to pointless infinite regress (who created the God that created God that created the God that created the Universe). Meaningless and pointless.

 

Therefore, since we have a wide array of evidence that the Universe does in fact exist, and zero evidence that some external third party acted as primary mover, then I argue quite sincerely that the Universe is, in fact, God; primary mover and entity responsible for all of creation, life, time, space and consciousness.

 

Sure, this is a very long explanation for your one line throw-away quip. But, using this piss poor excuse for a symbolic language I wanted to make clear to you that this is something I have thought long and hard about, and my statements are logically consistent.

We aren't on two different sides of an argument here really. We both want the same thing. We want freedom from religion and we want to make sure that religious fundamentalists do not impose a theocracy on our nation. I just don’t think that starting the conversation by calling them stupid really accomplishes much.

 

John

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on March 20, 2012 at 1:46am

"Now, I believe the primary mover of all of creation is the Universe, most likely started by the big bang. Therefore, I find it completely reasonable and acceptable to define the Universe (primary first mover) as God."

As for "the universe exists = the universe is god = god exists", this is where context comes in, and in this frame of reference god and universe already have words that describe them. The one act that's required to merge the idea of universe with god as prime mover, is an act of faith in order to introduce an unnecessary entity, this is not consistent with the non belief in creator god(s) i.e. atheism.

This is not just a problem with "language", but with the meaning conveyed by language. Logic isn't language you're right, …it addresses meaning.

"I just don’t think that starting the conversation by calling them stupid really accomplishes much."

This is what it all boils down to really, I just don't see this happening at all.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steph S. on March 19, 2012 at 7:48pm

Hey Richard .. cool .. I like how you address the points here. Awesome

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sandi on March 19, 2012 at 3:27pm

I will start with Bill Maher. He considers himself an Apatheist and may explain his position.

Why should we be concerned about what people believe? Simply, to me anyway, is that it is a backward step for progress and that progress relies on an educated, logical thinking species. If we constantly let our brains turn to jelly, then that is what we become. There is a terrible 'B' grade movie that I think has one of the most scary, but yet highly possible story line: Idiocracy. Blah Blah a guy is put into 'hibernation' and is 'reanimated' in the future only to find the world so dumbed down he is the smartest man on Earth. As I said the movie is terrible but the story makes you think (and laugh). My point is if people do have the right to be stupid and we allow it, we may end up in this story line.

We are supposed to be an evolving species on an evolving planet in an evolving universe. We can't allow stupid to be an option.

Being raised an atheist, I have never had any personal experience with any religion or god. I don't know what it feels like to believe. I have never been spiritual and even with a near fatal accident, I never turned to any god or religion nor even 'felt' anything anywhere near it. My life has not differed from anyone that has though, we all live basically the same lives with different circumstances. One cannot say with all certainty that their life is blessed when an atheist can have a similar life or situation. With this in mind, atheism to me, is what my life is. I do not question it, try to define it or want to be any different and yes, I can't help but feel a little superior over a religious person simply because I have never been 'tainted' with religious thoughts and feel that my mind is filled with rational logic rather than fairy stories. Atheism is the word that has been invented to describe me so that others know what I am - it helps them more than me.

The problem with "someone who believes the entire Universe, collectively, is God" is that that word is taken. Used by the religious to describe their 'leader'. I get what you are saying but generally we attach words to things and people will associate what they know with it. So at first reading, you are saying that you do believe in a god and that god is all around and everything you know and without breaking that down and explaining it, it seems a religious or spiritual view.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page