|
Huh? No no no. I'm an atheist. I'm just one of the quiet ones.Apologies, I made the mistake of saying christian in the religious vs atheist sense that it usually means christian specifically. What I mean is people that believe in a singular god, or what we D&D players might think of as an overdeity, but not the religions associated with monotheism. For example, they believe that there must be a god because even the big bang had to have some sort of cause, and other scientific or mathmatic reasons, but believe that religious texts are all just story books.Could make you a puffin, ya know. Stop lumping us with ducks!...and I know christians that believe in God, though not religion or the Bible because everything in the universe has to originate from a cause, all the way back to a single originator, a prime of some sort.If you call yourself a Christian and don't believe in Christ at the very least, you got issues. I might as well call myself a duck despite lacking feathers, webbed feet, egg laying reproduction or being a bird...
I made a mistake with the original post. What I meant to say was "...and I know people that believe in god (but not christians) , though not religion or the Bible because everything in the universe has to originate from a cause, all the way back to a single originator, a prime of some sort."
|
I made a mistake with the original post. What I meant to say was "...and I know people that believe in god (but not christians) , though not religion or the Bible because everything in the universe has to originate from a cause, all the way back to a single originator, a prime of some sort."Huh? No no no. I'm an atheist. I'm just one of the quiet ones.Apologies, I made the mistake of saying christian in the religious vs atheist sense that it usually means christian specifically. What I mean is people that believe in a singular god, or what we D&D players might think of as an overdeity, but not the religions associated with monotheism. For example, they believe that there must be a god because even the big bang had to have some sort of cause, and other scientific or mathmatic reasons, but believe that religious texts are all just story books.Could make you a puffin, ya know. Stop lumping us with ducks!...and I know christians that believe in God, though not religion or the Bible because everything in the universe has to originate from a cause, all the way back to a single originator, a prime of some sort.If you call yourself a Christian and don't believe in Christ at the very least, you got issues. I might as well call myself a duck despite lacking feathers, webbed feet, egg laying reproduction or being a bird...
Oh. I was just making a joke based on my screen name at James expense. ;)
Oh. I was just making a joke based on my screen name at James expense. ;)I made a mistake with the original post. What I meant to say was "...and I know people that believe in god (but not christians) , though not religion or the Bible because everything in the universe has to originate from a cause, all the way back to a single originator, a prime of some sort."Huh? No no no. I'm an atheist. I'm just one of the quiet ones.Apologies, I made the mistake of saying christian in the religious vs atheist sense that it usually means christian specifically. What I mean is people that believe in a singular god, or what we D&D players might think of as an overdeity, but not the religions associated with monotheism. For example, they believe that there must be a god because even the big bang had to have some sort of cause, and other scientific or mathmatic reasons, but believe that religious texts are all just story books.Could make you a puffin, ya know. Stop lumping us with ducks!...and I know christians that believe in God, though not religion or the Bible because everything in the universe has to originate from a cause, all the way back to a single originator, a prime of some sort.If you call yourself a Christian and don't believe in Christ at the very least, you got issues. I might as well call myself a duck despite lacking feathers, webbed feet, egg laying reproduction or being a bird...
Like you need an excuse to make a joke.:)
Yeah, I still gotta call Duck on the God but not Jesus people. They need to pick a different name. Like Ians. It's Christianity without Christ!
As for the others, them's just Thomas Jefferson-types. And we all know what happened with that whole "Let's Start Our Own Country" thing. Sheesh. ;)
Well, there are those who do not subscribe to Trinitarian theology as they consider it to be tritheism. There are others that want to make the distinction between the Father =/ the Son. And there are those that feel there shouldn't be a Holy Ghost in the equation.
I think it was John Shelby Spong that was pushing the theme of still 'believing' in Jesus but setting aside the God concept, but I haven't read anything by him from his most recent books -- but still when the concept was in its infancy.
|
With the "Religious Demographics in D&D" thread up in the Gamin/D&D forums growing a bit off-topic from demographics into discussion of actual religious concepts, I've decided to redirect down her for further discussion so as not to bog down that thread.
Some rules restated:
Messageboards FAQ wrote:
What are the messageboard rules?
Users who participate in our message boards agree to not: post any content that infringes and/or violates any patent, trademark, copyright, or other proprietary right of any third party; use profanity; make any bigoted, hateful or racially offensive statements; defame, abuse, stalk, harass or threaten others; advocate illegal activity or discuss illegal activities with the intent to commit them.
While Paizo Publishing does not pre-screen message content, Paizo Publishing does reserve the right to edit or remove submitted messages or material at any time. Paizo Publishing is not responsible for the content of messages submitted by users of the site. Users posting messages to the site automatically grant Paizo Publishing the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, sublicense, copy and distribute such messages throughout the world in any media.
Hopefully we can operate within these and have an adult conversation. If not...
Messageboards FAQ wrote:
How do I report an offensive or inappropriate post?
Send an email to webmaster@paizo.com.
Now, on to the discussion...in the aforementioned thread, Sebastian noted the following:
Sebastian wrote:
What if you've never heard of/been exposed to the bible? This is a slightly more academic question in our day and age, but there was a significant period of time in human history (say, 1500 years or so) where an entire hemisphere contained people who lived, grew old, and died without ever having seen the instructions contained in the bible to ensure their place in Heaven. Were they just screwed, and if so, how is that reconcilable with an all-knowing all-loving God? If they were capable of getting into heaven without knowing of the bible, doesn't that imply that there are alternate routes?
I just can't see how the one true path can be contained in a book which was not widely distributed for centuries and centuries.
To this, I mentioned the concept of Natural Law as it applies to Christian belief. This is, notedly, a topic of much debate among Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike. One can read up on this through people such as St. Thomas Aquinas and Richard Hooker. So, I figure I'll lay out some basics foundations of the conceot and we'll see where conversation flows from there.
One note, "Natural Law" (a law whose content is set by nature, and that therefore has validity everywhere) in this discussion is distinct from "law of nature" (a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior). Natural Law dates back at least to Greek philosophy, with folks like Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates. I'll let folks not familiar with Natural Law dig around a bit for more info, as it'd take forever to fully explain it here.
Instead, I'll focus on a particular passage of scripture that is typically the basis for discussion of Natural Law in relation to Christianity. Understand that I do not advocate pulling particular sections of any book out and using them in a vacuum, separate from the rest of the book. This means I make my own decisions on the meaning of a passage of scripture based on other scripture. So, this all said, I will first present the passage in question, for general reading and comment (emphasis mine):
Romans 2:1-16 New American Standard Bible wrote:
Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?
But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each person according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.
For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
and later:
Romans 3:19-4:17 New American Standard Bible wrote:
Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Where then is boasting? It is excluded By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."
Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
"BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.
"BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT."
Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.
For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.
For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, (as it is written, "A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU") in the presence of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.
We'll let that soak in, take any comments/questions, and go from there.
What would an atheist's testimony look like? My first thought was "no evidence, therefore no belief". But that's essentially a negation and I don't think that's what was sought. So an affirmation, then.
I'm no good at affirmations. I thought about it a bit in the shower and eventually this thing I wrote back in August came to mind.
When I was twelve or thirteen, I had a horrifying experience. I lay in bed, flat on my back and utterly unable to move. A figure made of absolute darkness came from the upper corner of my room, descending on me and seizing me. He shook me violently up and down. I was terrified. I later learned that this is sleep paralysis. Your mind wakes up enough for you to be aware while your body is still locked down for dreaming and thus you can't move. The hallucination is a common component.It happened again two nights ago. I was extremely comfortable and relaxed on my back, which is not my usual sleeping position, and slowly became aware that I was psuedoawake. I had a sensation of movement, like I was on a ferris wheel going around. I tried to move my arms and they did not respond. I had a sensation a bit like I was trying to gently push a house over: effort was being made but no chance it would matter. My eyes very slightly drifted open and my internal monologue ran something like this:
"Oh, sleep paralysis! It's been a while. Can't move. Sensation of motion. Yep, it's sleep paralysis. This is kind of fun. Whee."
Damn. I'd kind of like to do that again sometime, but I really do not sleep on my back very often at all.
|
|
The thing that I don't get, and that I see alot of on this board, especially recently is this: What is it about another person's lack of faith that threatens your own personal faith so terribly? Is it the idea that an alternative exists and the practitioners of that alternative aren't unhappy, bitter people who are obviously missing something in their lives? Does the fact of my unrepetent heresy make your faithfulness less valid?
First, I think it's an impression we have--that believers are threatened by our rationalism. In fact, I doubt many of them feel at all personally threatened, nor does our lack of belief in any way shake their own faith, rather makes it all the stronger I might think!
Second, there are, if I may generalize for just a moment, two chief tenants to Christianity and Islam: belief in Christ or Mohammad, respectively; and conversion of others to that belief.
In the case of Christianity, Christians are very specifically charged with the task to spread the Gospel, to proselytize and convert. Those who learn the 'Truth' and deny it, are very much condemned to Hell--it is, in fact, the only sin Christ declaims is 100% unforgivable.
I'm reluctant to speak on Islam, having very little practical knowledge of the faith, but as I understand it, Mohammad specifically commands that the incredulous be murdered (my word for the combative statement "put to the sword").
I honestly think this accounts for much of the fervor and occasional vitriol in arguments. Then again, I'm trying to rationalize the motives behind belief in the invisible...
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
In the case of Christianity, Christians are very specifically charged with the task to spread the Gospel, to proselytize and convert. Those who learn the 'Truth' and deny it, are very much condemned to Hell--it is, in fact, the only sin Christ declaims is 100% unforgivable.I'm reluctant to speak on Islam, having very little practical knowledge of the faith, but as I understand it, Mohammad specifically commands that the incredulous be murdered (my word for the combative statement "put to the sword").
I honestly think this accounts for much of the fervor and occasional vitriol in arguments. Then again, I'm trying to rationalize the motives behind belief in the invisible...
True. I always subscribed to the idea that a god who requires his creations to sing his praises is a little too self-involved for my tastes. I have enough dealings with self-involved people who require constant ego-scratching to want to deal with it for an eternity.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
What would an atheist's testimony look like? My first thought was "no evidence, therefore no belief". But that's essentially a negation and I don't think that's what was sought. So an affirmation, then.
I like the story. Very cool. Of course, you could easily see how a believer would ascribe a very different meaning to hsi experiences, too, which makes it even more interesting that you did not.
My own contribution would be:
You can't disprove existence, and no evidence exists for the existence of God. Until it does, I can't know and any claim anyone else makes as to absolute knowledge is a leap of faith and not reason. Therefore, I don't know if there is, or isn't a god. However, I intend to live my life by trying to be the best person I can be, in acts and words, and try to leave the world a better place. In the meantime, science, nature, the works of mankind and the art we have produced is more than sufficient to engender in me a sense of wonder and delight that fills my heart with awe and gladness. I mean, we walked on the Moon. We fly through the air in giant metal tubes on a regular basis and complain about how late they are?!? How cool is that?
I'm curious, so open question to the group:
What are your thoughts about religious tolerance? Is there such a thing? And should there be such a thing?
To a degree. I like to think of myself as mostly tolerant. The only one I really have issues with are those of fundamentalist religions. I have concerns that at its heart, fundamentalism is a relentless progression sinking deeper into intolerance and ignorance and if left unopposed, it will achieve its goals through self-prophetic means. These types of religious programs judge and measure according to their own pronouncements and oppose what should essentially be free will and the variety of what humanity offers. As an odd sense of being paradoxical, they carry out the duties by performing the very tasks that they attribute to their own concept of an Antichrist. The majority of fundamentalist religions leave no room for human frailty, for compassion, for forgiveness, or for creative freedom of thought. They take a path that can potentially return us to the days where blind belief was more important than farsighted discovery and where dogmatic views were more valued than the tolerant. Or to put it bluntly, it is akin to collecting the victims of the Nazi Holocaust as if they were cattle for a trip to the 'Promised Land'. Apocalyptic ideology is an anathema to me. It is a cancer to our civil liberties.
If I come across anyone of the mind set that feels a need to breed red heifers true, then that will tell me everything I need to know about the individual; that person isn't going to want to be my neighbor.
That said, there are atheists that respond fervently to such fears that they also can take upon the mantle of a fundamentalist mindset by feeling the need to stamp out any form or breadth of religion to the point that they become as monstrous as the monsters they believe they are trying to silence. And as a secular atheist, I cannot subscribe to that pogrom either because it also breeds wholesale intolerance.
So I guess it's safe to say that in basic terms (with a sense of irony), I am intolerant to fundamentalist ideology - whether religious or secular.
I believe that "intolerance" and "militant" are too highly subject to the Overton window to be glibly discussed.
I could go on, but you see where I'm headed with this.
One couterexample: Evolution by natural selection is supported by genetic and fossil evidence, and by direct observation in the lab. Intelligent Design is supported by an argument from incredulity. Yet we're often told to give them equal time and "teach the controversy," and if we don't, we're supposedly in favor of "censorship." Thankfully, the trial in Dover, PA, soundly thrashed this sort of lousy double standard, and left us with Evolution by natural selection. Note that there's no mention of whether God exists, or uses natural selection to His own ends -- those ideas are not in conflict with physical reality -- whereas Special Creation is.
|
|
I'm curious, so open question to the group:
What are your thoughts about religious tolerance? Is there such a thing? And should there be such a thing?
I think this is an Oscar Wilde quote:
"We should tolerate a man's belief in religion to the same extent we tolerate his belief that his wife is beautiful or his children smart."
If people's religion doesn't bother me, I don't bother them about it. If they try and make the law reflect their religion without any kind of reason behind it, just 'my religion says so' then I have more of a problem with it.
I believe that "intolerance" and "militant" are too highly subject to the Overton window to be glibly discussed.
For example, if a Christian or Muslim demands that less skin get shown on TV, it's considered "conservative." If the Pope says that secularism inevitably causes Nazism, he's "telling it like it is." In order to earn the epithet "militant," a religious believer generally must actually kill people, or attempt to do so. However, if an atheist like Dawkins says that he finds Catholocism to be astoundingly silly, he is "militant." No murder, nor violence of any kind, is involved. Can you really compare Hitchens with Bin Laden, using exactly equivalent language, and keep a straight face? Yes! People do. Because the word "militant" has wildly different definitions, depending on who it refers to.
Do I need to preface each word I say using a Clintonian definition starting with the word is? Yes, I agree that there's a difference between a Hitchens and a Bin Laden when using militant from a literal standpoint, but from a metaphorical ideological position, they're not as far from another as one would hope to believe.
On the other hand, if you replace Hitchens with Stalin and compare him to Bin Laden, then that addresses both the literal and metaphorical definition.
Now if you replace Bin Laden with Pat Robertson, then that covers the militant mindset as I was addressing.
Nitpicking semantics.
Do I need to preface each word I say using a Clintonian definition starting with the word is? Yes, I agree that there's a difference between a Hitchens and a Bin Laden when using militant from a literal standpoint, but from a metaphorical ideological position, they're not as far from another as one would hope to believe.
It's not "nitpicking semantics" when you use the same word interchangeably to mean "murder" or "express an opinion." And, mysteriously, it's always claimed to be "figurative" for atheists who dare to get uppity and express their opinion, but never, ever for people like the Pope. Convenient, that. As soon as I seriously hear Ben Stein popularly referred to as "militant," (in a figurative sense, of course, for EXACLTY the same reasons as Dawkins) I'll accept your argument.
Ideologically, when it comes to "converting" the religious to atheism, Hitchens replied, "I'd rather be walking my dog." And he doesn't even have a dog. There's no point of similarity between him and Bin Laden -- literal or idealogical -- except that they're both human males living concurrently.
It's not "nitpicking semantics" when you use the same word interchangeably to mean "murder" or "express an opinion." And, mysteriously, it's always claimed to be "figurative" for atheists who dare to get uppity and express their opinion, but never, ever for people like the Pope. Convenient, that.
Ideologically, when it comes to "converting" the religious to atheism, Hitchens replied, "I'd rather be walking my dog." And he doesn't even have a dog. There's no point of similarity between the two -- literal or idealogical -- except that they're both human males living concurrently.
That all depends on the individual who perceives whether one is using the words interchangeably. I don't know about your always for atheists and never for the Pope absolutisms, though. As you find no trouble pointing out, there's always exceptions. Convenient, that. ;-)
I do agree with Hitchens that I'd rather be walking the dog or flying a kite or picking lint out of my belly button than to "convert" or to "proselytize" the religious. However, he sure spends a lot of time in debates and writing books literally telling us how much he'd rather be doing those metaphorical actions. Ironic, actually.
I don't know about your always for atheists and never for the Pope absolutisms, though.
This is susceptable to evidence-based demonstration. Here's a simple experiment: find me citations of Ben Stein as "militant" (if any). If I can't find at least ten references of Dawkins as being "militant" for each of Stein's one, I'll eat my words.
I sincerely apologize to anyone I have offended in this thread. It was never my intent to insult or belittle. Also, if it felt like I was trying to convert anyone, that was never my intent either.
I don't know about your always for atheists and never for the Pope absolutisms, though.This is susceptable to evidence-based demonstration. Here's a simple experiment: find me citations of Ben Stein as "militant" (if any). If I can't find at least ten references of Dawkins as being "militant" for each of Stein's one, I'll eat my words.
Just ten? Why not a hundred? Or one? But I have a sense you're being purposefully arbitrary because from a literal point of view, you've already prepared for the answer.
You're using the Chewbacca defense. Trying to send me on a quest to chase down a McGuffin doesn't take away from my original position:
These types of religious programs judge and measure according to their own pronouncements and oppose what should essentially be free will and the variety of what humanity offers. As an odd sense of being paradoxical, they carry out the duties by performing the very tasks that they attribute to their own concept of an Antichrist.
Replace religious with atheist and Antichrist with religious person and you're doing essentially what I described. Interchangeable, that.
It's a shame we're now debating semantics, nuances, degrees, gradations, etc.; when you throw them out, it may be an easy concession to agree that with my original response to James Martin about my intolerance for fundamentalist religions, we're likely to share a similar stance. But the moment I decide to assign that to atheists sharing similar attitudes, then we depart.
It's ironic, actually. If some atheists were more amendable to their brethren with their views on toleration, we would be much more organized and mobilized to go head-to-head with those of a religious base to guide policy in order to improve the current world in which we live. Unfortunately, a number of us are too busy disagreeing about word semantics whether they're used literally, metaphorically, or interchangeably; accomplishing nothing.
But nitpicking.
We're no better if we do exactly what we complain that the evangelicals do when they comb through their bible and decide which to take literally and which to take metaphorically.
I am the sound of a one armed man clapping.
I sincerely apologize to anyone I have offended in this thread. It was never my intent to insult or belittle. Also, if it felt like I was trying to convert anyone, that was never my intent either.
Humility is the first great step to progress for both the believer and the non-believer. :)
You're using the Chewbacca defense.
No, that's the point -- I'm in no way threatening violence of any kind (much less ripping arms off, which is the only "Chewbacca defense" I can think of). Nor am I casting aspersions on anyone else's beliefs (except ones like Young Earth Creationism that contradict physical reality). Nor am I claiming in any way that people shouldn't be religious, or that religious peole should "convert" to atheism. None of that. But I don't have to do any of those things to be called "militant" -- all I have to do is point out a double standard.
Trying to send me on a quest to chase down a McGuffin doesn't take away from my original position
To quote your least favorite person: "What can be asserted without evidence..." As long as you'll concede that the words "militant" and "offensive" are, in fact, given totally different meanings depending on who we're referring to (since you won't bother to look for any actual evidence to the contrary).
You're using the Chewbacca defense.No, that's the point -- I'm in no way threatening violence of any kind, nor am I casting aspersions on anyone else's beliefs. I don't have to do any of that to be called "militant." All I have to do is point out a double standard. Unless there's some other "Chewbacca defense" I'm missing?
Google is your friend. Or Bing. Or Yahoo. They're interchangeable. It appears that you may have taken it a bit literally by translating the visual from the movies whereas I was using it to mean something different and unrelated.
I'm certain there's a Wikipedia entry.
Trying to send me on a quest to chase down a McGuffin doesn't take away from my original positionAs long as you'll concede that the words "militant" and "offensive" are, in fact, given totally different meanings depending on who we're referring to, which was my original point.
Quid pro quo to my original point. My concession depends on yours.
EDIT: it appears that you've since changed your original message (to which I'm now quoting).
Quid pro quo to my original point. My concession depends on yours.
Will I concede that for me NOT to try converting people is equivalent to proselytizing by the faithful? No.
Will I concede that advocating non-violence is militant? No.Will I concede that admitting my non-belief is exactly equivalent to attempts to use government to force belief on others? No.
Will I concede that teaching evolution is equivalent to "kicking God out of schools?" No.
Chewy defense
Thanks, CJ.
Urizen, I'm at a loss as to how that applies -- you claimed that "atheists are just as militant and fundamentalist as religious people," and I pointed out that those words are given totally different definitions, when applied to atheists vs. the religious. Which you denied, and refuse to look at examples.
To quote your least favorite person: "What can be asserted without evidence..." As long as you'll concede that the words "militant" and "offensive" are, in fact, given totally different meanings depending on who we're referring to (since you won't bother to look for any actual evidence to the contrary).
Who's my least favorite person? You brought up Hitchens into the context; not I. Second, I never said he was my least favorite person. Nor did I mention anything regarding any kind of favoritism (or lack thereof) to him.
Should I send you off on an Internet search quest to find where I said that? If I did, I'll eat my words.
See? Nitpicking.
Quid pro quo to my original point. My concession depends on yours.Will I concede that for me NOT to try converting people is equivalent to proselytizing by the faithful? No.
Will I concede that advocating non-violence is militant? No.
Will I concede that admitting my non-belief is exactly equivalent to attempts to use government to force belief on others? No.
Will I concede that teaching evolution is equivalent to "kicking God out of schools?" No.
Chewbacca defense.
Should I send you off on an Internet search quest to find where I said that? If I did, I'll eat my words.
Well, you did send me on an internet quest to look up your cutesy terms, but...
Yes, I agree that there's a difference between a Hitchens and a Bin Laden when using militant from a literal standpoint, but from a metaphorical ideological position, they're not as far from another as one would hope to believe.
Second least-favorite, then. I stand corrected. "Not that different from Bin Laden" isn't excactly a description of respect, unless of course you're a member of Al Quaida. Which I admit I'm making an assumption in thinking you're not.
Chewbacca defense.
Yes, I recognize and aknowledge that you keep repeating that, but unfortunately I still don't quite see how it applies. Please explain. What I'm seeing is this:
Urizen: "Chocolate is the same as vanilla."
Me: "They have different colors, and are flavored using different beans.
Urizen: "Chewbacca defense."
Second least-favorite, then. I stand corrected. "Not that different from Bin Laden" isn't excactly a description of respect, unless of course you're a member of Al Quaida. Which I admit I'm making an assumption in thinking you're not.
Nice exegesis. If you had said Dawkins, I would have used Dawkins. If you had said Harris, I would have used Harris. If you had said Dennett, I would have used Dennett. IIRC, you intorudced Hitchens into the conversation.
Can you really compare Hitchens with Bin Laden, using exactly equivalent language, and keep a straight face? Yes! People do. Because the word "militant" has wildly different definitions, depending on who it refers to.
So, explain to me how you came to the assumption that Hitchens was my 'least-favorite person' or 'second least-favorite'? Is this the interchangeable and/or totally different [meaning] depending on who we're referring to (since you won't bother to look for any actual evidence to the contrary) concept you were referencing about that I fail to grasp?
This whole Hitchens discussion? Chewbacca defense.
|
|
I think I've brought this up before, but it bears repeating in light of some of James Martin's recent posts:
Atheism is not the belief that gods don't exist. That's antitheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods.
The difference is small, but important. Antitheism is a negative statement, while atheism is the absence of a positive statement.
Also, it's important to realize that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. When it comes to religious belief, there is a chart similar to the alignment chart. One axis runs from gnostic to agnostic, and the other runs from theist to atheist.
Do you believe a god or gods exist? If you say yes, you're a theist. If you say no, you're an atheist.
Do you know whether a god or gods exist? If you say yes, you're a gnostic. If you say no, you're an agnostic.
These are yes or no questions. There is no in between, no "Neutral" alignment on each axis.
Understanding this distinction is what led me to actually call myself an atheist. I was under the misapprehension (a popular one) that all atheists were antitheists, or gnostic atheists.
I am an agnostic atheist - I don't believe that gods exist, but I don't know for an absolute fact that they don't. In a practical sense though, I might as well be a gnostic atheist. I'm 99.9% sure that gods don't exist, however, that number is close enough to 100% that it's pretty much identical in all practical senses.
tl;dr - What's colloquially referred to as "agnosticism" is actually a form of atheism (sometimes referred to as "weak atheism"). If you don't believe in god(s), you're an atheist, whether or not you're absolutely certain about your position.
Chewbacca defense.Yes, I recognize and aknowledge that you keep repeating that, but unfortunately I still don't quite see how it applies. Please explain. What I'm seeing is this:
Urizen: "Chocolate is the same as vanilla."
Me: "They have different colors, and are flavored using different beans.
Urizen: "Chewbacca defense."
Cute. :)
Cute. :)
Glad you liked it, but seriously, I am confused by the allegation. That quick analogy was as honest a version of what I'm seeing as I could come up with, and still make it brief.
I entered the discussion by asserting, as I continue to assert, that the words "militant" and "intolerant" are given different meanings when applied to atheists, vs. believers. Not "slightly different nuances," but completely different connotations.
If that's "nitpicking" to you, then so be it.
Understanding this distinction is what led me to actually call myself an atheist. I was under the misapprehension (a popular one) that all atheists were antitheists, or gnostic atheists.
I am an agnostic atheist - I don't believe that gods exist, but I don't know for an absolute fact that they don't. In a practical sense though, I might as well be a gnostic atheist. I'm 99.9% sure that gods don't exist, however, that number is close enough to 100% that it's pretty much identical in all practical senses.
tl;dr - What's colloquially referred to as "agnosticism" is actually a form of atheism (sometimes referred to as "weak atheism"). If you don't believe in god(s), you're an atheist, whether or not you're absolutely certain about your position.
I can relate to your agnostic atheist definition. If asked, I'd tell folks that I am a secular atheist, but a philosophical agnostic. I'm comfortable with saying that I do not believe in the existence of God in the parameters assigned to said deity as described in the three monotheistic religions. On the other hand, I cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a First Cause or a Prime Mover - whether that is singular, plural, or a classification that cannot be defined by the words we currently possess within our existing languages. I am open to ideas that there may be intelligent life out there as there is vast space and billions of stars and planets out there unaccounted for.
Until such proof reveals itself, I can comfortably go along with theories such as evolution and the Big Bang (as I admit there's no way I'm going to be sold on Intelligent Design or Creationism as both posits a God that conforms to their belief agendas). Even in of themselves, there are still some flaws or inconsistencies that need to be worked out. They may indeed prove to be right, or someone else may may get hit on the head with a different fruit fallen from the tree and come up with something that invalidates and/or advances ideas to the next stage; even as uncomfortable as it may first sound for those not prone to come to the conclusion that wielding Occam's razor brings.
I admit there's no way I'm going to be sold on Intelligent Design or Creationism
How intolerant of you! And how militant, to so brazenly declare your intolerance! ;P
|
|
I entered the discussion by asserting, as I continue to assert, that the words "militant" and "intolerant" are given different meanings when applied to atheists, vs. believers. Not "slightly different nuances," but completely different connotations.
I agree with this statement ^. > Pic related <
We need a recruiting poster:
"Atheism -- where vaguely annoying is the new militant."
RAWR!
Cute. :)Glad you liked it, but seriously, I am confused by the allegation. That quick analogy was as honest a version of what I'm seeing as I could come up with, and still make it brief.
I entered the discussion by asserting, as I continue to assert, that the words "militant" and "intolerant" are given different meanings when applied to atheists, vs. believers. Not "slightly different nuances," but completely different connotations.
It's only because you choose to see it as completely different connotations. You're wanting to use a tiny brush to detail paint miniatures whereas I used the words in what you feel may be too broad of a brushstroke because you're uncomfortable with it. You want to pigeon hole me to your specific set parameters of how you want to choose those words to be used and defined to a certain class / group of individuals because you disagree with the context.
I choose not to. And I don't believe I am in error.
It is really as simple as that.
What I think you are reaching at straws for is you want to define militant to be something more specific as in a physical enactment of violence based on an ideology. You want to narrow it down.
militant 1. feeling or displaying eagerness to fight <political radicals with a militant unwillingness to compromise on any issue>
Synonyms aggressive, agonistic, argumentative, assaultive, bellicose, brawly, chippy, combative, confrontational, contentious, discordant, disputatious, feisty, gladiatorial, militant, pugnacious, quarrelsome, scrappy, truculent, warlike.
intolerant 1. unable or unwilling to endure <intolerant of fools, she is not an easy person to work for>
Synonyms impatient. Related words uncompromising, unforgiving, unyielding; complaining, fussing, griping, grumbling, kvetching, protesting, squawking, whining.
Do you see any synonyms that you would prefer? Personally, I kind of like kvetching.
And as for "Chocolate is the same as vanilla": it is when you're blind to color or dull to taste; if you want to be literal. But it is awesome that our English language also allows to use such phrases in the sense of a simile and a metaphor.
I am walking the dog. Let the wookie win.
If that's "nitpicking" to you, then so be it.
We agree on that point. I concede.
I admit there's no way I'm going to be sold on Intelligent Design or CreationismHow intolerant of you! And how militant, to so brazenly declare your intolerance! ;P
You got me. I intentionally put in that bennie just for you, Kirth. ;P
We need a recruiting poster:
"Atheism -- where vaguely annoying is the new militant."
RAWR!
Oh, I don't think there's anything vague going on here. ;P
There are militant atheists as there are militant believers.
Or, as they're most often used: there are "militant" (outspoken) atheists, just as there are militant (violent) believers.
If it had no effect, I'd agree with you that it's a meaningless nitpick. But I don't think that's the case, because it's increasingly being used as a very overt way of demonizing an out-group.
To flip it around, look at examples of where a man's aggressive and domineering behavior is used as evidence that he's a "real man" -- but the same behaviors in a woman are said to mean that she's a "total b&&#@." You could look at the Civil Rights Movement as well, and reference the offensive term "uppity." In both cases, a double standard is applied to the language, in order to keep the minority group from vocally claiming equal rights.
Words are not meaningless, nor do they have no effect. If we, as a society, selectively and pervasively use negative terms to describe the same behavior in atheists that evoke positive or neutral terms for believers -- and if we use the same terms to refer to neutral behavior in atheists as are used to refer to horrific behavior in believers -- then we perpetuate the subconscious "truth" that atheists are evil, immoral, and in all ways less than believers.
Until every person who admits to being a Christian is identified as "strident" or "militant," then there's no reason to refer to every atheist who admits to disbelief as somehow fitting those terms.
Oh, I don't think there's anything vague going on here. ;P
Oh, I'm personally blatantly annoying. I was trying to avoid tarnishing Kirth's reputation.
I was trying to avoid tarnishing Kirth's reputation.
Associating with the likes of Sebastian has already tarnished it beyond redemption. :)
But, seriously, people who speak out for equal treatment of any minority group are always VERY annoying to staunch defenders of the status quo. I annoy the HELL out of people who prefer the "default" value of religious privilege. How DARE I to question it?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Or, as they're most often used: there are "militant" (outspoken) atheists, just as there are militant (violent) believers.
If it had no effect, I'd agree with you that it's a meaningless nitpick. But I don't think that's the case, because it's increasingly being used as a very overt way of demonizing an out-group.
To flip it around, look at examples of where a man's aggressive and domineering behavior is used as evidence that he's a "real man" -- but the same behaviors in a woman are said to mean that she's a "total b@!~&." You could look at the Civil Rights Movement as well, and reference the offensive term "uppity." In both cases, a double standard is applied to the language, in order to keep the minority group from vocally claiming equal rights.
Words are not meaningless, nor do they have no effect. If we, as a society, selectively and pervasively use negative terms to describe the same behavior in atheists that evoke positive or neutral terms for believers -- and if we use the same terms to refer to neutral behavior in atheists as are used to refer to horrific behavior in believers -- then we perpetuate the subconscious "truth" that atheists are evil, immoral, and in all ways less than believers.
Until every person who admits to being a Christian is identified as "strident" or "militant," then there's no reason to refer to every atheists who admits to disbelief as somehow fitting those terms.
I agree.
I respect everyone's right to have an opinion, and to voice it without fear of violence or reprisal. However, I do not respect everyone's opinion -- how could I? Some people hold opinions (religious and otherwise) that are demonstrably false -- and occasionally abhorrent.
And so If someone believes something that isn't supported by data, I'm going to call it like I see it. I don't particularly care what *it* is -- belief that you're George Washington, belief in God, etc. Irrational is irrational. I'm just not willing to pretend in order to protect someone's feelings.
On the other hand, I would never engage in or endorse violence or discrimination against anyone for their beliefs. Ever. Stop trying to legislate your religion into my life and we're good. Live and let live.
Does that make me insensitive? Probably. But I don't believe it makes me militant or intolerant.