Religion-Bashing

[drogulus]

On the contrary, what I'm saying is that everyone is in the wrong, to unknown degrees. This complete misunderstanding highlights yet again the utter pointlessness of these interchanges.

This is exactly what I'd expect anyone to say, who was locked within the confines of a fundamentalist system: yet another declaration of the One True Way.

     Science is not fundamentalist, nor are philosophical stances that see science procedures as the way questions about the world are answered. Fundamentalism is not the belief that your conclusion is correct, it's a particular way of arriving at conclusions, according to whether they do or don't conflict with a supposedly inerrant text or doctrine. The procedures I endorse could hardly be more different. I know it's common to see references to "atheist fundamentalists" but this is wrong. Atheists do not extend belief to unknowns as though a private channel to truth about what can't be known existed. They're operationally anti-fundamentalist. Religion, at least the kind familiar to us here, is about proclaiming as truth what can't be known. It's the procedures that make a system fundamentalist or not, not your opinion of the conclusion.

[karlhenning]

This Catholic sure is feeling the love ; )

. . . On a side note, I have to say I rather resented the reporter asking the head of American Atheists (O'Hare's group) for a quote. I suppose they have to go to the most obvious organization, much as they automatically go to Catholic bishops for anything having to do with religion, but for the record, these people do not speak for me. They always struck me as a too angry, and true to form, the guy said something predictably snarky.

Thank you for saying that; if I had made the remark, some might dismiss it as coming from an interested party.

Such a pity that atheism seems so seldom to make its adherents rich in the virtue of kindness.

[Scarpia]

Such a pity that atheism seems so seldom to make its adherents rich in the virtue of kindness.

And you think it is not insulting to make this sort of blanket statement about "atheists" based on the behavior of a fringe group like "American Atheists"?

[karlhenning]

And you think it is not insulting to make this sort of blanket statement about "atheists" based on the behavior of a fringe group like "American Atheists"?

I am making an observation of the people I have had experience with, not a blanket statement.

Is that permitted?

I trust it does not personally insult you, Scarps, if I point out that I have known a great many atheists of unpardonably nasty character.

[karlhenning]

In fact, one individual I was thinking of in particular I was following on Twitter (he is a well known entertainer).  Once the Pope was visiting England, this entertainer (who probably had better things to do) tweeted an inordinate amount of twaddle regarding the Pope. And I deceased from following him, wishing that he would instead do the things he is good at.  I am sure he rationalizes his nastiness as "necessary" and "worthwhile" in his tireless Crusade against religion.  And against that consideration, too, I realized that he wasn't all that edifying an entertainer, even when he was about his proper business.

[Brian]

Such a pity that atheism seems so seldom to make its adherents rich in the virtue of kindness.

Luckily, I have personally met not a single one of those atheists. Those that I know (but I will modestly exclude myself) have been on the whole no kinder or ruder than any other group of people - that is to say, they have all been at minimum humane and at maximum capable of great love and affection.

In this spirit, it is worth remembering that for every O'Hair there is an Asimov, for every Dawkins an Ingmar Bergman, for every Hitchens a Bill Gates, for every Bill Maher an Arundhati Roy.

Although I suppose atheist Pierre Boulez is known for his "cold" interpretations...

[Joe Barron]

Karl,  atheists such as myself often give up on Christianity because it fails to live up to the whole love-your-neighbor and love-your-enemies standard.  I, personally, refuse to belong to any organization, like a church or a political party, that possesses a right wing. (Ever wonder why most of  our conservative bloviators are pissed off Irish Catholics? The world seems to have really let them down.) So it's disappointing to find someone who believes the many of the same things I do sounding so uncharitable. On the other hand, I'm always up for a little snark if it's genuinely witty. Bill Maher once showed a film clip of a boy who said he became born again at  age five because he was "looking for something in his life." The kid, said, Maher, was up to five packs of Oreos a day.

Then there's George Carlin's take on the ten commandments.

Oh, and in the interest of full disclosure, I should say that my really favorite Bible verse is Deut. 23:1: No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord.

I try to apply it to some aspect of my life every day.

[Brian]

In fact, one individual I was thinking of in particular I was following on Twitter (he is a well known entertainer).  Once the Pope was visiting England, this entertainer (who probably had better things to do) tweeted an inordinate amount of twaddle regarding the Pope. And I deceased from following him, wishing that he would instead do the things he is good at.  I am sure he rationalizes his nastiness as "necessary" and "worthwhile" in his tireless Crusade against religion.  And against that consideration, too, I realized that he wasn't all that edifying an entertainer, even when he was about his proper business.

I moved to England on the same day the Pope arrived. To be frank, it appeared to me that over half of the population of London responded to the Pope in the same way as your entertainer. The nation's reaction, as an almost collective whole, was, "This guy thinks he's important. But who cares?"

[Brian]

Oh, and in the interest of full disclosure, I should say that my really favorite Bible verse is Deut. 23:1: No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord.

I try to apply it to some aspect of my life every day.

[DavidRoss]

In fact, one individual I was thinking of in particular I was following on Twitter (he is a well known entertainer).  Once the Pope was visiting England, this entertainer (who probably had better things to do) tweeted an inordinate amount of twaddle regarding the Pope. And I deceased from following him, wishing that he would instead do the things he is good at.  I am sure he rationalizes his nastiness as "necessary" and "worthwhile" in his tireless Crusade against religion.  And against that consideration, too, I realized that he wasn't all that edifying an entertainer, even when he was about his proper business.

Do you suppose that poor fellow is conscious enough to recognize that there's not a gnat's whisker of difference between himself and the most coarsely bigoted fundamentalist redneck of his imagination?

[karlhenning]

Luckily, I have personally met not a single one of those atheists.

Not even virtually?  I do consider interaction via the InterNet a form of personal experience.

[karlhenning]

Do you suppose that poor fellow is conscious enough to recognize that there's not a gnat's whisker of difference between himself and the most coarsely bigoted fundamentalist redneck of his imagination?

No, I don't suppose so.  I should guess that he actually considers himself as far above that redneck, as the sun is above the tarry macadam.

[Joe Barron]

More theological musings from  George:

War
disease
death
destruction
hunger
filth
poverty
torture
crime
corruption
and the Ice Capades
... results like these do not belong on the resume of a Supreme Being.

[Joe Barron]

I must say I am not impressed with Benedict. One does not rise above criticism simply because he has been elected pope.

None of this has anything to do with the survey, which is what I'd like your reaction to.

[karlhenning]

I moved to England on the same day the Pope arrived. To be frank, it appeared to me that over half of the population of London responded to the Pope in the same way as your entertainer. The nation's reaction, as an almost collective whole, was, "This guy thinks he's important. But who cares?"

Chances are that many of the Catholics cared; though of course they are a minority in England, so perhaps we should not consider their opinion.

And now, you see, "This guy thinks he's important." There's some uncharitable transference going on there, would you not agree?  The man is the spiritual representative of a great many people.  My impression is that, actually, he is possessed of a humility unusual for that small class of human beings who represent such large groups of people (heads of state, CEOs of Fortune 500 companies).

And I have spared this thread the specific nasty remarks he made, or, friend Brian, you would not so blithely speculate that pretty much all of the UK thought the same.

[karlhenning]

I must say I am not impressed with Benedict. One does not rise above criticism simply because he has been elected pope.

I am reasonably impressed with him. I suppose those who feel they have a right to criticize the Pope do not much concern themselves with whether they are fair in their criticism.

You see, that's the problem. What need does an atheist have, to be fair? There's no moral imperative there.

[Joe Barron]

You see, that's the problem. What need does an atheist have, to be fair? There's no moral imperative there.

So then — what? One can have no moral or ethical standards without recourse to some kind of cosmic enforcer? Come on, Karl. You know better than that.

[karlhenning]

Karl, atheists such as myself often give up on Christianity because it fails to live up to the whole love-your-neighbor and love-your-enemies standard.

There is an element of fairness in there. But you see, there are Christians who strive to live by that standard. Many whose moral successes there are an inspiration to the world.  Now, if the idea is, that Christianity can only be true (or worthwhile) if all Christians succeed, at all times, in the command to love one's neighbor and to love one's enemies as oneself, that's really a mug's game, isn't it?  The test is designed for immediate failure.

The commands are hard. And every Christian fails.  The ones who take their faith seriously, continue trying.  And over a lifetime, their souls convert.  Your theoretical test, Joe, seems to fancy that since Jesus commanded it, there ought somehow to be immediate and entire compliance, or it means that Jesus is a fraud.  It's an interesting opinion, but not, I don't believe, any very reasonable (or charitable) one.

[karlhenning]

So then — what? One can have no moral or ethical standards without recourse to some kind of cosmic enforcer? Come on, Karl. You know better than that.

Actually my point is much more practical, Joe.  So many atheists whom I have seen in action, are fair.

When it suits them.

Where many Christians I have known embrace the strength of a moral stand, even when quite inconvenient to them personally.

You are right — perfectly right — Joe, to criticize Christians for failing to obey those terrible imperatives from Christ. (Not right to conclude that Christianity means nothing, because every man jack of them fails, and, generally, fails repeatedly.)

One cannot really chide an atheist for the same failings. It isn't a command to him. It's maybe a good idea, maybe not, depending on the situation.

[drogulus]

I am making an observation of the people I have had experience with, not a blanket statement.

Is that permitted?

I trust it does not personally insult you, Scarps, if I point out that I have known a great many atheists of unpardonably nasty character.

    Why not respond to the subject instead of insulting the people you disagree with? I have an idea that you could save your attacks for the ideas that atheists advance in the way that atheists attack the ideas that you advance, and leave the terribly interesting subject of who's more nasty for a "Who's nasty?" thread.

    I'm sure that thread would be loads of fun. I, for instance, have always wondered who the nasty people were, and would welcome a spirited discussion of this timely issue (all the nastiness in the world, who's to blame, etc.).

    This is the "Religion-Bashing" thread, which I interpret as a discussion about what is or isn't legitimate discussion and what is merely insult concerning religion. I take the position that you can't insult ideas no matter how high on stilts you raise them. Gods, therefore, are fair game, and I reject the idea that insulting "your" god insults you as tactical only. I can't prove this doesn't insult you, just as you can't prove I'm not insulted by the thesis that people who don't think gods are real are nasty. Who cares if I'm insulted or not? It makes no difference. Once the petty bickering subsides the intelligent posts will resume and your complaints will be for naught.