Something I think bares reading.

[Hyena Dandy]

http://www.cracked.com/article_15759...-agree-on.html

There are very high tensions on these forums recently. I stopped replying because I felt that the atmosphere on the religion forum was simply too... Angry... And I felt there was a total lack of respect from both sides, in a way that just ended up with people feeling either hurt, or smug and superior. That's not something I like, but... Well, I posted this because I think its a link that ought to be read, and kept in mind whenever discussing religion.

[Andara Bledin]

Thanks for the link.

I enjoyed the reading.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

To begin with, I'd like to point out that the linked blog post / article is written by a moderate Christian who would like to think that he understands the atheistic viewpoint, when, in fact, he does not.

I'll go through his suggestions, briefly. As you'll see, I agree with about half of them.

1. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One
Actually, no. Atheism has no tenets, no dogma, nothing that would tell someone what to do or how to do it. Atheism is a position on a single point: whether a god exists. Anything else is in addition to that. Therefore, nothing can ever be done in the name of atheism.

2. Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're Saying
This I agree with.

3. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different
Generally speaking, I agree with this, too.

4. There Are Good People on Both Sides
Generally, I agree with this also. I believe that people are good or evil independent of their religion, or lack thereof. However, it takes religion to make a good person do evil things.

5. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them
No. I am not offended that anybody is a Christian. What somebody believes in the privacy of their own minds makes no difference to me. It is only when they want me to agree with them, or even remain silent when they state their beliefs as if they were the truth, that I have a problem with it. But I'm not offended simply because of somebody's private point of view.

Nor do I think anybody should be offended because I don't agree with their beliefs.

6. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy
Exaggeration is not so much of a problem as misrepresentations of another's views, such as claiming that atheism is "a belief that no gods exist," as has been done on fratching many times.

7. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too
This one is not supported in the article. There are Christians who believe the Bible is literal truth. And the caricature of an atheist is right that religion has destroyed civilizations and killed billions. There's no exaggeration there.

8. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid
It's interesting here that the author's most negative example of a Christian is Fred Phelps, when I certainly would have chosen the pope. The reason why I would chose the pope is that he has direct influence over the lives of his followers, who number in the millions, while hardly anybody takes Phelps seriously. Also of note is that his most negative example of an atheist is Hitler, who certainly was a Christian.

9. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table
The author does not mention a single good thing that religion has produced that couldn't be produced without religion.

"The truth has to be somewhere in between."

No, the truth doesn't have to be somewhere in between. There doesn't always have to be a compromise. Sometimes, one side is just wrong.

10. You'll Never Harass the Other Side Out of Existence
The intent is not to force people to give up their religion. The intent is to make the environment hostile towards the meme of religion. To let theists know that we won't stand by while they try to put religious texts on courthouse lawns. That we won't stand by while they try to get their religion taught in public classrooms. That we won't stand by while they try to enact laws that define marriage based on their holy book. That's not harassment, that's self-defense.

So, all in all, I don't see the article doing much to close the rift between theism and atheism. As long as there are vocal theists trying to force others to act as if they believe the same as they do, there will be vocal atheists opposing them.

[Ipecac Drano]

Something I Think Bears Reading.

Interesting article, but the author is painting both sides with too broad of a brush.

[AdminAssistant]

8. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid
It's interesting here that the author's most negative example of a Christian is Fred Phelps, when I certainly would have chosen the pope. The reason why I would chose the pope is that he has direct influence over the lives of his followers, who number in the millions, while hardly anybody takes Phelps seriously. Also of note is that his most negative example of an atheist is Hitler, who certainly was a Christian.

9. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table
The author does not mention a single good thing that religion has produced that couldn't be produced without religion.

"The truth has to be somewhere in between."

No, the truth doesn't have to be somewhere in between. There doesn't always have to be a compromise. Sometimes, one side is just wrong.

10. You'll Never Harass the Other Side Out of Existence
The intent is not to force people to give up their religion. The intent is to make the environment hostile towards the meme of religion. To let theists know that we won't stand by while they try to put religious texts on courthouse lawns. That we won't stand by while they try to get their religion taught in public classrooms. That we won't stand by while they try to enact laws that define marriage based on their holy book. That's not harassment, that's self-defense.

I agree with most of what Ghel said, but these last 3 especially. I believe the article also mentions Stalin as an example of an atheist who has wrecked havoc. But Stalin didn't do what he did to further atheism. He did what he did to further his own power and because he was a homicidal fucknut. As far as charity goes, I no longer give to any charities associated with religion. First of all, I don't want part of that money spent on proselytizing. Second of all, I disagree with religious institutions being granted tax exempt status. There's a growing number of charities out there that have nothing to do with religion.

As to the last point, fundamentalist Christians are trying to take over American society, to the point of altering history books and having religious ideology taught in science class. Dictating who can and cannot have full rights based on their twisted version of a 'holy' book. Not only should atheists and agnostics be speaking out against this, but reasonable religious people should be as well. As I've said before, if someone really, really wants to live in a misogynist theocracy, I hear Iran is lovely this time of year.

[Ipecac Drano]

I believe the article also mentions Stalin as an example of an atheist who has wrecked havoc. But Stalin didn't do what he did to further atheism. He did what he did to further his own power and because he was a homicidal fucknut.

True, that. I laugh my ass off when someone uses Stalin, Mao, et al., as examples of "Atheism Out of Control!!!".

I disagree with religious institutions being granted tax exempt status.

I've always felt (even when I was a practicing Xtian) that if religious institutions can have a voice on political issues that they should also pay taxes.

[smileyeagle1021]

So, all in all, I don't see the article doing much to close the rift between theism and atheism. As long as there are vocal theists trying to force others to act as if they believe the same as they do, there will be vocal atheists opposing them.

This more than anything defines the conflict, until vocal theists (such as Phelps) back down, the rest of us will be forced to continue the fight for self preservation. I support atheism because atheism unlike theism poses no risk to my life (theism taken to its extreme would have me executed in the street... not that I think most theists would call for it, speaking of Hitler, Germany has proven just how easy it is for what starts as a small minority to take control and wreak havoc).

Interesting article, but the author is painting both sides with too broad of a brush.

broad brush paintings can still be useful, you may not be able to get a good idea of what the true picture is, but at least you have a rough guide of what the picture might look like... of course you have to understand going into it that it isn't a precise image for it to be useful.

As far as charity goes, I no longer give to any charities associated with religion. First of all, I don't want part of that money spent on proselytizing.

I really pissed off a Salvation Army guy at Sam's Club the other day for this very reason, he was asking for donations, I asked what the money would go to and he replied it would go to buy food for the homeless. I told him that I would get a few extra cases of food while I was inside Sam's Club, could he please provide me with the drop off location for the food bank they would be contributing to. He couldn't tell me where the food would be going, just trust him it was going to go to food. I told him in that case, since there was no way to guarantee that the money I was giving him would be going solely to purchasing food and could be instead used for overhead expenses which supports a management whose policies I don't agree with, I would go ahead with my original plan to purchase an extra carton or two of food and take it to the nearest food bank.
Actually I've gotten that way with a lot of charities, even the ones I like, if I am going to donate, I ask what they need and buy it myself and donate it rather than give them cash so I can know that they are using the donation for it's intended purpose, not being siphoned off for someone's pet project.

[Ipecac Drano]

broad brush paintings can still be useful, you may not be able to get a good idea of what the true picture is, but at least you have a rough guide of what the picture might look like... of course you have to understand going into it that it isn't a precise image for it to be useful.

That was a case where the broad brush wasn't needed.

[Ghel]

I really pissed off a Salvation Army guy at Sam's Club the other day...

Oh, I always smile at the Salvation Army bell ringers as I pass by. I'll even say "you, too" if they say "Merry Christmas" to me. But I never give them money. Not with their BS policies of hiring discrimination and throwing away donated toys.

Funny thing happened the other day. One of the Salvation Army's bell ringers told me "Happy Holidays." With all this "war on Christmas" stuff, you'd expect the Salvation Army to instruct their bell ringers to say "Merry Christmas" only. I giggled all the way out to the car.

[Hyena Dandy]

This more than anything defines the conflict, until vocal theists (such as Phelps) back down, the rest of us will be forced to continue the fight for self preservation. I support atheism because atheism unlike theism poses no risk to my life (theism taken to its extreme would have me executed in the street... not that I think most theists would call for it, speaking of Hitler, Germany has proven just how easy it is for what starts as a small minority to take control and wreak havoc).

While I know I often don't agree with you, Smiley, we have had our differences, I agree with this. IF there could only be one viewpoint in the world, I would support atheism for that. This is not because I'm an atheist, this is because Atheism is the one least likely to restrict anything. The problem is that there CAN'T be only one viewpoint in the world. There may be only one which is factually true, but there are always going to be disagreements. There are always going to be conflicts. There's always going to be fighting.

Life might very well have no divinely appointed meaning. That only means we have to appoint one to ourselves. I have appointed my meaning of life. I will be a Christian, and I will be respectful to all people's views. I will harbor disrespect only for individual actions. Finally, I will do my best to try to spread the second part to the rest of the world.

I have been disrespectful in this thread, recently. I posted an angry rant which was, rightfully, taken down. For that I am sorry. I am not sorry for the feelings I expressed. But it was not right place for me to respect them.

One of the Salvation Army's bell ringers told me "Happy Holidays." With all this "war on Christmas" stuff, you'd expect the Salvation Army to instruct their bell ringers to say "Merry Christmas" only. I giggled all the way out to the car.

I don't always follow these things, but has the Salvation Army really been that active in protesting the so-called war on Christmas?

[FArchivist]

1. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One

Actually, no. Atheism has no tenets, no dogma, nothing that would tell someone what to do or how to do it. Atheism is a position on a single point: whether a god exists. Anything else is in addition to that. Therefore, nothing can ever be done in the name of atheism.

I must disagree with you on this one. Atheism does have a dogma; that all religion is false, that there is no supernatural entity to worship. Faith in absence instead of admitting "I don't know." is a dogma in and of itself. I can construct numerous scenarios wherein you could have a militant atheism, with atheism being the prime philosophical position of the state. (Although, militant atheism is usually given the term 'anti-theism' instead.)

Generally, I agree with this also. I believe that people are good or evil independent of their religion, or lack thereof. However, it takes religion to make a good person do evil things.

I would disagree with this stance saying that there is no universal 'good' and that 'good' is solely defined in the eye of the beholder. That there is only "good to me", thus allowing things such as "just war".

Nor do I think anybody should be offended because I don't agree with their beliefs.

And when the religion/philosophy/ideology demands you be offended because you don't agree?

Exaggeration is not so much of a problem as misrepresentations of another's views, such as claiming that atheism is "a belief that no gods exist," as has been done on fratching many times.

Strange. From Wikipedia: "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." Does this series of statements not encompass "a belief that no gods exist"?

What would you say atheism is, if not that above?

It's interesting here that the author's most negative example of a Christian is Fred Phelps, when I certainly would have chosen the pope. The reason why I would chose the pope is that he has direct influence over the lives of his followers, who number in the millions, while hardly anybody takes Phelps seriously. Also of note is that his most negative example of an atheist is Hitler, who certainly was a Christian.

Speaking as a Catholic, I am required to point out that the Pope does NOT have direct influence over the lives of his followers. This is a common misconception for those that missed the effects of the Council of Trent and the Catholic Counter-Reformation. While the Pope has indirect influence, he has only direct influence over the Holy See, the central government in the Vatican. In order to affect areas outside of the Holy See, he must contend with the College of Cardinals, the College of Bishops, the Patriarchs of the Eastern affiliates, the Major Archbishops, the Metropolitans, the Abbots/Abbesses, the Prelates, the Eparchs....it's completely byzantine and insane to someone who doesn't realize that the Catholic Church is still organized on medieval lines.

Succintly, there are 13 Patriarchates, 2 Major Archdioceses, 536 Metropolitan Archdioceses, 80 Archdioceses, 2,181 Dioceses, 47 Prelatures, 10 Territorial Abbeys, 17 Apostolic Exarchates, 8 Ordinariates, 35 Military Ordinariates, 85 Apostolic Vicariates, 39 Apostolic Prefectures, 10 Apostolic Administrations, and 9 Missions 'sui juris'. And the local heads of all those divisions can and HAVE thumbed their nose at the Pope. Especially the current one, who is much weaker than John Paul II ever was. (This is because Benedict is a doctrinal uncompromising hardass with none of JP2's charm.)

In short, if you are looking for who has the most direct influence in the Catholic Church over a person, look to the local head of the regional authority. It's still medieval; the King issued dictates, but it was the local Baron who decided what was followed and how - especially if the King didn't have an army to enforce it.

In regards to Hitler, he was born Catholic and completely rejected the Catholic Church in practice and in private speech. Publicly, he claimed to be Christian, but privately he denounced it. *shrugs* While most people say he was atheist, I tend to think he was agnostic or Deist, if he thought about it at all. But he never issued atheistic pronouncements, in public or private.

The intent is not to force people to give up their religion. The intent is to make the environment hostile towards the meme of religion. To let theists know that we won't stand by while they try to put religious texts on courthouse lawns. That we won't stand by while they try to get their religion taught in public classrooms. That we won't stand by while they try to enact laws that define marriage based on their holy book. That's not harassment, that's self-defense.

While I understand and agree completely with your stance, how far do you believe it should go?

I ask because if my intent was "to make the environment hostile towards the meme of religion", I would take that quite literally. I would construct laws forbidding the practice and belief of religion and make it a crime. I would burn all religious texts, ban all religious expression, and tear down every religious building. If good is defined as "to make the environment hostile towards the meme of religion", then I will have succeeded (and thus have accomplished good) once all this is done.

Thus, there would be no "vocal theists trying to force others to act as if they believe the same as they do", because all vocal theists would be dead or imprisoned, having applied Occam's Razor to the problem. Or, as the computer in my head says, "This. Is. Logical."

[Ghel]

I don't always follow these things, but has the Salvation Army really been that active in protesting the so-called war on Christmas?

Well, I haven't specifically heard "war on Christmas" from or about the Salvation Army, but there's been so much news about them being pro-Christian and anti-everything else, that it wouldn't surpise me if they have told their bell ringers to say "Merry Christmas" exclusively.

I must disagree with you on this one. Atheism does have a dogma; that all religion is false, that there is no supernatural entity to worship.

That's not dogma - that's a conclusion. And one doesn't even have to come to that conclusion to be an atheist. All one has to do is not believe that there is a deity.

I can construct numerous scenarios wherein you could have a militant atheism, with atheism being the prime philosophical position of the state. (Although, militant atheism is usually given the term 'anti-theism' instead.)

Please explain which definition of "militant atheism" you are using here. I've seen at least half a dozen (sometimes conflicting) definitions of it. Oh, and "anti-theism" doesn't necessarily mean atheism. It could just mean the anti-theist supports a different brand of theism, or a religion that doesn't have a god.

I would disagree with this stance saying that there is no universal 'good' and that 'good' is solely defined in the eye of the beholder. That there is only "good to me", thus allowing things such as "just war".

Did I say anything about "universal good"? "Good" may be "defined in the eye of the beholder," but no person exists in a vacuum. "Good," generally speaking, is that which benefits society as a whole. An action that helps the most people and harms the fewest can generally be defined as "good." "Good to me" leaves out concepts such as empathy, grief, and familial bonds.

And when the religion/philosophy/ideology demands you be offended because you don't agree?

Demands I be offended? Somebody else's philosophy doesn't have any control over how I react.

Perhaps you meant "demands they be offended". Then that is a religion/philosophy/ideoology that I will speak out against.

From Wikipedia: "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." Does this series of statements not encompass "a belief that no gods exist"?

You will find that most atheists prefer the inclusive definition: "the absense of belief that any deities exist." "A belief that no gods exist" is a subset of atheism, but leaves out a large portion of atheists.

Does this make sense, or should I link to a Venn diagram showing where the overlap is?

Speaking as a Catholic, I am required to point out that the Pope does NOT have direct influence over the lives of his followers.

Really? So you're saying that Catholics ignore papal edicts until they're told about them by their priests? So when the pope decreed that condoms must not be used except by gay male prostitutes, his followers didn't listen until it had trickled down through the ranks? What about the way he blames the victims of priests' sex crimes rather than the priests themselves? What about not taking responsibility for shuffling around pedophile priests so they could reoffend rather than answering for their crimes? Is that not direct enough for you?

In regards to Hitler, he was born Catholic and completely rejected the Catholic Church in practice and in private speech.[citation needed] Publicly, he claimed to be Christian, but privately he denounced it.[citation needed] *shrugs* While most people say he was atheist, I tend to think he was agnostic or Deist, if he thought about it at all. But he never issued atheistic pronouncements, in public or private.

So Hitler never spoke out against the Church and never made atheistic statement (also he was never excommunicated). Even if he was a Deist, he's still not the atheist that the article writer suggested he was.

I ask because if my intent was "to make the environment hostile towards the meme of religion", I would take that quite literally. I would construct laws forbidding the practice and belief of religion and make it a crime. I would burn all religious texts, ban all religious expression, and tear down every religious building.

Would you? Then I hope you never get into a position of power. If this is what you would do for an atheistic philosophy, I shudder to think what you would do in support of Catholicism.

Christianity doesn't need to be banned to destroy it. All that is needed is to show people that it can't support itself. This is quite obvious when Christians feel that they must enact laws in order to insinuate their religion into every aspect of society instead of letting their religion stand on its own merits.

Nor would I advocate the sort of dictatorship you're suggesting. Freedom of speech may be a bitch sometimes, but she's worth it. She's worth putting up with every protestor and every street preacher. After all, it's not the popular speech that needs protection, it's the unpopular speech that needs protection.

[Andara Bledin]

You will find that most atheists prefer the inclusive definition: "the absense of belief that any deities exist." "A belief that no gods exist" is a subset of atheism, but leaves out a large portion of atheists.

Does this make sense, or should I link to a Venn diagram showing where the overlap is?

It would seem to me that merely lacking a belief in a deity without actually taking the stance that there are none is not actually atheism.

Not only do you lack a belief that any god exists, but you lack a belief that no god exists. I'd say that's a textbook example of agnosticism.

Would you? Then I hope you never get into a position of power. If this is what you would do for an atheistic philosophy, I shudder to think what you would do in support of Catholicism.

You seem to have a disconnect somewhere between what he quoted and what he said. Those were your words, not his.

Simply put, he said that were he to make the statement that you made, that is how it should be interpreted. He never claimed that as his "atheistic philosophy." He was asking you to clarify what "The intent is to make the environment hostile towards the meme of religion" is supposed to mean as coming from you, because he doesn't think that's what you were trying to convey.

This is quite obvious when Christians feel that they must enact laws in order to insinuate their religion into every aspect of society instead of letting their religion stand on its own merits.

You make some astonishingly broad claims about Christians. In fact, you tend to have an overwhelming tendency to stereotype, as if whichever group you're currently targeting are all some great herd that always acts the same, no matter which group you're dealing with.

By the way, I tend to vote that shit down. There's separation of church and state for a reason, and I'd like it to stay that way, myself.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

It would seem to me that merely lacking a belief in a deity without actually taking the stance that there are none is not actually atheism.

Not only do you lack a belief that any god exists, but you lack a belief that no god exists. I'd say that's a textbook example of agnosticism.

Ok, I can see that several of you still aren't understanding the definitions of "atheism" and "agnosticism." I direct you to view this video by QualiaSoup. I am the same type of atheist as the fellow who made the video.

Those were your words, not his. ... He was asking you to clarify what "The intent is to make the environment hostile towards the meme of religion" is supposed to mean as coming from you, because he doesn't think that's what you were trying to convey.

Then he's misrepresenting my position and putting words into my mouth. I never, NEVER advocated destruction of property nor imprisonment or death for theists. FArchivist's phrasing of his response was not in the form of a question nor in the form of a request for clarification.

... you tend to have an overwhelming tendency to stereotype...

Did I say "all Christians"? No. Obviously, only some (perhaps only a small percentage) outspoken Christians are the ones trying to get legislation passed to teach creationism in schools and define marriage as "one man and one woman." However, the majority of Christians, by not opposing the extremists, are giving silent consent to what the extremists are doing.

By the way, I tend to vote that shit down. There's separation of church and state for a reason, and I'd like it to stay that way, myself.

Hey, there's one thing we agree on! That's a start.

[Peppergirl]

Hey, there's one thing we agree on! That's a start.

Well hallelujah and praise Jesus!!!


Sorry. Had to.

Just inserting a little levity, of course. Tongue strictly in-cheek.