Author Topic: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.  (Read 16247 times)

Offline Impish

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« on: October 22, 2006, 11:18:46 am »
For some reason, I can no longer access the thread "Atheists: Come Out, Come Out, Wherever You Are."  My browser freezes if I try to post in it.

So I'm starting a new one, which I'm treating as a continuation of the first, beginning with a marvelous (and thought-provoking) Op-Ed piece from Sam Harris.

Enjoy.
Quote
If you won't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

Offline Impish

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2006, 11:19:12 am »


Do We Really Need Bad Reasons To Be Good?
The Boston Globe
By Sam Harris | October 22, 2006

THE MIDTERM elections are fast approaching, and their outcome could well be determined by the "moral values” of conservative Christians. While this possibility is regularly bemoaned by liberals, the link between religion and morality in our public life is almost never questioned. One of the most common justifications one hears for religious faith, from all points on the political spectrum, is that it provides a necessary framework for moral behavior. Most Americans appear to believe that without faith in God, we would have no durable reasons to treat one another well. The political version of this morality claim is that our country was founded on "Judeo-Christian principles,” the implication being that without these principles we would have no way to write just laws.

It is, of course, taboo to criticize a person’s religious beliefs. The problem, however, is that much of what people believe in the name of religion is intrinsically divisive, unreasonable, and incompatible with genuine morality. The truth is that the only rational basis for morality is a concern for the happiness and suffering of other conscious beings. This emphasis on the happiness and suffering of others explains why we don’t have moral obligations toward rocks. It also explains why (generally speaking) people deserve greater moral concern than animals, and why certain animals concern us more than others. If we show more sensitivity to the experience of chimpanzees than to the experience of crickets, we do so because there is a relationship between the size and complexity of a creature’s brain and its experience of the world.

Unfortunately, religion tends to separate questions of morality from the living reality of human and animal suffering. Consequently, religious people often devote immense energy to so-called "moral” questions—such as gay marriage—where no real suffering is at issue, and they will inflict terrible suffering in the service of their religious beliefs.

Consider the suffering of the millions of unfortunate people who happen to live in sub-Saharan Africa. The wars in this part of the world are interminable. AIDS is epidemic there, killing around 3 million people each year. It is almost impossible to exaggerate how bad your luck is if you are born today in a country like Sudan. The question is, how does religion affect this problem?

Many pious Christians go to countries like Sudan to help alleviate human suffering, and such behavior is regularly put forward as a defense of Christianity. But in this case, religion gives people bad reasons for acting morally, where good reasons are actually available. We don’t have to believe that a deity wrote one of our books, or that Jesus was born of a virgin, to be moved to help people in need. In those same desperate places, one finds secular volunteers working with organizations like Doctors Without Borders and helping people for secular reasons. Helping people purely out of concern for their happiness and suffering seems rather more noble than helping them because you think the Creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it, or will punish you for not doing it.

But the worst problem with religious morality is that it often causes good people to act immorally, even while they attempt to alleviate the suffering of others. In Africa, for instance, certain Christians preach against condom use in villages where AIDS is epidemic, and where the only information about condoms comes from the ministry. They also preach the necessity of believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ in places where religious conflict between Christians and Muslims has led to the deaths of millions. Secular volunteers don’t spread ignorance and death in this way. A person need not be evil to preach against condom use in a village decimated by AIDS; he or she need only believe a specific faith-based moral dogma. In such cases we can see that religion can cause good people to be much less good than they might otherwise be.

We have to realize that we decide what is good in our religious doctrines. We read the Golden Rule, for instance, and judge it to be a brilliant distillation of many of our ethical impulses. And then we come across another of God’s teachings on morality: If a man discovers that his bride is not a virgin on their wedding night, he must stone her to death on her father’s doorstep (Deuteronomy 22: 13-21). If we are civilized, we will reject this as utter lunacy. Doing so requires that we exercise our own moral intuitions, keeping the real issue of human happiness in view. The belief that the Bible is the word of God is of no help to us whatsoever.

As we consider how to run our own society and how to help people in need, the choice before us is simple: Either we can have a 21st-century conversation about morality and human happiness—availing ourselves of all the scientific insights and philosophical arguments that have accumulated in the last 2,000 years of human discourse—or we can confine ourselves to an Iron Age conversation as it is preserved in our holy books.

Wherever the issue of “moral values” surfaces in our national conversation in the coming weeks, ask yourself which approach to morality is operating. Are we talking about how to best alleviate human suffering? Or are we talking about the whims of an invisible God?

Sam Harris is the author of Letter to a Christian Nation and The End of Faith. He can be reached through his website, www.samharris.org.

email: [email protected]
web: http://www.samharris.org/
Quote
If you won't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

Offline Mikaela

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,229
  • Unsaid... and now unsayable
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #2 on: October 23, 2006, 10:29:25 am »
Thank you for reviving the thread and for posting the Sam harris piece.

Quote
It is, of course, taboo to criticize a person’s religious beliefs. The problem, however, is that much of what people believe in the name of religion is intrinsically divisive, unreasonable, and incompatible with genuine morality.

That is just our dilemma, isn't it? Case in point;

I just got a Jehova's Witness promotional  leaflet in the mail box. Normally that kind of thing would go directly in the trash can without no further glance from me, but this time I figured I'd have a look to see how they present themselves to entirely random people. The leaflet deals with "the end of false religion". And since they according to their own leaflet describe their vision of that particular End based on details in the Book of Revelations (as I think it's called, pardon me for being very wobbly on the English titles of the books of the Bible, that's one thing I've never felt the need to spend much time on learning correctly in English) it's going to be a rather grisly end. And these "false religions", then - what are they? Well, according to the leaflet they are any religion that - just like atheists - want to accept same-sex couples being allowed to marry, and accept gay or lesbian preachers, or tolerate common-law marriages, or show tolerance towards religious leaders who abuse children. Just the mix of stuff in that list makes me shudder in disgust. As if sexual abuse of children is in any way comparable with the rest....!?!  >:(

But that aside, I get so sad and yes, angry at seing someone presenting various types of adult relationships that are in fact normal, humane, completely accepted in this country and entirely legal as "immoral, false and wrong",  insisting that those who support people's obvious rights under humane and decent laws will come to a horrible end. Freedom of belief and freedom of speech are good and necessary, and of necessity also entail people being allowed to go on like they do in this leaflet. But I still find it very difficult to read this. While I fully accept anyone freely and without undue pressure making a decision about how they themselves want to live because they think their God tells them to, why do they always need to actively try to impose their intolerant and inhumane views on others, by means of threats and horror stories, if not by more directly violent means? That is what this leaflet does, or tries to do.  I am offended at unsolicited getting such inhumane propaganda in my mailbox.  :-\
« Last Edit: October 23, 2006, 10:35:51 am by Mikaela »

Offline Impish

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #3 on: October 23, 2006, 10:44:41 am »
While I fully accept anyone freely and without undue pressure making a decision about how they themselves want to live because they think their God tells them to, why do they always need to actively try to impose their intolerant and inhumane views on others, by means of threats and horror stories, if not by more directly violent means?

Because they believe that's what god tells them to do.  As Harris points out in his book "The End of Faith," their actions -- even piloting planes into buildings -- are rational if they take their holy book literally.

This is why Harris, Richard Dawkins and many others (including me) view all religious dogma as a major cause of evil.

But even fundamentalists experience atheism when they consider Thor or Zeus.  Once upon a time, societies believed in the reality of these gods, but came to realize they were better understood as Myth.

We can  hope that people of today will come to the same realization.
Quote
If you won't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

Offline Mikaela

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,229
  • Unsaid... and now unsayable
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #4 on: October 23, 2006, 11:16:18 am »
Quote
Because they believe that's what god tells them to do.

I guess that's one of the main contradiction in terms that I struggle with when trying to understand the concept of religion and to understand people who do truly believe in a God; that they can be so convinced that their God is all-powerful and yet be equally certain that they have to act on his behalf, that he in fact needs them to do so.  ???

I'd sincerely wish they'd leave the action and judgement and missionary work and whatever else to their omnipotent God and not be so eager to do his job for him, especially since they have to base their work on interpretations of millenia-old ambiguous texts. (I know that won't ever happen, of course, long as religion is and remains mainly a tool of power politics and not just a question of spirituality between each person and their conscience.)

Offline Impish

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #5 on: October 23, 2006, 05:59:22 pm »
Mikaela,

You and I share of lot of opinions on this matter.  I think you'd enjoy reading "The End of Faith," or his much shorter "Letter to a Christian Nation" just released.

Imp
Quote
If you won't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

injest

  • Guest
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2006, 07:47:03 pm »
I guess that's one of the main contradiction in terms that I struggle with when trying to understand the concept of religion and to understand people who do truly believe in a God; that they can be so convinced that their God is all-powerful and yet be equally certain that they have to act on his behalf, that he in fact needs them to do so.  ???

I'd sincerely wish they'd leave the action and judgement and missionary work and whatever else to their omnipotent God and not be so eager to do his job for him, especially since they have to base their work on interpretations of millenia-old ambiguous texts. (I know that won't ever happen, of course, long as religion is and remains mainly a tool of power politics and not just a question of spirituality between each person and their conscience.)

see here is the danger. If you KNOW that God is going to cast that person over there into the 'pit' then it is not a far step to think...well I don't have to like or be cordial to that person...even God wants to hurt them.

and from there it is a small step to ...that person is not a real person not a person like me...if I hurt them..well I am just doing what God wants to do!!

and from there to...I am a warrior of God! here to deliver punishment on his behalf!

Lort, when I think of all the hate crimes commited by these religious nuts (or their kids) ....




Offline Kelpersmek

  • Jr. Ranch Hand
  • **
  • Posts: 44
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2006, 07:58:17 pm »
Amen <chuckle>  :laugh:

I would more accurately describe myself as a disbelieving agnostic.  I don't think God exists, but I'll admit I cannot prove that.  I've wasted too much time in philosophical word-games to claim any absolute.
The only way for religious groups to protect their freedom is to accept a secular state.

Right now in the UK we're facing down the first wave of Intelligent Design, this time dressed up as the Campaign for Truth in Science.  It's going to prove an interesting time...
"RAW PRAWN!!!! ->

Wait, my mistake, it's a lobster.  I love that fic!"
-Merrobot

Offline Impish

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #8 on: October 26, 2006, 10:47:51 am »
Here's an excerpt from Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion" (2006) that I found thought-provoking.  It begins a chapter that examines the claim that morality must come from religion.

"There are two ways in which scripture might be a source of morals or rules for living.  One is by direct instruction, for example through the Ten Commandments, which are the subject of such bitter contention in the culture wars of America's boondocks.  The other is by example:  God, or some other biblical character, might serve as -- to use the contemporary jargon -- a role model.  Both scriptural routes, if followed through religiously (the adverb is used in its metaphoric sense but with an eye to its origin), encourage a system of morals which any civilized modern person, whether religious or not, would find -- I can put it no more gently -- obnoxious.

To be fair, much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries.  This may explain some of the sheer strangeness of the Bible.  But unfortunately it is this same weird volume that religious zealots hold up to us as the inerrant source of our morals and rules for living.  Those who wish to base their morality literally on the Bible have either not read it or not understood it, as Bishop John Shelby Spong, in The Sins of Scripture, rightly observed."
__________

The chapter then continues with stories from the Bible, to show just how 'weird' they are.  He begins with Noah and the Ark, but his analysis includes the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is the basis of religious morality on subjects of concern to us, such as the "sin" of homosexuality.

If there's any interest, I'll excerpt that analysis in a separate post.
Quote
If you won't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

Offline starboardlight

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,127
    • nipith.com
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #9 on: October 26, 2006, 12:24:47 pm »
Here's an excerpt from Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion" (2006) that I found thought-provoking.  It begins a chapter that examines the claim that morality must come from religion.

"There are two ways in which scripture might be a source of morals or rules for living.  One is by direct instruction, for example through the Ten Commandments, which are the subject of such bitter contention in the culture wars of America's boondocks.  The other is by example:  God, or some other biblical character, might serve as -- to use the contemporary jargon -- a role model.  Both scriptural routes, if followed through religiously (the adverb is used in its metaphoric sense but with an eye to its origin), encourage a system of morals which any civilized modern person, whether religious or not, would find -- I can put it no more gently -- obnoxious.

To be fair, much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries.  This may explain some of the sheer strangeness of the Bible.  But unfortunately it is this same weird volume that religious zealots hold up to us as the inerrant source of our morals and rules for living.  Those who wish to base their morality literally on the Bible have either not read it or not understood it, as Bishop John Shelby Spong, in The Sins of Scripture, rightly observed."
__________

The chapter then continues with stories from the Bible, to show just how 'weird' they are.  He begins with Noah and the Ark, but his analysis includes the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is the basis of religious morality on subjects of concern to us, such as the "sin" of homosexuality.

If there's any interest, I'll excerpt that analysis in a separate post.

He put it very succinctly during his interview on Point of Inquiry (I'm hooked on that podcast thanx to you Imp) that if our morality still came from the Bible, we'd still be stoning people for adultery and cutting people's hands off for stealing. We don't do those things any more because we know that the Bible is not a good basis for morality.
"To do is to be." Socrates. - "To be is to do." Plato. - "Do be do be do" Sinatra.

Offline RebelWithASmile

  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 258
  • Love was the word that left my lips
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #10 on: October 26, 2006, 09:04:16 pm »
is this for people who are atheists? Because i kind of am ::)
"He was very afraid of being hurt. He was afraid of opening up in case it was turned around and used against him."


Heaven holds a sense of wonder

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0VVoScBd4k

Offline Impish

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #11 on: October 27, 2006, 10:56:52 am »
is this for people who are atheists? Because i kind of am ::)

Yes, and anyone's who's interested in the topic, atheist or not. 

Welcome! ;D
Quote
If you won't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

Offline Impish

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #12 on: October 27, 2006, 06:48:39 pm »
Here's the excerpt from "The God Delusion" about the Sodom and Gomorrah story, as promised.  If you're not in the mood to read the whole thing, read my comment at the end.

Here goes:

"In the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah [...], chosen to be spared with this family because he was uniquely righteous, was Abraham's nephew Lot.  Two male angels were sent to Sodom to warn Lot to leave the city before the brimstone arrived.  Lot hospitably welcomed the angels into his house, whereupon all the men of Sodom gathered around and demanded that Lot should hand the angels over so that they could (what else?) sodomize them:  'Where are the men which came in to thee this night?  Bring them out unto us, that we may know them' (Genesis 19:5).  Yes, 'know' has the Authorized Version's usual euphemistic meaning, which is very funny in the context.  Lot's gallantry in refusing the demand suggests that God might have been onto something when he singled him out as the only good man in Sodom.  But Lot's halo is tarnished by the terms of his refusal:  'I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.  Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof' (Genesis 19: 7-8).

Whatever else this strange story might mean, it surely tells us something about the respect accorded to women in this intensely religious culture.  As it happened, Lot's bargaining away of his daughters' virginity proved unnecessary, for the angels succeeded in repelling the marauders by miraculously striking them blind.  They then warned Lot to decamp immediately with his family and his animals, because the city was about to be destroyed.  The whole household escaped, with the exception of Lot's unfortunate wife, whom the Lord turned in to a pillar of salt because she committed the offence -- comparatively mild, one might have thought -- of looking over her shoulder at the fireworks display.

Lot's two daughters make a brief reappearance in the story.  After their mother was turned into a pillar of salt, they lived with their father in a cave up a mountain.  Starved of male company, they decided to make their father drunk and copulate with him.  Lot was beyond noticing when his elder daughter arrived in his bed or when she left, but he was not too drunk to impregnate her.  The next night the two daughters agreed it was the younger one's turn.  Again Lot was too drunk to notice, and he impregnated her too (Genesis 19:31-6).  If the dysfunctional family was the best Sodom had to offer by way of morals, some might begin to fee a certain sympathy with God and judicial brimstone."
_________

Amazing, and appalling, isn't it?  Lot thinks having his daughters gang-raped would be OK, and so does God.  After all, God doesn't punish him.  Apparently, God doesn't mind incest between Lot and his daughters, either.  Only homosexual sex offends this icon of morality.

So much for 'family values' !  >:(

Quote
If you won't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

Offline RebelWithASmile

  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 258
  • Love was the word that left my lips
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #13 on: October 27, 2006, 08:03:46 pm »
I don't know if this is relevent, but i got this weeks adition of Times magazine and it was showing statistics of America. Well, on the religions page, i was shocked to see so many christains! And 30% of them believed we have a 'god that is very active in every day life and hates sin' ::)

i found it humorous. I just couldn't believe that we have that many religious people in America. And to be gay, sometimes it feels like your trapped by a four sided room with thorn walls.
"He was very afraid of being hurt. He was afraid of opening up in case it was turned around and used against him."


Heaven holds a sense of wonder

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0VVoScBd4k

Offline Kelpersmek

  • Jr. Ranch Hand
  • **
  • Posts: 44
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #14 on: October 27, 2006, 08:21:00 pm »
I was talking to my Christian colleague at work.

The problem is, although she will tick "Christian" on any survey you gave her, and is happy to distribute bible-verse cards to people, she doesn't actually know that much about Christianity.

She's rather shakey on genesis, hasn't heard of Lot, or Job (another favourite), or Ezekial asking God to slaughter children for calling him "baldy" (God then complies by sending a couple of bears to rip up those insolent kids). 

More than that, she didn't know which religion(s) Christianity was replacing, was unfamiliar with any of the end-times stuff (do you go to heaven right away or stay alseep in Christ until the end of the world?), and where dinosaurs fit into it all. 

It wasn't that we were being critical, but every other answer was very much "I dont know, never thought about it".  That large percentage of Christians probably has a huge percentage that are very much Christian in that they want to be good to people, pray a bit, and live a "nice" life.  Unfortunately they lend strength of numbers to the far right.

"RAW PRAWN!!!! ->

Wait, my mistake, it's a lobster.  I love that fic!"
-Merrobot

Offline Impish

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #15 on: October 28, 2006, 10:33:49 am »
That large percentage of Christians probably has a huge percentage that are very much Christian in that they want to be good to people, pray a bit, and live a "nice" life.  Unfortunately they lend strength of numbers to the far right.


Exactly.  They don't realize that their sense of morality (the real, Good, morality) doesn't come from Christianity at all.  These are the people who have cherry-picked their way through the bible, choosing those bits that they agree with.  How do they decide which parts to follow?  They decide based on their own innate sense of right and wrong, that is, a sense that exists quite apart from their religion.

What astounds me is that when such basically-good people come across the evil in their holy book, they don't put 2 and 2 together and realize that christianity (or judaism, or islam) doesn't really represent their own beliefs about the world around them.  GLBT christians amaze me most of all: all that effort to explain away the simple fact that the bible really does teach hatred toward them.

The fundamentalists, on the other hand, who have actually read the bible AND agree with its "morals" are a different story.  In terms of theology, they're on stronger theoretical ground (as they haven't cherry-picked their beliefs).  But to the degree they believe in the bible as literal truth, they are to the same degree, evil.

Is that too extreme a statement?  It's hard to believe that there are modern-day people in the U.S. that actually agree that Lot was right to offer his daughters up to be gang-raped.  But there millions of such people.

In fact, some of them are running our country right now.
Quote
If you won't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

Offline ednbarby

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,586
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #16 on: October 28, 2006, 08:31:02 pm »
The fundamentalists, on the other hand, who have actually read the bible AND agree with its "morals" are a different story.  In terms of theology, they're on stronger theoretical ground (as they haven't cherry-picked their beliefs).  But to the degree they believe in the bible as literal truth, they are to the same degree, evil.

Is that too extreme a statement?  It's hard to believe that there are modern-day people in the U.S. that actually agree that Lot was right to offer his daughters up to be gang-raped.  But there millions of such people.

In fact, some of them are running our country right now.

I don't know that it's extreme, exactly.  I'm just trying to figure out whether they're actually evil or just plain stupid.  Can you be truly evil when you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground?  I'm sorry, but fundamentalist Christians just astonish me in their ignorance.  I know several personally and I can't quite call them evil because I don't think they're bright enough to be.  Like Dennis Miller said about 20 years ago when he was still funny and had some semblance of a soul left, these are people who've somehow been so hurt by life that they turn their backs on their fellow humans in favor of some myth.  Now Dennis Miller *is* evil because he's smart enough to know better.  But those other people...  I don't know.
No more beans!

Offline Impish

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #17 on: October 29, 2006, 10:50:56 am »
A short video of Lewis Black, giving his (very funny) take on the subject:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/10/lewis_black_explains_religion.php

A word of warning to those offended by the F-word:  this video is chock full of it.

Enjoy!
Quote
If you won't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

Offline ednbarby

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,586
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #18 on: October 29, 2006, 11:50:05 am »
A short video of Lewis Black, giving his (very funny) take on the subject:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/10/lewis_black_explains_religion.php

A word of warning to those offended by the F-word:  this video is chock full of it.

Enjoy!

Oh, and I did.  Too bad it stopped before his anti- anti-gay rant.  I especially enjoyed this:  "I'd like to have faith.  But I have thoughts.  And thoughts'll really f*** up the faith thing.  Ask any Catholic priest."
No more beans!

Offline Impish

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #19 on: October 30, 2006, 11:08:38 am »
"Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day.  And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do.  And if you do any of these ten things, he as a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time....  But He loves you!

--George Carlin
Quote
If you won't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

Offline Impish

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
Evangelicals and Gender Roles
« Reply #20 on: November 04, 2006, 12:04:57 pm »
While pursuing my reading on the Haggard scandal, I found this article reviewing books by evangelicals on gender roles and sexuality, such as "God's Gift to Women," by Eric Ludy, about the ideal christian man and his property, his wife.  The title isn't meant to be ironic or funny: it's completely serious.

The article also deals with their view on people like me, those dang homosexuals.  Amazing stuff:

http://www.nerve.com/dispatches/sharlet/sexasaweapon/
Quote
If you won't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

Offline Penthesilea

  • Town Administration
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,745
Re: Evangelicals and Gender Roles
« Reply #21 on: November 04, 2006, 04:58:58 pm »
While pursuing my reading on the Haggard scandal, I found this article reviewing books by evangelicals on gender roles and sexuality, such as "God's Gift to Women," by Eric Ludy, about the ideal christian man and his property, his wife.  The title isn't meant to be ironic or funny: it's completely serious.

The article also deals with their view on people like me, those dang homosexuals.  Amazing stuff:

http://www.nerve.com/dispatches/sharlet/sexasaweapon/

OMG. I'm always appalled when I read the crap of those Christian fundamentalists (or about their crap). I am so happy that I don't have to deal with it on a daily basis. Christian fundamentalists are on the fringes where I live. In the media they practically don't exist, same as in society.
If those fundamentalists had a popular say and were present in our daily culture, I'd be mighty pi§§ed.


Though, unluckily, I happen to live in a village with a relatively multitudinous group of evangelicals, measured by the total of the village's population. At least I have the comfort to know that this is an exception in Germany.
I had never even heard of evangelicals before one of them took over our local kindergarten (became boss there). From then on, being informed about them and their methods and fighting them wherever I can has become kind of a personal crusade for me. And I have three supporters, and we made life for this woman in our kindergarten as hard as possible. Now she's gone (but I can't take credit for this; she got pregnant) and the rest of the bunch is quiet since then. They know they don't have any say anymore. And they know there are people who critically eye everything they try to bring into our kindergarten.

Enough rambled. Back to the article: it was very interesting to read. And although about such an annoying subject matter, it is in parts funny. What really gave me a laugh was this:

Quote
Dobson is most-recently known in the secular world for his charge that Spongebob Squarepants had been recruited as an agent of the "homosexual agenda,"

This is so ridicolous, so beyond any rationality that I can't take it serious, I can't help but smile about  it.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2006, 05:01:28 pm by Penthesilea »

Offline nakymaton

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,045
  • aka Mel
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #22 on: November 04, 2006, 06:35:25 pm »
Interesting article. It answers some of the nagging questions I've had about fundamentalism: why women in particular are attracted to a religion that advocates literal interpretation of a book that, among other things, says that the appropriate punishment for rape is to marry the victim (whereas other infractions merit stoning or getting hands cut off or something like that). It blames men for things that go wrong in relationships, but in a different way than 70's-era feminists would -- it blames their lack of a certain kind of manliness, and their lack of religious devotion.

The books almost seemed aimed at some of the fundamentalist women that I know -- children of divorce, or women who have been through divorce themselves, or who have alcoholic or abusive husbands or fathers. Women who have a very idealized view of the past, of some sort of good-old-days where husbands were reliable and faithful and provided for all the material needs of their stay-at-home wives.

And it is interesting that gay men have taken the place of the temptress in the legions of "evil." Maybe Jon Stewart's joke about the threat of gay marriage -- that fundamentalists believe that 50% of marriages end in divorce because 50% of spouses turn gay -- is really what they believe. *boggles*
Watch out. That poster has a low startle point.

Offline Mikaela

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,229
  • Unsaid... and now unsayable
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #23 on: November 05, 2006, 06:50:39 am »
Quote
GLBT christians amaze me most of all: all that effort to explain away the simple fact that the bible really does teach hatred toward them.

I very much agree with this amazement, but it's the same that I find in myself when thinking of women in general being attracted to this faith. (I only refer to Christianity becaue that's the only religion I'm familiar with to any great extent). I can only surmise, as has already been mentioned here, that such women haven't really got much in-depth knowledge of the texts of their religion.

The passage on Lot and his wife and daughters were one of those that spoke very strongly to me back in the days when I was making up my mind, reading the bible: I was envisioning the family's last days before leaving the doomed city and the helpless terror those two girls and their mother must have felt at hearing the father casually offering the girls up for gang rape. What do you do when your only protector in a harsh world treats you like some piece of...... I don't know. (There is no emoticon fitting my emotions at this). The later story where both girls get pregnant by their father who conveniently claims he was too drunk to know what was going on..... Well, I know who I personally feel certain was the true guilty party there.  >:( Then again, there is another story (I'm sorry, I can't offer up chapter and verse off the top of my head) where a poor woman is offered up for gangrape by her husband without any intervening rain of fire, in order for him to stave off an equally angry mob. There's a horribly tragic passage of her crawling back after the night is over, lying helpless and maimed to death on her husband's doorstep.

These stories are absolutely horrible on their own as reminders of a misogynistic historical past one would idealistically have hoped humankind had put far behind us by now (though we've not, of cuorse), but they're supposed to be the word of God? This is what the word of God has to tell me about the treatment of women? And they are only a few of a heap of examples. I guess my views on this are obvious without me spelling it out any more.

But in that context, the article you linked to, Impish, was extremely illuminating. Thank you!

That the current fundamentalists have transferred their strong emotions of fascination and hatred from women-as-temptresses to gays-as-tempters is keenly observed and rings true once considering the current political climate in the US, the way it appears from over here. It goes a long way to explain the mystery of why there seems to be such an extreme hartred and fear of gays; now seemingly carrying the burden for more than those various men-who-sleep-with-men verses of the Bible.

It's infuriating. And insulting. And scary.



 
« Last Edit: November 05, 2006, 07:02:13 am by Mikaela »

Offline Impish

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #24 on: November 05, 2006, 11:56:44 am »
The immortal words of a Pastor in Dover, Pennsylvania, after the state's Supreme Court ruled against teaching  "Intelligent Design" in science classrooms:

"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."

Quote
If you won't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #25 on: November 05, 2006, 12:40:12 pm »
that such women haven't really got much in-depth knowledge of the texts of their religion.

They don't.  I was on a chatsite with some women, one of whom was very very religious and all the women were appalled when I told them the brutal stories of the hebrew bible.  They didn't want to believe it.  They were very upset with me (for ruining their picture of god, I suppose) and I finally had to tell them that they were not angry with me, they were angry with god and to go read their own bibles.

I gave them chapters and verses.  I doubt anyone of them ran to go read them to try to prove me wrong.

The more Jewish woman on the site reasoned - as most of my Born Again Christian friends do - that if god ordered Joshua and Moses to kill little children and babies and those still in the womb, it's because god is omniscient and knew these children - who hadn't yet sinned - would grow up to be sinners.

[shrugs, shaking head]

I said if that was the case, god still didn't come out well, for he himself made these children and the not yet born for no other reason than to be butchered horribly.

Quote
Then again, there is another story (I'm sorry, I can't offer up chapter and verse off the top of my head) where a poor woman is offered up for gangrape by her husband without any intervening rain of fire, in order for him to stave off an equally angry mob. There's a horribly tragic passage of her crawling back after the night is over, lying helpless and maimed to death on her husband's doorstep.

She was his concubine who ran off and left him.  He caught up with her at night and they had to spend the night at this place where they were accosted by thugs of another Tribe.  He threw her out to them and in the morning, when she came crawling to the doorstep, he looked down at her and said 'Hey get up, we have to leave.'  Then she died.  And 'to avenge' this killing, though he was the primary cause of it, he dismembered her body, showing zero respect for her as a woman, a person and even a human being, and sent a piece to each Tribe, or something like that.

It's a horrific story, showing zero compassion and reads more like an allegory.

Quote
These stories are absolutely horrible on their own as reminders of a misogynistic historical past one would idealistically have hoped humankind had put far behind us by now (though we've not, of cuorse), but they're supposed to be the word of God? This is what the word of God has to tell me about the treatment of women? And they are only a few of a heap of examples.

When I confront my Born Again friends with this - from their own bible no less - they instantly say that Christianity has negated the Hebrew Bible teachings - god has changed his stripes - and is now kindler and gentler.  But they still support the Ten Commandments.  ::)

I know of no Christian on this planet who follows the teachings absolutely.  They can't and not be locked up as genocidal murdering abusive maniacs.

Yet the religion's followers like to sit smugly on their high horse and cast their noses down at other religions because theirs is a religion of Peace.   ::) ::)
« Last Edit: November 05, 2006, 01:03:52 pm by delalluvia »

injest

  • Guest
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #26 on: November 05, 2006, 06:16:38 pm »
Here's the excerpt from "The God Delusion" about the Sodom and Gomorrah story, as promised.  If you're not in the mood to read the whole thing, read my comment at the end.

  'I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.  Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof' (Genesis 19: 7-8).



something I have never seen addressed about this story:

One of the most widely accepted and observed customs of the ancient world was guest friendship...the concept that if you offer your home to someone you are bound to ensuring their safety. To break this custom was considered the lowest most immoral thing you could do. And it made sense in those days...you had to feel that you could sleep in a persons home and not be murdered in your sleep.

Knowing that maybe (just maybe)  the ORIGINAL author of the story was talking about the men of Sodom brought about their destruction by breaking this most sacred covenant by offering harm to someone seeking shelter...there has been SOME eveidence of a city being destroyed by fire in that area..an ancient author looking for some 'reason' would not be so quick to blame sexual behaviours (considering how much more free people were before the Christians came along) I can see an ancient author thinking of the 'guest friendship' as a possible reason in light of the Theseus legend...as well as many other older writing...

my thoughts on the subject...

injest

  • Guest
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #27 on: November 05, 2006, 06:32:05 pm »
I was talking to my Christian colleague at work.

The problem is, although she will tick "Christian" on any survey you gave her, and is happy to distribute bible-verse cards to people, she doesn't actually know that much about Christianity.

She's rather shakey on genesis, hasn't heard of Lot, or Job (another favourite), or Ezekial asking God to slaughter children for calling him "baldy" (God then complies by sending a couple of bears to rip up those insolent kids). 

More than that, she didn't know which religion(s) Christianity was replacing, was unfamiliar with any of the end-times stuff (do you go to heaven right away or stay alseep in Christ until the end of the world?), and where dinosaurs fit into it all. 

It wasn't that we were being critical, but every other answer was very much "I dont know, never thought about it".  That large percentage of Christians probably has a huge percentage that are very much Christian in that they want to be good to people, pray a bit, and live a "nice" life.  Unfortunately they lend strength of numbers to the far right.



well that comes from laziness...the willingness to let other people think for you. Most 'Christians' go off to church on Sunday; have their Bible in the back window of their car and NEVER crack it open except when they are in church! And if the preacher doesn't bring it up...well it can't be that important can it? Add to that that most churches are run by men (and have been for centuries) of course anything that doesn't advance the beliefs of the men in charge is not going to be trumpeted!

Some churches say that some of the regulations of the Old Testament were 'cultural' and no longer in effect but I don't see how you can decide that eating shellfish was 'cultural' but other things are not.

People are just so willing to believe anything that tells them what they want to hear. As long as the preacher stands up and says that they are all going to heaven they are fine..why put themselves out to learn anything? They know the most important thing (in their opinion) and nothing can be gained by digging around and looking for trouble..

Offline Impish

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #28 on: November 06, 2006, 12:09:15 pm »
Here is the latest essay by Sam Harris, which appears in the latest Newsweek. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15566391/site/newsweek/

An interesting side note:  the Newsweek cover story in the U.S. is "The politics of Jesus."  In the European version, the same story is titled "God vs. Science."
Quote
If you won't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

Offline nakymaton

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,045
  • aka Mel
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #29 on: November 06, 2006, 01:16:15 pm »
Does the difference in titles suggest that science only has a chance of winning in Europe, but not the US?

Probably true, alas. :(
Watch out. That poster has a low startle point.

Offline Impish

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #30 on: November 08, 2006, 09:08:01 pm »
Here's a video on YouTube that introduces the Richard Dawkins Foundation.  On the right hand side are other Dawkins videos on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTbdvy5jIQw

His website is well worth checking out also: http://richarddawkins.net/home

Cheers.
Quote
If you won't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

Offline Impish

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #31 on: November 11, 2006, 10:45:06 am »
A moment of levity....  er.....  gravity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl4EST71u2M
Quote
If you won't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

Offline Impish

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #32 on: November 12, 2006, 06:13:41 pm »
Julia Sweeney, comedienne, has released a CD of her famous "Letting Go of God" talks, and this webpage offers 3 samples from it:

On "Intelligent Design"  http://www.juliasweeney.com/letting_go_mini/audio4.html
On Deepak Chopra http://www.juliasweeney.com/letting_go_mini/audio3.html
On Santa Claus http://www.juliasweeney.com/letting_go_mini/audio2.html

You may have encountered Sweeney on "This American Life" who featured her in one of their most-popular episodes, "Godlessness in America."
Quote
If you won't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

Offline Impish

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #33 on: November 13, 2006, 11:39:01 am »
Public school teacher tells his class they'll all go to hell if they don't convert to christianity:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/whats_so_unusual_about_this.php
Quote
If you won't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

Offline Impish

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #34 on: November 14, 2006, 11:03:36 am »
Please sign this petition that protects our "first freedom" to choose our own religion or not choose a religion at all.

All of us, secular or religious, should want this first article of the Bill of Rights to be protected.

http://www.firstfreedomfirst.org/
Quote
If you won't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

Offline Shuggy

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 433
  • 1964 - 2006
    • The Ataahua Shop
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #35 on: November 14, 2006, 05:05:49 pm »
People following this thread may enjoy this.

Offline Impish

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #36 on: November 15, 2006, 06:28:25 pm »
The Washington Post and Newsweek have joined forces to create a website to discuss issues of faith and secularism.

The main page is here:  http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/

Sam Harris is one of their panelists who will keep a blog on the site, here:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2006/11/faith_and_an_undivided_world.html

Should be interesting!
Quote
If you won't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

Offline Impish

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
What's really important to the Christian Coalition?
« Reply #37 on: November 26, 2006, 08:22:05 pm »
Reverend Joel Hunter, in Florida, resigned his position as President Elect of the Christian Coaliton (CC), because he couldn't get the organization to care about poverty or the environment.

All the CC cares about is abortion and anti-gay rights.

PZ Myers mentions this here, and has a link to a newspaper article about it:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/priorities.php
Quote
If you won't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

Offline Impish

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #38 on: November 26, 2006, 08:33:54 pm »
A student was thrown out of college because of his atheist views.  Apparently, he is not allowed to discuss with another student her belief in....

leprechauns! 


No joke:

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=84436&category=22101
Quote
If you won't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

Offline Impish

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #39 on: November 26, 2006, 09:04:04 pm »
Quote
If you won't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

Offline Shuggy

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 433
  • 1964 - 2006
    • The Ataahua Shop
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #40 on: November 27, 2006, 05:03:47 am »
Julia Sweeney, comedienne, has released a CD of her famous "Letting Go of God" talks, and this webpage offers 3 samples from it:

On "Intelligent Design"  http://www.juliasweeney.com/letting_go_mini/audio4.html

That goes rather well with this, which I confess I may have posted on another thread.

Offline Ellemeno

  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • ********
  • Posts: 15,367
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #41 on: November 27, 2006, 05:58:55 am »
Julia Sweeney, comedienne, has released a CD of her famous "Letting Go of God" talks, and this webpage offers 3 samples from it:

On "Intelligent Design"  http://www.juliasweeney.com/letting_go_mini/audio4.html
On Deepak Chopra http://www.juliasweeney.com/letting_go_mini/audio3.html
On Santa Claus http://www.juliasweeney.com/letting_go_mini/audio2.html

You may have encountered Sweeney on "This American Life" who featured her in one of their most-popular episodes, "Godlessness in America."

I had the opportunity to see Julia perform this in LA last year (and then get to tell her how much all her monologues mean to me, yay!).  I highly recommend it.  I just ordered the CD, and I am certain it will be my husband's favorite Christmas present this year. 

LOL - Until I wrote that, I actually didn't realize how ironic a present it is to celebrate a religious holiday.

But really, Julia is brilliant, and I want to be her when I grow up.


Offline TexRob

  • Jr. Ranch Hand
  • **
  • Posts: 23
The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #42 on: December 06, 2006, 10:23:48 pm »
For some reason, I can no longer access the thread "Atheists: Come Out, Come Out, Wherever You Are."  My browser freezes if I try to post in it.

So I'm starting a new one, which I'm treating as a continuation of the first, beginning with a marvelous (and thought-provoking) Op-Ed piece from Sam Harris.

Enjoy.

I've thought about what the worse taboo is -- to be gay or to be atheist.  In the United States, I've concluded that at this point in our cultural development, being atheist is far worse.

As the Sam Harris article mentions, a big part of the problem centers on the issue of morality.  Many believers equate atheism with immorality, and many atheists seem to add fuel to that by implying that indeed, morality is not possible.

As a philosophical issue, the problem is one of conceptual clarity.  People, both believers and atheists, tend to jump into the discussion of atheism without first trying to define what they mean when they use an abstract term such as "morality."

As a practical problem, it's sometimes helpful when dealing with believers to remind them that it's possible to be atheist and still have a set of moral values.  I find that doing so often decreases the size of the soapbox people are willing to stand on in order to attack the conclusions of others.
 

Offline Shuggy

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 433
  • 1964 - 2006
    • The Ataahua Shop
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #43 on: December 07, 2006, 04:09:02 am »
Many believers equate atheism with immorality, and many atheists seem to add fuel to that by implying that indeed, morality is not possible.

There's a guy I'm constantly locking horns with here who keeps saying "But if there were no god, we'd have no way of saying that [eg Hitler] was evil." I have no problem saying that Hitler was evil without invoking any god, and in fact his whole argument implies that Hitler was evil without a god having to say so, or why would he use that example? (It looks a bit silly saying "If there were no god, we'd have no way of knowing that eating shellfish was an abomination.")

The fact is that religiousi use humanist criteria to decide which of their scriptures to take any notice of (eg Thou Shalt Not Kill vs Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Witch to Live) - except where the scriptures are in line with their prejudices (eg homophobia).

If not, they have the problem of "Is this evil because God says it is, or does God say it is because it really is?" In the first case, God is purely arbitrary/whimsical, so why should we take any notice? In the second, there is a higher law that God is following: why don't we go to that and eliminate the middlegod?

Offline TexRob

  • Jr. Ranch Hand
  • **
  • Posts: 23
The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #44 on: December 07, 2006, 01:13:05 pm »
There's a guy I'm constantly locking horns with here who keeps saying "But if there were no god, we'd have no way of saying that [eg Hitler] was evil." I have no problem saying that Hitler was evil without invoking any god, and in fact his whole argument implies that Hitler was evil without a god having to say so, or why would he use that example? (It looks a bit silly saying "If there were no god, we'd have no way of knowing that eating shellfish was an abomination.")

The fact is that religiousi use humanist criteria to decide which of their scriptures to take any notice of (eg Thou Shalt Not Kill vs Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Witch to Live) - except where the scriptures are in line with their prejudices (eg homophobia).

If not, they have the problem of "Is this evil because God says it is, or does God say it is because it really is?" In the first case, God is purely arbitrary/whimsical, so why should we take any notice? In the second, there is a higher law that God is following: why don't we go to that and eliminate the middlegod?

Sometimes it helps just to ask people like this what their starting point is, then make them stick to it.  Your friend seems to be engaging the question of good vs. evil in the middle, not by laying out the premises or axioms he's starting from.  You're within bounds to ask him what he's starting from in his reasoning.  Sometimes, this has a sobering effect on such people.

Socrates's question about whether it's good because God commands it or whether God commands it because it's good is thought-provoking for people for whom religion is the basis of all morality.   But believers often take so much for granted that everyone has a religion that they cannot conceive any other starting point than God, however His commands are justified. 

Humanism, in the sense that human needs are the starting point for moral discourse, is a relatively new development, but elements of it can be found even in ancient religious writing, as you pointed out.  As a result, it seems that believers will in one instance invoke God as the implicit basis of a moral conclusion (e.g., don't eat shellfish, faggot) and at other times implicitly invoke humanism.  They may not realize they're doing that.

Logically, they cannot switch their premises as they wish.  The commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill contradicts other examples in which God commanded exactly that.  So using the commandment to say that Hitler was evil would be a contradiction if what they mean is "evil in the eye of God."   We don't know what God's intent was, nor whether or not Hitler was fulfilling the will of God.  So he cannot be condemned from a rigourously religious point of view unless the person condemning Hitler also claimed to know the mind of God.   That, to me, would be the utmost arrogance, although the state of mind of such a person would have to be pretty interesting, to say the least.

To resolve the contradiction, they would have to concede that the commandment had a humanistic basis to it.  What they cannot do is switch back and forth between the two moral axioms as they wish.  That would be intellectual dishonesty. They have to argue from one starting point or the other. 

« Last Edit: December 07, 2006, 01:17:13 pm by TexRob »

Offline Shuggy

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 433
  • 1964 - 2006
    • The Ataahua Shop
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #45 on: December 09, 2006, 02:49:03 am »
Thank you, that is very clarifying. I'm not in a position to try to extact any sense from the guy (no friend of mine, arrogant little man) these days, we're inclined to get one letter each in the paper.

Offline Lynne

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,291
  • "The world's always ending." --Ianto Jones
    • Elizabeth Warren for Massachusetts
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #46 on: December 09, 2006, 03:49:22 am »
As a practical problem, it's sometimes helpful when dealing with believers to remind them that it's possible to be atheist and still have a set of moral values.  I find that doing so often decreases the size of the soapbox people are willing to stand on in order to attack the conclusions of others.

This is an excellent point, Robert, and one I try to make frequently with all the evangelicals in my own life.  It's frustrating that 'they' seem unable to accept that it's possiible to have a value system and personal ethics wiithout belief in a higher power.  I'm over-simplifying, but to me an intrinsic system of morality has a great deal more integrity than one based on the Ten Commandments or other religious doctrine.  The reason I think this is that the religious folks have what I consider a 'built-in' ulterior motive, i.e. heaven, afterlife, etc.  It should be sufficient to conduct yourself ethically and morally because it is the right way for human beings to treat each other.

I've said before that I waffle between atheism and agnosticism personally - it's like my scientific brain is in conflict with my idealistic, hopeful heart.
"Laß sein. Laß sein."

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Not so atheist
« Reply #47 on: February 02, 2007, 10:14:31 pm »
I'm a theist, not an atheist or agnostic, but am very atheist/agnostic friendly since I understand the POV exactly.

Strange thing happened today.  I was in the hospital, getting an upper GI endoscopy done for a problem I've been having.  While being admitted, during the questioning sequence - where you're told that anything they may do to you might kill you, but not to hold that against them - I was asked a very strange question.

"Do you have a religious preference?"

Being used to the workplace, I was startled to even be asked such a personal question.  I gave the older woman nurse/practitioner a strange look and replied honestly, "Pagan."

It was her turn to be startled and she looked at me and said "Really?"

I nodded and she said, "I don't think I've ever had anyone answer like that before."

She was being unintentionally rude, but I didn't take offense.

So then I asked why the hospital wanted to know such a thing.

The answer was, just in case something happened to me, the hospital might be able to notify or provide the appropriate clergy.

I shrugged.

Later, she got to the 'What do you do for a living?'

When I responded, she seemed relived, "Oh, that's why.  Having a job like that might not make you believe in the Creation."

  ??? ??? ???

I didn't say I was an atheist/agnostic.  I believe in a 'creation' just not a judeo/christian/islamo version.

Makes me wonder if she misunderstood what a pagan is, or if she just considered anyone who wasn't of her religious persuasion, a disbeliever, period.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2007, 01:48:53 pm by delalluvia »

Offline oilgun

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,564
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #48 on: February 06, 2007, 10:18:19 pm »
Many believers equate atheism with immorality, and many atheists seem to add fuel to that by implying that indeed, morality is not possible.
 

Richard Dawkins says that morality most likely pre-dated religion, that our moral sense has a Darwinian origin.  I've always thought that but it's nice when an expert explains how it all came about.

It's nice to see some other godless heathens, cheers!

Offline Shuggy

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 433
  • 1964 - 2006
    • The Ataahua Shop
Re: The Atheist Thread, Cont'd.
« Reply #49 on: February 17, 2007, 12:06:47 am »
I've been spending a lot of time at the Richard Dawkins website http://richarddawkins.net - and so have a lot of other people, apparently, it's getting very slow downloading. Lots of good stuff. A few nutters. Interestingly RD (as those of us call him who don't call him The Prof) engaged with Ted Haggard before he was exposed. TH was slimy about evoution and religion then, now he's too busy being slimy about homosexuality.

My gripe with RD is that he doesn't deal with the more sophisticated view of God expounded by the likes of Paul Tillich, only with the Creator/Designer (who he disposes of) and the Einsteinian God of Nature (who/which he leaves well alone). The Ground of all Being, for whom existence or non-existence is not meaningful, he doesn't consider. (It's hard to see how you can worship such a god, though.)