|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Top 10 tips for atheists this Easter
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
If the primary opposition by atheists to Christianity is due to the fact that it is annoying to be preached at occasionally, then my respect for atheists has plummeted.
I was responding to the question of why atheists don't grill Jews about OT violence; it's because Jews, not being proselytizers, don't invade others' time and privacy with such efforts. IME, Christians have.
I don't, in general, oppose Christianity (or other religions); it's no business of mine what others believe, until or unless those beliefs lead to actions which interfere with the ordinary human rights of others. My ability to counteract such efforts is fairly limited to my being a citizen of a particular place.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge
How do you know these efforts spring from atheists? Where I live, so-called "mainline churches" join in these efforts, and perhaps are the primary movers.
I gave the example of faith schools, and there is plenty of evidence that there are atheists and humanists who oppose the existence of these schools - see here, for example. This demonstrates that atheists and humanists are just as guilty of "legislating other people's lives" as Christians allegedly are. Of course, they will reason (as the BHA does) that parents have a right to bring up their children in their religion, but not with state funding. But what right does the state have to finance a secular philosophy?
I can't speak to the goals of "organized" atheists, especially in the UK. You seem to be suggesting that the "state funding" is some sort of red herring. I disagree; I'm in the U.S., which separates church and state Constitutionally, and that's no red herring. It's one of several founding principles of our governance. Of course, the UK has an established church & their situation is necessarily different.
Personally, I thought the function of a US free, appropriate public education was to ensure that all children get the opportunity to acquire the skills needed to become effective citizens and workers. I don't quite see how this is a legislative move to enforce atheistic demands on people of faith.
As to "secular philosophy," if by that you mean the basic principles on which ordinary democracy functions, then yes: that should be part of a public education. If that's not what you mean, perhaps you can spell out what this "secular philosophy" consists of.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I was responding to the question of why atheists don't grill Jews about OT violence; it's because Jews, not being proselytizers, don't invade others' time and privacy with such efforts. IME, Christians have.
I understand that, and my response is pointing out that your reasoning - that Christianity is targeted by atheists because it proselytizes - is problematic, because it makes atheists who argue against Christianity out to be nothing more than NIMBY-types who simply do not like being confronted with a different set of beliefs. I must admit I don't recognize this characteristic either in atheists that I personally know, or in the atheists who write lengthy pieces using philosophical, scientific, or logic-based arguments against religion.
(It's also worth noting that, at least in my area, the groups that spend the most time trying to recruit are two heterodox groups that the established church doesn't even recognize as Christian - Jehovah's Witness and Mormon. Is this too much nuance to expect from atheists?)
So I would say that the majority of Western atheists writers/bloggers/journalists I have come across are really more accurately described as anti-Christians. They tend to be ambivalent at best about other religions, even those that do recruit (like Islam) or those that have oppressive behaviors built into them (like Hinduism). And as I said before, Christianity is an easy target. Go after some of those other groups and being accused of xenophobia at best and being threatened at worst are likely outcomes. So why not stick to the old church, they won't do anything about it.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
(It's also worth noting that, at least in my area, the groups that spend the most time trying to recruit are two heterodox groups that the established church doesn't even recognize as Christian - Jehovah's Witness and Mormon. Is this too much nuance to expect from atheists?)
The Mormons of my acquaintance self-identify as Christian; I take them at their word. If you tell me you are Christian, I take you at yours.
Nuanced or not, I see no reason to argue this point with people who are advancing causes I'm not interested in joining, primarily because all these distinctions are based on an underlying belief system I don't share. I'm also acquainted with self-styled Christians who claim that RCC folk aren't Christian either, though RCC folk claim they are. As a non-believer, how can I refute or defend such claims? You make a distinction important to you on the basis of your own beliefs (that these "other" groups are "heterodox"), but only those who share your beliefs are in a position to appreciate or argue that distinction.
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
So I would say that the majority of Western atheists writers/bloggers/journalists I have come across are really more accurately described as anti-Christians. They tend to be ambivalent at best about other religions, even those that do recruit (like Islam) or those that have oppressive behaviors built into them (like Hinduism). And as I said before, Christianity is an easy target. Go after some of those other groups and being accused of xenophobia at best and being threatened at worst are likely outcomes. So why not stick to the old church, they won't do anything about it.
I take your point. That said, though, I'm only one non-believer. I don't claim to have worked out my own "beliefs" in any great detail, I don't represent views other than my own, and I'm not especially fussed that others believe in things I don't believe in.
However, I don't seek out opportunities to "have at" believers; it's just that only self-styled Christians -- no Jews, Hindus, Wiccans, et al. -- have accosted me on the street, on my doorstep, in a laundromat, etc., in an effort to evangelize me. I explain I'm not interested, and about half the time they persist regardless. To the extent I harbor animosity toward believers, this persistence despite polite refusal is where it springs from, not from what they believe.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
There's an interesting review in The Guardian today by Julian Baggini, looking at Nick Spencer's new book - Atheists: The Origin of the Species.
What struck me was the comment: quote:
That we should talk about "atheisms rather than atheism" is self-evident.
That we should, yes. But I'm not convinced that we do. The 'we' there refers to both atheists and non-atheists alike.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I also find it rather strange that atheists tend to champion the concept of 'consent' as regards personal morality, and yet subscribe to a world view which tends to deny the function of free will. How can consent operate in the absence of free will?
If there is no free will then I may still believe that I have it. Nothing about determinism implies that we would ever accept that our behaviour was determined. Obviously, if we thought that the arguments for determinism were strong enough we might assent to them* - that is say they are true but I doubt we could ever 'feel' that it was so.
People frequently argue that if determinism were true there would be no point in, for example, punishing people. But that assumes we have the free will to makes the choice to stop.
* Or not since we may, deterministically, be unable to do so.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Hinduism and its religiously enforced segregation through the caste system
I thought caste was outlawed after Gandhi, thugh some outlying villages still give dalits a hard time.
It's illegal to discriminate based on caste. As it is illegal to discriminate based on race in the United States. Draw your own conclusion.
Socially and religiously it is the same as it's always been.
Daily Beast - Dalit women targeted for rape
Teenage boy strangled for dating higher caste girl
Al Jazeera - "Rat Eaters" of India
I've heard shocking things from high-caste Hindus about lower-caste ones, in the US and UK, as well. And they were justified in religious terms as well, that they have different social responsibilities that have a spiritual component so it's best to keep within your own group.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I would also love to know the logic of grilling Christians on Old Testament violence at Easter, when Jewish people are practically at the same time celebrating the Passover, which marks the deaths of Egyptian babies (among others).
Maybe it's something to do with the tendency on the part of many Christians to wrap themselves in the cloak of "Judaeo-Christian values", along with the declaration that it would be a good thing if society at large was based on such values. It's not the Jews who ram this down people's throats.
[ 01. May 2014, 00:07: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I've realized that the writer is a Christian academic. I maintain that it is shockingly poor taste to encourage atheists to quiz Christians about the legitimacy of our faith at Easter, and I do not think most newspapers would touch such an article from a Jewish or Muslim writer with a ten foot pole.
Why the fuck not? It was Good Friday that Christians chose to use the centre of Croydon for a "procession of witness". One purpose was, I assume from the name, proselytization. I'm sorry but "respect" for religion does not mean bowing our heads before it.
And I see from your recent posts that you have no qualms about the potential poor taste of levying charges of discrimination and rape against Hinduism. Double standards?
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
This may be a pond difference, but here's the American secular view.
If you were not being allowed to open a religious school that you funded, I'd be happy to work with you to make lift that oppression.
There's a substantial difference between prohibiting religious schools and not funding such schools with taxpayer money. People who belong to other faiths or no faith don't see the need to fund your religion.
Why should I pay taxes to teach your religion? I'm fine with it being legal provided it provides a competent education. You want to teach religion, do it on your own dime.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Probably because, unless you happen to live in Israel, most Jews aren't using their religion as an excuse to legislate everyone else's lives.
Neither are most Christians.
I'm afraid this is a major pond difference. In America, we have people trying to legislate away sex acts, birth control, gay marriage, and sex education. I would argue that our "drug war" is a byproduct of our "Christian values." In short, they are absolutely PERNICIOUS in every way of trying to make their religion dominate the law and political discourse. We don't call it the Religious Right for nothing.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
I wanted to talk about the 10 "Tips"
#1 While I am very versed in Christianity and am currently reading the bible cover to cover (I already know it pretty well), I think that the idea that if us atheists just studied this or that branch of intellectual tradition, we would somehow miraculously see what Christians want us to see, or worse, believe, is kinda absurd as an argument. I know the Christian tradition I was raised in pretty well, and it is pretty stupid in hindsight. I try not to say that, generally, and try to be civil, generally, but when it gets right down to it, it's like looking at Grimm's Fairy Tales and arguing that some expert will make them real. No way. It's still a faerie tale, even when an expert tries to say it's a worthy faerie tale.
#2 Okay, I get there are different meanings to faith. On the other hand, someone telling me that god is real to them for "philosophical, historical, and experiential reasons" doesn't make it any more so to atheists.
#3 I don't think 6-day creationism is a default position. On the other hand, it is THE default position in the States, based on polling, or something close to it. It is a horrible, nasty, insidious idea that needs to be beaten to death with a sledgehammer, and ruins our science abilities as a nation, amongst other things. One can't be too harsh with it here, in the US, for all intents.
#4 Bullpucky. See #3. I hear gods of the gaps ALL the TIME from American Christians.
#5 Did the author seriously just put Shiva, Ra, and "God" as somehow the same entity, in any way? They are saying god is just misunderstood? Please, stop. ROFLMAO
#6 Don't disagree with the sentiment that Christianity can do good. It can also do horrible harm. Atheists should give credit where credit is due, and Christians shouldn't EVER try to whitewash gay bashing, sexism, and a whole host of other stupid ideas that come from some of their various sects. See #3
#7 I agree. We know about twenty things that are almost certain about Jesus, including that he lived. The rest may be all utter BS. Or not. May never know.
#8 Agree, with the caveat that all revolutions need lightning rods to motivate the uprising. Dawkins and Hitch fulfill a useful function. They motivate people to come out of the atheist closet. I love them for that, while not personally beating Christians up, myself, if I can avoid it.
#9 I prefer to point out the crappy stuff in the NT myself. Plenty there. Gay bashing. Endorsements of slavery. Women should be silent. The OT is just gravy.
#10 Fair enough. But I think the Problem of Evil is far from a draw. Many people are atheists because god smote their loved ones, and it created cognitive dissonance.
Just my thoughts. Thanks for listening.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I also find it rather strange that atheists tend to champion the concept of 'consent' as regards personal morality, and yet subscribe to a world view which tends to deny the function of free will. How can consent operate in the absence of free will?
If there is no free will then I may still believe that I have it. Nothing about determinism implies that we would ever accept that our behaviour was determined. Obviously, if we thought that the arguments for determinism were strong enough we might assent to them* - that is say they are true but I doubt we could ever 'feel' that it was so.
People frequently argue that if determinism were true there would be no point in, for example, punishing people. But that assumes we have the free will to makes the choice to stop.
* Or not since we may, deterministically, be unable to do so.
In his novel Free Fall, William Golding makes the following observation:
quote:
Free-will cannot be debated, but only experienced, like a colour or the taste of potatoes.
He then goes on to describe one such experience in the life of the main character:
quote:
I remember one such experience. I was very small and I was sitting on the stone surround of the pool and fountain in the centre of the park. There was bright sunlight, banks of red and blue flowers, green lawn. There was no guilt but only the plash and splatter of the fountain at the centre. I had bathed and drunk and now I was sitting on the warm stone edge placidly considering what I should do next. The gravelled paths of the park radiated from me: and all at once I was overcome by a new knowledge. I could take whichever I would of these paths. There was nothing to draw me down one more than the other. I danced down one for joy in the taste of potatoes. I was free. I had chosen.
The fact that there was "nothing to draw me down one more than the other" is a mystery to me, but if there had been, then this character would not have been free. His illusory sense of choice would have been determined by whatever it was that drew him down one particular path.
Do I think that determinism is the case, and that freedom is an illusion? No, I don't think so. If we accept that free choice is an illusion, then the morality of consent is illegitimate. Two adults may say that they consent to a particular act with each other, but it could very well be that one is being subtly abused by the other and is too afraid and brainwashed to speak out, and therefore tries to convince others that freedom operates in the relationship. If free will is an illusion then we know that no consent has been given in any relationship. Consent is simply not possible without freedom.
Perhaps two adults could say that they do not have free will, but, for whatever reason, they enjoy their liaison, even if that enjoyment has been forced on them by their genes, environment or whatever. The trouble with that hedonistic justification is that it could just as easily apply to the claims of a child. Why do we prohibit sexual relations with children? The answer is that we assume that they cannot give their consent. And we are right in so assuming. But if there is no such thing as free will, then a child's inability to give consent is no more serious than an adult's inability to do so.
Clearly we cannot justify a morality based on consent, if consent is, in fact, an illusion. Like William Golding, we may not be able to explain exactly how free will works, and we may just have to accept it as a 'given', but it is a 'given' that we rely on, and therefore it is part of reality. The job of the philosopher (and theologian) is to seek an explanation which accounts for reality. Christians are often accused of hiding from reality - of even being scared of reality! - but nothing could be further from the truth.
When it concerns the reality of free will, it is theism, with its affirmation of free will (despite some forms of theism denying it), which fits reality. The philosophy of naturalism, to which I think most atheists probably subscribe, does not fit reality. Because it does not fit reality, therefore I cannot accept that it is true.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
In his novel Free Fall, William Golding makes the following observation:
quote:
Free-will cannot be debated, but only experienced, like a colour or the taste of potatoes.
Thanks for the quote. I feel that discussing whether we have freewill or not is pointless. I know I've posted this before but I remember a talk by Susan Blackmore in which a slide began: "If I believe freewill is an illusion, I have three choices .... ". I stifled my guffaw when I realised everyone else (including Dr Blackmore) was taking it seriously.
quote:
... I could take whichever I would of these paths. There was nothing to draw me down one more than the other. I danced down one for joy in the taste of potatoes. I was free. I had chosen.
I haven't read Free Fall. Pincher Martin and "Lord of the Flies" put me off. These sorts of passages, where one has an intense feeling of "reality" are the sorts of thing that both science and Anglophone philosophy have problems with: when one knows (more surely than one knows the truth of any proposition) that what you are experiencing is 'really' real. I have a guide to Heidegger's "Being and Time" which begins with another quote from Golding about a similarly veridical peak experience (from The Spire).
quote:
... even if that enjoyment has been forced on them by their genes, environment or whatever. ... it could just as easily apply to the claims of a child. Why do we prohibit sexual relations with children? ... But if there is no such thing as free will, then a child's inability to give consent is no more serious than an adult's inability to do so.
All such discussions flounder: if everything is determined then we can and may "justify a morality based on consent" even if we know it is an illusion because we would have no choice about what we justify. To assume, as people often seem to, that if determinism were seen to be the case we should stop prosecuting criminals (since they had no choice) is to assume what we are denying: that we could chose to stop prosecuting criminals. Determinism changes nothing, we would go on as always. As you say, freewill "is a 'given' that we rely on, and therefore it is part of reality."
quote:
The job of the philosopher (and theologian) is to seek an explanation which accounts for reality.
I make no such demands of either philosopher or theologian - or have expectations that they will give me one. Good things should be enjoyed, bad ones endured. As Nietzsche said, understanding a picture isn't a question of knowing the chemistry of paint and how canvas is manufactured.
quote:
The philosophy of naturalism, to which I think most atheists probably subscribe, does not fit reality.
We differ only in the degree to which we think anything explains reality. I'm determined to believe nothing does.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, as soon as you start talking about 'fitting reality', I think you are tied to a floating signifier. I mean, it's kind of meaningless.
As an example, science does not claim to describe reality, although various philosophers argue that it does. But that of course is not a scientific claim!
And to say that religion fits reality seems bizarre to me - only in the sense that a guess might fit. To paraphrase Laplace, religion explains a lot, but predicts very little.
There's also an old joke that the religious invented science in order to describe nature; but it's a kind of double-edged compliment.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
We don't call it the Religious Right for nothing.
The biggest single problem with the Religious Right is that it's tended to obscure the presence of a Religious Left.
It actually had an interesting effect here in Australia. Politicians here learnt lessons from America and started assuming that 'religious' meant 'right wing' for a while. The Australian Christian Lobby gained a fair bit of influence for a while.
That influence evaporated quite rapidly a few years later, after the Lobby's head said some nasty things, and the Prime Minister withdrew from attending the Lobby's conference. There was a very large contingent of responses to the effect of "I'm a Christian and you don't speak for me". There was definitely a sense that Australian politicians suddenly woke up to the fact that the Religious Right is an American phenomenon and it isn't inherent in Christianity that Christians will vote en masse in that way. Some will, of course, but in this country at least, plenty of self-identifying Christians don't subscribe to the same views.
[ 01. May 2014, 11:20: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
And to say that religion fits reality seems bizarre to me - only in the sense that a guess might fit. To paraphrase Laplace, religion explains a lot, but predicts very little.
What do you mean by 'religion'?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
And to say that religion fits reality seems bizarre to me - only in the sense that a guess might fit. To paraphrase Laplace, religion explains a lot, but predicts very little.
What do you mean by 'religion'?
What does anybody mean by 'reality'?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Psst. Porridge, I think it is a segue into "Scientism."
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge
What does anybody mean by 'reality'?
Whom are you asking? Someone who you believe objectively exists?
Or are you dreaming?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
