Something I think bares reading.

[Andara Bledin]

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.

No, he's not. He's not even guessing at your position. He's saying that were he to use that phrase, that would mean that would be his position.

And it specifically was a request for clarification. He's asking you to tell him what your position would be. In fact, he said:

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

Is there a reason you chose to accuse him of putting words in your mouth as opposed to actually answering his question?

Did I say "all Christians"? No.

You didn't say "some Christians," either. You chose not to qualify your statement - generalizing.

Well hallelujah and praise Jesus!!!

*snicker*

^-.-^

[Ghel]

Andara, I'm really tired of your nitpicking. If you have something to say in regards to the actual subject of discussion, then say it. If you have a response to my actual position, then say it. Stop picking apart what I've said. Stop misrepresenting my position.

How far do I think it should go? Everything I've ever advocated doing in response to theists' actions is speech. In my first post on this thread, I spelled out exactly what I would do: let theists know that we won't stand by while they try to force us to behave as if we believe the same as they do. Speeches, lobbying, and voting are the most effective forms of doing that, and they are all forms of speech.

Is there a reason you chose to accuse him of putting words in your mouth as opposed to actually answering his question?

Um, you were the one who said that those were my words. Funny, I don't remember typing them.

Edited to add:

Well hallelujah and praise Jesus!!!

Even though I'm an atheist, I'll say "Amen!" to that.

[Andara Bledin]

Um, you were the one who said that those were my words. Funny, I don't remember typing them.

How about you actually answer his question and stop deflecting?

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

Since there seems to be some disagreement, let's rephrase the question.

Ghel: What do you mean by "Make the environment hostile to the meme of religion"?

[Ghel]

How about you actually answer his question and stop deflecting?

I did. Three times now. The first time was before he asked the question. Do you find something wrong with my response of (to rephrase it) talking about how religious claims are either wrong or unsupported, and speaking out against and voting against laws that would give unfair advantage to religion (whether one religion in particular or religion in general)? That is as far as I think it should go.

Or are you talking about some other question than FArchivist's "how far do you believe [making the environment hostile towards the meme of religion] should go?"

[Andara Bledin]

I find your use of the word "hostile" to not really be a good indicator of how far you would go.

Or do you really see religion, and/or those who practice religion, as an enemy? Do you honestly harbor ill will towards the same?

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

I am currently under moderation for my woefully inappropriate prior behavior in this thread, so if this post comes after you reply to Andara, Ghel, please forgive me. But to me, that doesn't sound like 'making the environment hostile' at all. To me, that seems purely like Secularization, and while I consider myself a Catholic, I also consider myself a Secularist.

Please forgive us for seeming confused about what you meant by 'making the environment hostile', but to me, that doesn't sound like making the environment hostile. It sounds simply fair. I don't have a problem with Churches having tax-exempt status, because I know many churches, at least around my area, are financially struggling, and adding taxation to the mix would close them down.

But while (if it were up for a vote) I would vote to allow them to continue having that status, I would not feel that the environment was hostile if they didn't have it. And if there aren't religious trappings in government, I don't care one wit. That doesn't seem 'hostile' to me either. That seems appropriate.

Now, to me, saying you are going to make the environment hostile towards the meme* of religion sounds like you're actively working to stop its spread. Forbidding conversion, forbidding people who are religious from public office, or at the very least levying extra taxes against religious organizations would be hostile to me. But for the most part, what you're advocating, I'm all for. And even the ones I'm not for, I'm not too passionately against.

I apologize for my lack of decorum previously, the phrase 'making the environment hostile' was actually what triggered it. I'm a homosexual. I have enough religious people making my environment hostile towards my personal life. I don't need atheists to do it too.

There was also the point that nobody raised something that the religious have done that couldn't have been done by atheists. And while its true that the basics of genetics, the Sistine Chapel, Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr, Mahatma Ghandi, etc. COULD have been done without religious influence, they WEREN'T. To me, it feels unfair to ask what religion has done for the world, and then say "But it could have been done WITHOUT religion" for every point raised. Anything CAN be done without religious motivation, just as anything can be done WITH religious motivation. If there is a religious motivation to it, then I feel that should count towards something that religion has done. If it helps, I will for the purposes of the debate concede that the Crusades and the Inquisition** were religiously motivated, and count as something bad religion has done.





*And I don't understand the word in this context.

**I don't think the Spanish Inquisition was religiously motivated, I think it was politically motivated, but if it will help to foster a courteous, respectful atmosphere of debate I will concede the point that, at the very least, it wasn't completely NOT religious. As for the Crusades, all I can say is that we're really, really sorry about it.

[Ghel]

I guess I have to explain. A meme is an idea passed from person to person, sometimes through an intermediate medium, such as a web page, book, recording, etc. The environment in which memes reside is the human mind. Also, the definition I'm using for hostile is not "pertaining to an enemy" but "opposed in feeling, action, or character; antagonistic."

Even if I was a violent person (and I'm not), killing or imprisoning people who follow religion would not destroy the meme of religion. It would instead strengthen it by leading to backlash by the religious community.

Instead, the things I have previously advocated on this thread (speaking, voting, education) are the best way to protect human minds against the "God virus," as some like to call it. Once one has learned the basics of logic and science, one can see that the claims of religion are either full of errors or unsupported.

I don't have a problem with Churches having tax-exempt status, because I know many churches, at least around my area, are financially struggling, and adding taxation to the mix would close them down.

I think that churches (and other religious organizations) should be held to the same criteria as other tax-exempt organizations. If they can show that they are actually doing the charity work that they claim and that's where the money is going (instead of lining their own pockets), then they can and should continue to receive tax-exempt status. But as long as there is no review of churches' books, there will never even be a way to know if they're doing the charity work that is supposed to be the justification for churches being tax exempt.

There was also the point that nobody raised something that the religious have done that couldn't have been done by atheists. And while its true that the basics of genetics, the Sistine Chapel, Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr, Mahatma Ghandi, etc. COULD have been done without religious influence, they WEREN'T.

It seems to me that some of these things were done in spite of religion.

Genetics - are you referring to the work of Gregor Mendel? His religion clearly hampered his work, since he no longer had time for his work after he became abbot.

The Sistine Chapel ceiling - especially during the renaissance, the church had more money than any other patron of the arts, so it's not surprising that talented artists were hired to decorate the insides of churches. Art supplies cost money, and so Michelangelo, like other renaissance artists, frequently worked on religious projects to avoid being a starving artist.

Gandhi's and King's philosophies appear to be "religion plus." They each took the portions of their religion that they preferred, then added things to it, such as non-violence, equality, etc.

Even if you are correct, and these things were religiously inspired, that still tells us nothing about whether the beliefs are true. As someone who wants to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible, the only thing that matters to me about religious claims is whether they can be demonstrated to be true. As long as they cannot, I will not accept the claims.

[Hyena Dandy]

I apologize for the confusion. I was not saying that because there have been good people who are religious, then you should be religious because that will make you good. I am more than willing to acknowledge that there have been bad parts too. I was responding to a comment you made earlier that you haven't seen anything that religion has accomplished that couldn't be accomplished without religion.

My point was perhaps that's true, but that doesn't mean that religion has done no good in the world.

[Ghel]

I was responding to a comment you made earlier that you haven't seen anything that religion has accomplished that couldn't be accomplished without religion.

My point was perhaps that's true, but that doesn't mean that religion has done no good in the world.

Granted. However, I'm looking at this from a different point of view. Good is done by people, not by religion itself. And I still think that religion hampers the good that people otherwise might do.

Additionally, adding religion to the mix can corrupt the good that is done, such as a soup kitchen forcing its patrons to sit through a sermon before they're allowed to eat. Religion tends to prey on people when they are most vulnerable, and using charity as a method of indoctrinating people is horrible.

I don't think the Spanish Inquisition was religiously motivated, I think it was politically motivated, but if it will help to foster a courteous, respectful atmosphere of debate I will concede the point that, at the very least, it wasn't completely NOT religious.

I was going to agree with you on this point, but the more I thought about it... I'll give you that the Spanish Inquisition was politically motivated, but without religion there would have been nothing on which to base an "us vs. them." There would have been no "Christians vs. heretics," "Christians vs. Jews," or "Christians vs. everybody else" without religion. So the Church would have had no basis on which to determine who the enemy was without religion.

Add to that that the justification for (or perhaps the rationalization of) the Spanish Inquisition was religious in nature, and the original motivation falls out of the picture.

[FArchivist]

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.

Right, and the belief that there are no deities of any type, Christian, Hindu, whatever, is still a belief. It's not a conclusion. A conclusion has to be backed by rigorous scientific proofs and experiments, repeatable and verifiable. Neither the belief that there ARE deities or that there AREN'T deities can be proven by the scientific method.

Therefore, both theism and atheism rely on beliefs. Theism relies on the belief that there is a deity/are deities. Atheism relies on the belief that there is no deity/are no deities.

Please explain which definition of "militant atheism" you are using here. I've seen at least half a dozen (sometimes conflicting) definitions of it.

I'm using the standard definition. From Wikipedia: The terms militant atheism and militant atheist are designations applied to atheists who are, or are perceived to be, hostile towards religion. And Julian Baggini defines 'militant atheism' as "Atheism which is actively hostile to religion", which "requires more than strong disagreement with religion — it requires something verging on hatred and is characterised by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious belief. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense and the second is that it is usually or always harmful."

If you've never encountered a militant atheist, count yourself lucky. They're much like the Westboro Baptist Church in their actions.

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.

Er, no. If you are anti-theist, you are against theism. Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism. Philosophies such as Confucianism and Daoism count as theism for those concerned.

"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."

That is the philosophical viewpoint of positive utilitarianism as to what "good" is, yes. Unfortunately, I'm not a positive utilitarian.

"Good to me" leaves out concepts such as empathy, grief, and familial bonds.

There are many who do not consider such items to be worth consideration, yes.

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.

...
There's no difference between the two
Deities = gods. Two different words for the same thing. Synonyms in the dictionary.

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?

A Catholic is only required to follow papal edicts if they are spoken ex cathedra, which has been done a total of SEVEN times since the formation of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Catechism allows you to disagree with what the Pope states. There are orthodox and several heterodox views on many, many different items, doctrinal arguments that have gone on for centuries without being resolved one way or the other. Thus:

- So, yes, if it is not spoken ex cathedra, a papal edict can be ignored.
- Yes, when the Pope decreed that condoms must not be used except by gay male prostitutes, that can be ignored and WAS ignored by the majority of the Western hierarchy, especially the hierarchy here in the USA.

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?

Funny enough, according to Catholic doctrine, That's All On Him. I don't like it and I censure him for it, but I'm allowed to. The rules say I can. Unfortunately, the rules don't allow Catholics to kick him out and put in a new Pope. That can only be done if he dies, unless one wants to set up a rival Vatican somewhere as an antipope and fight it out with armies.

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.

Not a damn thing, actually. Per Vatican II doctrine, one is not allowed to impose the faith on others when political office is attained. One may vote in accordance with beliefs and such, but imposition is specifically deterred and condemned.

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.

What do you mean by "show people that it can't support itself" exactly?

[FArchivist]

Instead, the things I have previously advocated on this thread (speaking, voting, education) are the best way to protect human minds against the "God virus," as some like to call it. Once one has learned the basics of logic and science, one can see that the claims of religion are either full of errors or unsupported.

Ah. Richard Dawkins, "The God Delusion".

Of course the claims of religion are full of logical errors and cannot be supported by science. That's the whole point of all religion and philosophy; these are BELIEF systems that do not require foundation in fact. Belief never requires proofs or logic; that's the whole point of it being a belief.

Personally, I respond to the whole meme argument with Dawkin's God: Genes, Memes, & The Meaning Of Life

I think that churches (and other religious organizations) should be held to the same criteria as other tax-exempt organizations. If they can show that they are actually doing the charity work that they claim and that's where the money is going (instead of lining their own pockets), then they can and should continue to receive tax-exempt status. But as long as there is no review of churches' books, there will never even be a way to know if they're doing the charity work that is supposed to be the justification for churches being tax exempt.

Except that churches aren't given tax-exempt status due to charity work. A church is made tax-exempt purely in recognition of separation of church and state, as established with the creation of the IRS in 1916. In order to be tax-exempt, a church must have the following:

* A distinct legal existence
* A recognized creed and form of worship
* A definite and distinct ecclesiastical government
* A formal code of doctrine and discipline
* A distinct religious history
* Members who are not members of any other church or religious order (transfer letters must confirm membership from one church to another).
* An organization of licensed and/or ordained ministers
* Ordained and/or licensed ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of studies
* Literature of their own
* Established places of worship
* Regular attendees and congregational memberships
* Regular religious sacramental and/or worship services
* Religious instruction for the young
* Schools or courses for preparation of its ministers

Nowhere, as you can see, is charity mentioned at all.

Genetics - are you referring to the work of Gregor Mendel? His religion clearly hampered his work, since he no longer had time for his work after he became abbot.

Uh, that would be due to genetic science being a HOBBY for the man. His full-time job was being a monk and a teacher of physics. He was a gifted amateur, but I wouldn't say religion got in the way of his work. He could have given up his vows at any time. You are allowed to do that.

The Sistine Chapel ceiling - especially during the renaissance, the church had more money than any other patron of the arts, so it's not surprising that talented artists were hired to decorate the insides of churches. Art supplies cost money, and so Michelangelo, like other renaissance artists, frequently worked on religious projects to avoid being a starving artist.

This totally discounts the fact that the majority of Renaissance artists sought wealthy patrons, period, and that outside of some ruling nobility the wealthiest entity of the Renaissance period was the Church.

Even if you are correct, and these things were religiously inspired, that still tells us nothing about whether the beliefs are true. As someone who wants to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible, the only thing that matters to me about religious claims is whether they can be demonstrated to be true. As long as they cannot, I will not accept the claims.

I would like to point out that you cannot prove that no deities exist either, as a) proving a negative is not possible in formal logic and b) the hypothesis cannot be proven by scientific method either.

Thus, impasse! Neither theists nor atheists can demonstrate either position to be true.

[Ipecac Drano]

I would like to point out that you cannot prove that no deities exist either, as a) proving a negative is not possible in formal logic and b) the hypothesis cannot be proven by scientific method either.

Thus, impasse! Neither theists nor atheists can demonstrate either position to be true.

As been mentioned before on this forum, absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. That said, why believe in something if there is lack of evidence either way? And, if one must think that they should believe in it, how could they dismiss anything else? Like, say, believing in elves but dismissing the Easter Bunny?

As for your bit on hypotheses, even though the God hypothesis fails under scientific testing, there are other things that have been hypothesized and theorized that carry more weight, like gravity or electricity.

[Hyena Dandy]

And, if one must think that they should believe in it, how could they dismiss anything else? Like, say, believing in elves but dismissing the Easter Bunny?

I have stated my position on it before. Believe whatever makes you feel good, and gives you peace. If life doesn't really have a meaning, then we should believe in whatever will give us comfort. If this is all there is, and one thing or another gives us more comfort, and makes us happy, believe in it.

[Ghel]

Atheism relies on the belief that there is no deity/are no deities.

This is a straw man. Before trying to argue against someone's standpoint, make sure that it is actually their standpoint.

There's no difference between the two
Deities = gods.

I'm not making a distinction between deities and gods. I know they are synonyms. I'm making a distinction between "lack of belief" and "a belief." Atheism is properly defined as "a lack of belief in a god or deity or deities (or any other claim)." Trying to define atheism as "a belief" in anything is misrepresenting what atheism is.

If you've never encountered a militant atheist, count yourself lucky.

Not only have I not encountered a militant atheist as you define it, I have never even heard of one. I have never heard of an atheist advocating "wip[ing] out all forms of religious belief."

That is the philosophical viewpoint of positive utilitarianism as to what "good" is, yes. Unfortunately, I'm not a positive utilitarian.

There are many who do not consider such items to be worth consideration, yes.

When you previously said

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".

were you saying that you were saying that there is no universal good, etc., or were you saying that you thought I was saying there is no universal good, etc.? My response was based on the former. If I misunderstood, I apologize. Still, you say a lot about what you are not, but nothing about what you are.

A Catholic is only required to follow papal edicts if they are spoken ex cathedra...

Are you saying that Catholics don't listen to the pope unless he's speaking ex cathedra? That's absurd.

Anyway, the reason I mentioned the pope to begin with is that he has many more followers than Fred Phelps, and thus has the ability to spread his brand of superstition to many more people. And since you agree with me about the shuffling of pedophile priests, I don't understand why you're arguing with me about this one.

What do you mean by "show people that it can't support itself" exactly?

I mean that the central Christian beliefs are unsupported. No one has yet demonstrated that the Christian God exists.

Ah. Richard Dawkins, "The God Delusion".

What? Where? You mean my mention of memes? Actually, memes were introduced in "The Selfish Gene," (an excellent book - I'd recommend it to anyone) and that's where most of my introduction to memes comes from. Yes, memes are mentioned in "The God Delusion," but I don't see what that has to do with anything.

Of course the claims of religion are full of logical errors and cannot be supported by science. That's the whole point of all religion and philosophy; these are BELIEF systems that do not require foundation in fact. Belief never requires proofs or logic; that's the whole point of it being a belief.

Until a belief system makes a testable claim. Then it moves itself into the realm covered by science and can be tested using science.

Personally, I respond to the whole meme argument with "Dawkin's God: Genes, Memes, & The Meaning Of Life"

Do you know where I can get a free copy of that? I'm not going to pay money for apologetics.

Except that churches aren't given tax-exempt status due to charity work.

No, charity work is one of the reasons other organizations are given tax-exempt status. I don't consider any of the reasons you listed as valid reasons to give an organization tax-exempt status.

This totally discounts the fact that the majority of Renaissance artists sought wealthy patrons, period, and that outside of some ruling nobility the wealthiest entity of the Renaissance period was the Church.

You just reworded what I said.

I would like to point out that you cannot prove that no deities exist either, as a) proving a negative is not possible in formal logic and b) the hypothesis cannot be proven by scientific method either.

Duh. But since that's not what atheists are actually claiming, that's irrelevant. Atheists simply lack a belief in a god. That's all. Did you actually watch the video I linked?

Look, it's like this: I don't believe in Yahweh, Jehovah (those two are the same, as far as I can tell), Allah, Vishnu, Quetzalcoatl, Zeus, Odin, or any other god that's ever been described to me. Nor do I believe in angels, demons, ghosts, dragons, unicorns, or fairies. You said you were Catholic, so you believe in at least one of those. You are an atheist towards all the others. I am an atheist towards one more.