BBO Discussion Forums: school in Connecticut - BBO Discussion Forums

I am an atheist, and I am also anti-religious.

When I read fluffy’s post, I thought it was silly and ill-informed, but I wasn’t personally offended.

I fully support Mikeh’s reply, even though I did not share his angry reaction.

However, I disagree with the accusations of bigotry made by Cthulhu D and MBodell, and their suggested “substitutions” to demonstrate why Fluffy’s statement was bigotry. I do not equate atheism with race or sexual identity. Saying that I am an atheist describes a choice I have made. It says something about how I think, and perhaps even implies a greater than average degree of rationality.

That said, ascribing characteristics to an individual, simply because they are part of a group in which such characteristics are prevalent, is not something I approve of. As a rule, I abhor all stereotypes and generalizations.

Still, some of them make more sense than others do, and not all are bigotry..

To me, Fluffy’s assertion is actually plausible on the surface. After all, isn’t one of the main reasons men invented gods to get people to “behave?” If there were not so much evidence to the contrary, it might seem logical to accept that people who don’t believe in any god, are less likely to “behave.” Fortunately, there is indeed much evidence to the contrary.

Edit: As a mother and a human, I find it unbearable to focus on what actually happened. So debating the semantics of the use of the word bigotry is a distraction, but now strikes me as unseemly. Please forgive the insensitivity of implying that what happened was a failure of someone to "behave." I wasn't thinking.

Helene,

When I lived in NY, I attended several meetings of NYC Atheists. There were some lectures and discussions I found quite interesting.

Their mission statement is as follows:

NYC Atheists Inc. is a non-profit, non-partisan, educational association with the purposes/goals:

To promote total and absolute separation of church and state.
To educate and inform the public about atheism.
To provide a forum for examination and discussion about atheism.
To develop and engage in educational, cultural, charitable, and social activities that are beneficial to the members of NYC Atheists Inc., the atheist community, and the community at large.

If you'd like to know more about what they do, check out:
http://www.nyc-atheists.org/drupal5/

kenberg, on 2012-December-18, 06:42, said:

The quote uses religion and I think that is one of two common dogmas, to use your word. The second being nationalism/tribalism/patriotism (which can be intertwined with religion). I think those two count for the vast majority of what that quote gets to. IF you want to argue we should include traditionalism and patriarchy (which are often interrelated to the first two above) I guess I wouldn't quibble, but I think it is a trap to get into false equivalency with all possible "dogmas".

barmar, on 2012-December-18, 10:35, said:

What gets me is that Christianity (along with other religions) teaches us that the mind of God is unknowable. That being the case, where do these idiots get off claiming to know it?

debrose, on 2012-December-18, 14:00, said:

It's just wrong though. On average, atheists are less likely to commit crimes though they are more likely to commit suicide. Fluffy's comments are just blinked bigotry. It's worth getting to the root cause here though - atheism or religion isn't what causes you to commit crimes, it's how well educated you are, which is mostly a function of how much money your parents earned. Better educated people are more likely to be atheists.

Fluffy is just making ridiculous attacks that are completely unsubstantiated by any evidence.

billw55, on 2012-December-18, 07:23, said:

Rational and reasoned critiques based on evidence are not bigoted. Fluffy's statement was bigoted.

When I read Mikeh's posts I am always conscious that he speaks from the heart and I feel that I share his pain. This is a tribute to his ability to persuade but there is a dark side. I also feel that he sometimes twists the truth to help his arguments.

On a personal appeal to Mikeh, and a fortiori to his acolytes, you seem to go beyond atheism to anti-theism. In other words can we not respect believers while disagreeing with their beliefs.

On a less emotive but potentially more productive note, I cannot see where religion or a lack thereof had anything to do with Adam Lanza's massacre. Surely we should examine:

1) mental illness
2) availability of weapons
3) parental authority and inculcation of self discipline
4) isolation and lack of peer interaction
5) the neurotic and violent culture of our time?

And as a final peeve, why do we ascribe superior intelligence to any totally inadequate person who kills for no good reason. It is becoming a cliche, like the serial killer "who seemed a nice bloke although he kept to himself"

Personally, I don't understand how people can be "fanatic atheists". Essentially being an atheist is about not being something. I am not an airline pilot, I am not playing piano and I don't even come close to speaking Swahili. How could anybody say that I am a fanatic non Swahili speaker?

The second point about atheism is the "Live and let live" attitude. How can it matter to you what other people believe? As an atheist, you know there is no proof for any believe, not even for atheism (just that the absence of a god is logically more likely than the presence of one). To me that means that you let people believe whatever they want to.

I do understand how atheists can be fanatic about reducing the impact of other people's religion on their own lives (e.g. laws based on religion, such as mandatory Sunday store closing, forbidding same sex marriages or euthanasia) or a third person's live (e.g. in the discussion about circumcision).

Rik

Cthulhu D, on 2012-December-18, 21:53, said:

Pot.. kettle.. black.

Rik

Scarabin, on 2012-December-18, 22:38, said:

I take no offence but would be interested in knowing which truths I twisted. I assure you that I did not knowingly twist any truth, but it is always possible that I got facts wrong through ignorance or misinformation.

As for respecting believers, I know a few people of faith for whom I have, in all other aspects of their lives, a great deal of respect. None of them are fundamentalist. They are intelligent, caring people.

They know my feelings on religion and we don't discuss it. My personal opinion is that they are believers only because they were raised that way and thinking about it, in sufficient depth to understand what it is that they believe, has never been important to them. I may well be in error, but I think that they just don't see the question as important. Church, prayer, etc is just a part of their way of life, with which they are comfortable and they probably think that I think too much.

The people I don't respect are the preachers, the priests and ministers who spout such arrant and obvious nonsense whenever interviewed about some horrible incident, and the idiots who parrot their stupidity. For example, a couple of years ago a bus driver fell asleep driving a tour group of seniors, and their minister, in Switzerland. The bus crashed, with a lot of deaths and a number of injured survivors. On the news broadcast about the tragedy, members of the church group who had not gone on the trip said things such as that god must have been looking out for the survivors, since it was a terrible crash that might have killed everyone.

Wtf???? So god intervened to limit the survivors' pain and suffering to a variety of serious injuries while allowing others, apparently at random, to die in terror and pain????

No doubt many ministers have already suggested that the parents of children at Sandy Hook elementary, who survived, give thanks to their wonderful god who spared the lives of those children. Such people are beneath contempt.

And then we see the evil of the US god-fearing politicians and money-grubbing evangelicals attributing Hurricanes and Storms, that killed hundreds and wiped out the life savings of thousands, to a lack of appreciation of their god.

I'm supposed to respect them? Or the people who give them support?

Or the people they fleece to line their own pockets?

And don't get me started on that evil man, the Pope. The man who played a key role in the orchestrated coverup of multiple sex crimes. The man who has caused the death of many thousands and the orphaning of thousands more by condemning the use of condoms in AIDS-afflicted areas of the world.

Sorry....asking me to respect people like that seems a bit much.

I have no respect for them or for people who strongly support them. These people are not merely unfortunate people who should be ignored. They actively add to the terrible cost of things that go wrong. They actively prevent or obstruct behaviours that would minimize or mitigate disasters. Who would give money to relief efforts for Katrina or Sandy if they believed that the victims had it coming due to their lifestyle?

Or who would wear a condom, and prevent their wife catching AIDS if told that contraception is a sin that imperils you for eternity?

Now, Fluffy, whose post started this aspect of the thread, has not given evidence that he is one of those people, and I am certainly not going to infer or suggest that he is. Which is why I made a point of expressng my respect for him, while still calling him out on a stupid statement. I have made and will probably yet make enough stupid statements that I can hardly insist that we treat him as an outcast or asshole just because of one statement, no matter how angry it made me initially.

There are, I think, many believers who are troubled by many of the aspects of religion that trouble me. Mycroft, who has posted here, seems to be one such. My friends, those who are believers, are troubled by many of the same things, but they seem content to let it slide for reasons that escape me. I respect such people, while disagreeing with them.

Trinidad, on 2012-December-18, 23:16, said:

Sam Harris, one of the most outspoken (and in my opinion well-spoken) atheists of our time, tried in his first book, "The End of Faith" to downplay the term atheist. He made similar points to yours above.

However, I don't think non-belief in God is comparable to any of your examples above. The simple reason is that I live in a society where nobody assumes I am an airline pilot, that I play the piano, or that I speak Swahili. Almost nobody would have a problem with the fact that I do none of those things. Yet the majority of the U.S. population not only believes in the Judeo-Christian God, they assume others do. Our currency says "In God We Trust." Schoolchildren recite a pledge of allegiance to a flag, which include the words, "One nation, Under God" There is a consensus that professed belief in God is a prerequisite to any high elected office (certainly the presidency).

People who recognize my name as Jewish have often made assumptions, such as what holidays I'd be celebrating, or that my son would have a "Bar Mitzvah".
My son has often been asked what his religion is, with an implication that he is part of one. When on occasion he told kids in school that he didn't believe in God, he heard things such as "You will go to hell." Nobody says that about not playing the piano (well, perhaps a few music teachers have) This is true even though I've spent my life in very liberal parts of the country. I know enough to easily imagine what an outcast I would be in most of the U.S.

Non-belief in God is a big deal to many, whether we atheists want it to be or not. If some people want to devote much of their lives to working towards eventually changing this, perhaps they indeed need to act in ways that cause others to consider them "fanatic atheists"

Cthulhu D, on 2012-December-18, 21:53, said:

Please read what you are writing. Fluffy wrote one line about atheism-religion. This is his entire post:

Fluffy, on 2012-December-16, 16:10, said:

He is voicing an opinion. He even writes "IMO". He is not attacking anybody. He offers two plausible reasons why these kind of killings seem to increase in frequency ("more people means more crazy people" and "overpopulation will lead to disproportionally more crazy people"). Then he adds a lose thought, an opinion about increasing atheism (which BTW should be interpreted in the context in which Fluffy wrote it: Spain where more and more people are leaving the catholic church and its morals, turning into "non-believers" or "not convinced" rather than an increase in expressed, explicit atheism).

He merely thinks / believes that increasing atheism is not helping. His logic even seems to make sense: it is based on the idea that it would help to have religions that have rules, one of them saying specifically that you shouldn't kill anyone.

This is not a "ridiculous attack that is completely unsubstantiated by any evidence". It is an opinion that is backed by logic. Now, the logic may be wrong. It may even be very wrong. It may even be worth to point out how wrong the logic is, like Mike did, but that still doesn't make Fluffy's post a "ridiculous attack".

Do you seriously think that Fluffy's post warrants your aggressive reaction? And what do you think it will achieve? Do you think Fluffy will leave his church because of your reaction? Or do you think that atheists will be better respected because of it?

Rik

mikeh, on 2012-December-18, 23:27, said:

Thanks for your calm and reasoned reply.

I know you have said that Hitler was a Christian. I find it hard to believe that you mean this seriously. When I queried this before you referred me to a group of authors who do not seem to support your assertion in any way.

As regards God intervening to punish the wicked I think Luke 13: 1 to 5, contradicts this.

My experiences and my culture may differ from yours but I expect to respect people as human beings and even to respect, but not share, their beliefs. In other words I object to your use of derogatory epithets to express your contempt for those who disagree with you. I think this is going too far.

Scarabin, on 2012-December-19, 00:42, said:

Hitler was not what one might today call a mainstream christian, and it does appear that his attachment to the church 'evolved' especially later in life. However, as one example, in 1934 he gave a speech in which he portrayed Christ as a militant anti-semite, and for a long period he seems to have espoused a form of christianity that was stripped of its jewish roots.

He made many positive references to christianity in his pursuit of power. It appears that whether one would define him as a christian depends on how broadly one views that term. I can see and respect a view that excludes him, but my view would see him as a christian for much of his life, including much of his time as a nazi, albeit definitely a non-mainstream christian.

btw, I don't 'feel contempt for those who disagree with me'. I assure you I feel no such emotion towards you, as one rather recent example of someone who disagrees with me

Fanatical or committed atheist is indeed a strange thing to call someone. Yet there are groups of friends who almost invariably end up discussing (or mocking) religion, and not in the context of separation of church and state. I admit to having such behaviour from time to time (although I find most of these discussions kind of repetitive) and it's kind of tricky to explain my views on religion/churches without at least appearing conceited and offensive. I wish I could articulate myself 1/10th as well as e.g. Sam Harris (OK he is also considered offensive by some) when it comes to this. Of course another way to go about is saying that 'It's offensive!' is a meaningless whine that is best ignored, and that is an interesting stance but not one that will be shared by enough people any time soon.

debrose, on 2012-December-18, 23:51, said:

You are of course very right about all this. It would certainly be a good idea to increase the separation between church and state, just because it is right and atheists are people (or tax payers) too. The US is a place where it still matters what your religion is and it would be good to stand up against that irrespective of your religion (or non-religion).

I wrote my post from my comfortable position in The Netherlands where my religion is irrelevant and where the traditional pledges when someone is sworn into office are optional: If someone is religious he can use a pledge with "God Almighty", but he can also make a "sincere promise". The currency of my country used to say something similar to "In God We Trust" ("God met ons": "God with us" on the edge of some coins). It disappeared when the Euro came. I was never bothered by it. I just recognize that it was a remnant of an age where everybody was religious and since religion was the reason the country was founded to begin with it made sense back then. The problem in the US is that "In God We Trust" is not a fossile, but that many/most people believe it. On occasion I have pointed out that it is the same as "Allahu Akhbar".

debrose, on 2012-December-18, 23:51, said:

I, as an adult, can shrug my shoulders if that happens to me. If people tell me that I will go to hell I can't really be bothered with that: I don't believe hell exists, so how could I end up there?

You cannot expect your son to just shrug his shoulders, so some action from your side might be called for which indeed might be construed as "fanatic atheism". Perhaps it is good to realize, though, that your son's remark about not believing in God might have been just as shocking to the other kid. He might not have been able to just shrug his shoulders either when he hears something as shocking as "I don't believe in God.". What both kids need to learn is how to deal with differences between people. Growing up might just do that and it will certainly help if the parents would recognize and respect the differences too.

Rik

Some people in this thread need to make more of an effort to see things from the other side's perspective. There are plenty of intelligent and reasonable people who believe in god. I don't agree with them but am aware I could be wrong.

I actually thought Fluffy was referring to the guy killing himself at the end. An atheist would think they could avoid punishment by doing that but a religious person probably wouldn't.

Mikeh blamed religion for a whole list of things. But when Fluffy suggested atheism might be a factor in the shooting, he went off about "religious nuts, who blame people like me for things like this". Anyone who cannot see the problem here needs to seriously stop and take a breath.

Religion often gets dragged into disputes that are really about something else. Israel/Palestine and Sunni/Shia are prime examples of that. For most of history, nearly everyone was religious, so of course people would try to claim god was on their side, no matter what the actual argument was about. If you look at the period since atheism became widespread, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot are among the worst mass murderers, even without including Hitler.

Not that this makes atheists like me any less moral than anyone else. But I won't be getting up on my high horse any time soon.

mikeh, on 2012-December-18, 23:27, said:

And what about the believers that were not raised in the church? Those who found their beliefs as adults, of their own free will? I know many. Chances are, you do also. How do you explain them away?

You revel in calling out the many shortcomings of religions and the people that follow them. But what about the successes? What about the good done by religion - the charity, the everyday kindness, that is spread by a great many believers? For every idiot minister that blames hurricanes on homosexuality, there are probably 10,000 that offer prayer and compassion and aid. (Those aren't exciting enough for TV or internet news though). For every abusive priest there is a Mother Teresa.

I just don't see it as one-sided as you do. It's not that your facts are wrong. They just aren't the whole story.

billw55, on 2012-December-19, 07:16, said:

Not sure whether you want to chose Mother Teresa as your counter example.

http://en.wikipedia....ionary_Position

I left religion in my early adolescence. It is a tumultuous time of life for many, and it was for me. Looking back I regard it as a mix of my growing rational approach to the world and a lot of emotional stuff. It was difficult to do, somewhat terrifying in fact, because hell was presented as a very real place. I believe I have mentioned this before, but anyway after my confirmation into the church the pastor took me aside and explained that it was now my responsibility to get my parents into church so that they wouldn't roast in hell.

As an adult, I have settled comfortably into my view that the supernatural aspects of religion simply are very unlikely to be true. The religious teachings that we are all God's children, or preferably that no man is an island, I regard as important. While it is true that an atheist is free to reject any responsibility to others, I have noticed that more than a few religious people seem to find ways to reject it as well. At least if you observe their actions rather than depend on what they say.

I have seen it argued that we must believe in God because the alternative is chaos. Dostoyevski, I guess, argued that way, and more recently there was a column by Michael Gerson along these lines. I see it more as that we must find a way out of the chaos without God for the simple reason that there isn't one. But I also think that few of us could completely justify all of our beliefs with rigorous mathematical logic, and so in the meantime we should appreciate good will where we find it.

There are good people who are religious, there are bad people who are religious, and the same among atheists/agnostics and almost any belief/not group you could name. What I object to is any supposition that "because I'm in this belief system, I'm likely to be better than you" and "because my religion says we should do something, everybody should do it, even if you don't believe my religion".

Organised religion is often more about power and money than anything else. If you look at many "beliefs" or scriptural interpretations they are tempered by pragmatic considerations. If you look at many "religious" conflicts they're actually much more about worldly things.

Why do Christians eat pork when the other old testament religions don't ? Well officially the answer is something like that Jesus said that no food is unclean, it's what you are not what you eat that matters. In reality, people liked eating pork and it was a good marketing move to remove something that put the pagans off joining. The Leviticus dietary laws were in many ways little more than common sense pre refrigeration food hygiene.