I believe you... im convienced... you dont want to work wit me to make Sciforums a place whare posters an mods are all civil to each other.!!!
A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
I believe you... im convienced... you dont want to work wit me to make Sciforums a place whare posters an mods are all civil to each other.!!!
Why You Fail
But do you hold that such an objective moral structure is entirely a separate issue from converting the religious to reason?
And here again we run into that lack of pathos.
You're dealing with humans, not robots. When it comes to converting the religious to reason, that is why you fail.
Spidergoat said:
But do you hold that such an objective moral structure is entirely a separate issue from converting the religious to reason?
And here again we run into that lack of pathos.
You're dealing with humans, not robots. When it comes to converting the religious to reason, that is why you fail.
Bells
Staff member
Because that is not your goal and never has been.
Sorry to be such a Killjoy to what you are trying to peddle here Clueluss.
The more you continue to misrepresent me and lie and be so disingenuous, I won't want to have anything to do with you whatsoever. What? You think I don't notice the stunts you pull on this site?
Bells
Staff member
Neither is relying on God for one's moral compass helpful. That is as much as a talking point.Tiassa said:
I would ask them how they determine morality now while recognising that if someone believes without God, there is no morality, then they probably have no intention to not believe in God.
How about Kitt (if hes willin)... will you work wit him to make Sciforums a place whare posters an mods are civil to each other... an posters an mods abide by the same rules.???
Bells
Staff member
Considering I already work with Kitt, what do you think the answer to that question will be?
Yes.???
Evangelical Smoke
So, then, it would seem that the ideas of persuasion and converting the religious to rationality are non-starters?
I mean, sure, relying on God for one's moral compass isn't helpful, per se; then again, we haven't managed to run ourselves to extinction, yet. But the mixed bag is irrelevant insofar as if one's purpose in expression is to persuade, then it does no good to separate that persuasion from the process one is about to undertake.
Well, if the whole thing about persuading and converting the religious is just smoke blown, then what is the point of evangelizing atheism?
You know how powerful neuroses are, and what they can do to a human being's sense of rationality. Are the religious so inhuman, then, that we owe their neuroses no human consideration?
You might as well check an addict into a rehab center and offer no therapy. And no security. After all, keeping them sober and safe during treatment is a separate issue from intake and payment. It's like a bad joke from Gaiman and Pratchett.
I mean, how does it go? Have we done our part simply by denigrating religion and telling people they need to change?
Let's try a different illustration.
There is a rumor tiptoeing around one of my social circles regarding a friend who is about to exit the closet for the simple fact that she has fallen in love with, and begun a relationship with, another woman. Until this, our friend identified and conducted herself as a heterosexual. The rumor is that something clicked for her back in December, which would be when I was in Hawai'i talking about these issues with her. It would be entirely arrogant to presume that something was one of our conversations, but the fact remains that if she ever has any questions about other people's experiences, the one thing none of her gay friends will tell her is that her question has nothing to do with being gay. Think about it. We all know. Her family doesn't. That's coming. And if she has any questions about how these discussions with family go, nobody is going to tell her that it has nothing to do with identifying as gay.
There is a process taking place, a psychological rubego'berg that will cause her both logical and emotional distress. Come out, come out. Come out and play. You're locked inside? Well, that's nobody else's problem. You're in there, and supposed to be out here, and while people have every right to criticize your unwillingness to come out, those critics have no obligation to actually be helpful.
Nothing about the preceding two paragraphs should strike you as unusual.
But what if instead of looking at her lesbian reflection in the mirror, it was a question of whether that reflection was still religious or becoming an atheist?
All of those acquired values and behaviors, conditioned beliefs, and neurotic stresses?
The idea that the process we demand is none of our business is downright gelid.
But think about that for a moment, please. Nobody is actually demanding that she come out. Nobody is actively trying to "convert" her to the sapphtastic. And everyone is lining up to do their part if she asks for help. Big deal. We're her friends; we ought to be able to help. Or, at least, give a damn.
Then again, if it was a question of theistic faith or atheism, apparently we might call for conversion, but how to actually do that just isn't supposed to be part of the discussion. There are some who would pretend this is simple: Just stop believing in God. When it comes to atheism, the civil rights of atheists, and societies making rational decisions, such a pretense of simplicity is to everyone's detriment.
You're aware of my attachment to certain strains of psychology; while Brown Freudianism in the twenty-first century probably isn't the best framework for understanding life, the Universe, and everything, it is, to the one, an outlook that depends on the humanity of human beings in human history. There are many events and actions recorded in history that seem to make no sense at all if we demand that history must be interpreted according to mechanical logic. That is to say, human history, lived and acted out by human beings, will be shot through with irrationality. Understanding that irrationality is not what we might call an inviting task, but the alternative to understanding history is stumbling blindly from one event to the next.
Hence the dialectic of neurosis. It is impossible to know definitively what, exactly, was going through whose head for what reasons at any given time; that's not a sum we can achieve like, say, the mass of stable diatomic hydrogen. But we can get a hell of a lot closer than speculating after such notions as gratify our egos. Look at some of the "logic" around here:
Now, how does such an assertion relate to your understanding of human psychology and behavior? Are human beings really so mechanical in their thought processes as our neighbor suggests?
For all the times I have presented Haddad's "The Islamic Alternative" (.pdf), it seems reasonable that one choosing to disagree with it would at least have the courtesy make a case. That so many rational people apparently won't even consider a thirty-one year-old examination of history that predicted the rise of activities like Al Qaeda and other hyperauthoritarians is one thing, but if religion drives one's economic outlook, and Islam tends to keep people in the dark ages, then how are there any wealthy Muslims in any modern Western society?
And, furthermore, as comes up in other discussions of world events, those who are so appalled at the sectarian violence in Iraq, Pakistan, and other countries might wish to consider what Americans would do to each other and everyone else if we were expected to live under the same conditions.
Wars are economic. Religion is a form of window dressing, much like the banners and bunting and poppies and yellow ribbons in the U.S. Or, rather, we should say this is hardly an extraordinary assertion unless, of course, an atheist decides to make a random assertion that "religion drives one's economic outlook".
And, yet, we still have Haddad's article describing the rise of Islamic authoritarianism in the twentieth century and considering the processes at play, and that's all shit, of course, because, well, it's more convenient to our neighbor's argument that way:
And this growing consensus, by Haddad's outlook, germinated in the 1960s and early '70s. The upheavals and instability in Islamic countries is a documentable process going on since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
Haddad notes that by the end of WWI, Afghanistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen were the only Muslim countries "which had not experienced direct or indirect European rule".
Sure, the evidence points away from our neighbor's suggestion that "religion drives one's economic outlook", but, you know, he qualified it. He thinks. That is, sure, it's an irrational belief, but, you know, the obligation to be rational ends at the rational rejection of God's existence.
Seriously, guys who get tattooed with the Virgin Mary because they think it will protect them in gunfights? Would we blame that solely on Christianity, or might the facts of being economically deprived, undereducated, and ensconced in the cultural produce of such conditions have something to do with why these young Americans join the sorts of gangs that get into those fights? Frankly, I'm less worried about the proposition that Catholicism is responsible for Florida drug gangs.
That these bangers have incorporated their religious identity into their gang identity? That is a human behavioral trait. And, you know, frankly, I just have a hard time imagining Mater Mary with a MAC-10 in each hand, leaning out the car window, spraying bullets into a crowd. We can look to the socioeconomic long before we look to religion.
I'm searching through Google, looking for the times from 2004, '08, '09, '10, '11, and '13 (discovered so far) in which I posted the article for one reason or another. People's unwillingness to address its content might actually seem striking, and the one I'm presently pausing to take in is a 2013 discussion about women serving in combat roles for the American armed services; Spidergoat made his point about religion driving economy, I countered with Haddad, and nobody bothered responding to the article. But his response was to form: A swing at Catholicism, and a declaration of his own lack of bigotry.
And it's not just Spidergoat; he happened to provide a couple of recent examples that strike after the heart of the problem, and, well, it turns out this is one of his packaged routines. But it's true that for ten years I've tried to get people to consider the history of what they're complaining about in Islam, and, really, it's quite difficult to get anyone to answer its content. For some, it is simply the rational decision that they should not address history that conflicts with their beliefs. For others, perhaps it's just the comfort of sloth in the face of a point that doesn't mean that much to them.
But in our neighbor's case, it is emblematic.
Look, I'm not going to deny that relying on God for one's moral compass isn't helpful. But it's also beside the point.
It's fine with me if "atheism" is just some abstract proposition disconnected from everything else in the life of one who adopts it. But that's all it is, then. As far as I'm concerned, at that point theist/atheist is a distinction without a difference. That is to say, good, fine, get rid of that irrational belief in God. It makes little difference, however, if one continues to believe and act according to other irrational principles.
I dare anyone to try to tell me that there are no atheists who are homophobes, or sexists, or racists. The only real difference between the religious homophobe and the homophobe who happens to be atheist is that one can reason with the religious person. Specifically, as there is no rational reason to refuse civil rights to homosexuals in the United States, those who weren't leaning on God pretty much went with the "ick" factor, imagining how awful it was to stick their dick in another man's mouth or ass when everyone knows the only asses and mouths dicks should go into are women's. With the religious person, say, a Christian, one can appeal to all sorts of constitutional angles, judgment and compassion, and so on. With the atheist on the "ick" factor? I don't know, negative reinforcement? Maybe shock therapy? No, seriously, how do you break that kind of aversion?
Or what else is there? Atheists aren't a range of one-trick ponies. Um ... oh, right. Someone mentioned "Laws of Nature". Well, you know, Nature made men to be with women, not with other men. Yeah, by the same token, Nature didn't exactly intend dicks to go in mouths and asses, either, so perhaps some dude going on about the Laws of Nature in such a circumstance should remember that when he wants a hummer from his wife.
But, no, really, what does it matter to me if one overcomes the "God" irrationality and just dives into a sea of neurotic irrationality? Congratulations, one just became an atheist. Now what?
And what I've learned from these discussions over the years is that the answer is simple enough: What do you mean, "Now what?"
I suppose it comes down to a coin toss. Heads atheism is atheism is atheism. Tails, we pursue the persuasion of religious people to convert to rationality.
In the event of that latter, it helps to remain rational. For some reason, many atheists find this proposition offensive and persecutory.
____________________
Notes:
Haddad, Yvonne Y. "The Islamic Alternative". The Link, v.15 n.4. September/October, 1982. AMEU.org. May 6, 2014. http://www.ameu.org/getattachment/95724959-9612-4f5f-a769-ee876b1972aa/The-Islamic-Alternative.aspx
Bells said:
So, then, it would seem that the ideas of persuasion and converting the religious to rationality are non-starters?
I mean, sure, relying on God for one's moral compass isn't helpful, per se; then again, we haven't managed to run ourselves to extinction, yet. But the mixed bag is irrelevant insofar as if one's purpose in expression is to persuade, then it does no good to separate that persuasion from the process one is about to undertake.
Well, if the whole thing about persuading and converting the religious is just smoke blown, then what is the point of evangelizing atheism?
You know how powerful neuroses are, and what they can do to a human being's sense of rationality. Are the religious so inhuman, then, that we owe their neuroses no human consideration?
You might as well check an addict into a rehab center and offer no therapy. And no security. After all, keeping them sober and safe during treatment is a separate issue from intake and payment. It's like a bad joke from Gaiman and Pratchett.
I mean, how does it go? Have we done our part simply by denigrating religion and telling people they need to change?
Let's try a different illustration.
There is a rumor tiptoeing around one of my social circles regarding a friend who is about to exit the closet for the simple fact that she has fallen in love with, and begun a relationship with, another woman. Until this, our friend identified and conducted herself as a heterosexual. The rumor is that something clicked for her back in December, which would be when I was in Hawai'i talking about these issues with her. It would be entirely arrogant to presume that something was one of our conversations, but the fact remains that if she ever has any questions about other people's experiences, the one thing none of her gay friends will tell her is that her question has nothing to do with being gay. Think about it. We all know. Her family doesn't. That's coming. And if she has any questions about how these discussions with family go, nobody is going to tell her that it has nothing to do with identifying as gay.
There is a process taking place, a psychological rubego'berg that will cause her both logical and emotional distress. Come out, come out. Come out and play. You're locked inside? Well, that's nobody else's problem. You're in there, and supposed to be out here, and while people have every right to criticize your unwillingness to come out, those critics have no obligation to actually be helpful.
Nothing about the preceding two paragraphs should strike you as unusual.
But what if instead of looking at her lesbian reflection in the mirror, it was a question of whether that reflection was still religious or becoming an atheist?
All of those acquired values and behaviors, conditioned beliefs, and neurotic stresses?
The idea that the process we demand is none of our business is downright gelid.
But think about that for a moment, please. Nobody is actually demanding that she come out. Nobody is actively trying to "convert" her to the sapphtastic. And everyone is lining up to do their part if she asks for help. Big deal. We're her friends; we ought to be able to help. Or, at least, give a damn.
Then again, if it was a question of theistic faith or atheism, apparently we might call for conversion, but how to actually do that just isn't supposed to be part of the discussion. There are some who would pretend this is simple: Just stop believing in God. When it comes to atheism, the civil rights of atheists, and societies making rational decisions, such a pretense of simplicity is to everyone's detriment.
You're aware of my attachment to certain strains of psychology; while Brown Freudianism in the twenty-first century probably isn't the best framework for understanding life, the Universe, and everything, it is, to the one, an outlook that depends on the humanity of human beings in human history. There are many events and actions recorded in history that seem to make no sense at all if we demand that history must be interpreted according to mechanical logic. That is to say, human history, lived and acted out by human beings, will be shot through with irrationality. Understanding that irrationality is not what we might call an inviting task, but the alternative to understanding history is stumbling blindly from one event to the next.
Hence the dialectic of neurosis. It is impossible to know definitively what, exactly, was going through whose head for what reasons at any given time; that's not a sum we can achieve like, say, the mass of stable diatomic hydrogen. But we can get a hell of a lot closer than speculating after such notions as gratify our egos. Look at some of the "logic" around here:
"How can such a scheme be anything but ridiculous and arbitrary? It should be quite easy to abandon this pitiful excuse for reasonableness." —Spidergoat
Now, how does such an assertion relate to your understanding of human psychology and behavior? Are human beings really so mechanical in their thought processes as our neighbor suggests?
"I think religion drives one's economic outlook. Islam tends to keep people in the dark ages, shunning western education and technology." —Spidergoat
For all the times I have presented Haddad's "The Islamic Alternative" (.pdf), it seems reasonable that one choosing to disagree with it would at least have the courtesy make a case. That so many rational people apparently won't even consider a thirty-one year-old examination of history that predicted the rise of activities like Al Qaeda and other hyperauthoritarians is one thing, but if religion drives one's economic outlook, and Islam tends to keep people in the dark ages, then how are there any wealthy Muslims in any modern Western society?
And, furthermore, as comes up in other discussions of world events, those who are so appalled at the sectarian violence in Iraq, Pakistan, and other countries might wish to consider what Americans would do to each other and everyone else if we were expected to live under the same conditions.
Wars are economic. Religion is a form of window dressing, much like the banners and bunting and poppies and yellow ribbons in the U.S. Or, rather, we should say this is hardly an extraordinary assertion unless, of course, an atheist decides to make a random assertion that "religion drives one's economic outlook".
And, yet, we still have Haddad's article describing the rise of Islamic authoritarianism in the twentieth century and considering the processes at play, and that's all shit, of course, because, well, it's more convenient to our neighbor's argument that way:
The growing consensus in Islamic countries for the necessity of articulating an Islamic world view—that can define, supervise, and govern all aspects of life—is part of the on-going search for dignity, identity and purpose. It is an attempt to provide authentic answers to basic human questions such as: Who am I? Where did I come from? And where am I going? These are questions that have challenged several generations of Muslims throughout this century as their countries have been conquered, divided, parceled out and assigned to various spheres of foreign influence ....
.... The critical need for such answers has been mandated by what is perceived as the unsuitability of the Western models for Muslim countries, evidenced by the failure of these models in those Muslim countries that have adopted or experimented with them, and by what is perceived as the failure of the model even in the West itself.
.... The critical need for such answers has been mandated by what is perceived as the unsuitability of the Western models for Muslim countries, evidenced by the failure of these models in those Muslim countries that have adopted or experimented with them, and by what is perceived as the failure of the model even in the West itself.
And this growing consensus, by Haddad's outlook, germinated in the 1960s and early '70s. The upheavals and instability in Islamic countries is a documentable process going on since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
It is currently popular in some circles of the Western press to refer to the rise in Islamic consciousness and identity as "Militant Islam". For those Muslims engaged in the process of Islamization, Militant Islam appears to be their response to "Militant Secularism", "Militant Christianity" and "Militant Judaism" ....
.... Europeans considered Muslim political institutions as antiquarian and obsolete. Throughout the 19th century various Western powers exerted pressure on local governments to liberalize their institutions. This included at times political, economic and military pressures to adopt changes in their policies as well as to incorporate Western "democratic" principles in their government.
Western arrogance was finally sanctioned by the Versailles Treaty (1919), which implied that Arab nations were unfit to govern themselves. International agreements had promised the independence and autonomy of Arabs in return for their rebellion against the Muslim Turks, their fellow religionists. Despite these promises, the European powers devised the mandate system which carved up the Ottoman Empire into several states to be ruled directly by Britain and France. This was justified as a "civilizing" mission. In effect, Arab countries were assured that they would become beneficiaries of the European enlightenment which would help bring them into the 20th century by developing their political, economic and social institutions after Western models. This was to prepare them to assume responsibility for themselves once they had learned how to emulate the Europeans.
.... Europeans considered Muslim political institutions as antiquarian and obsolete. Throughout the 19th century various Western powers exerted pressure on local governments to liberalize their institutions. This included at times political, economic and military pressures to adopt changes in their policies as well as to incorporate Western "democratic" principles in their government.
Western arrogance was finally sanctioned by the Versailles Treaty (1919), which implied that Arab nations were unfit to govern themselves. International agreements had promised the independence and autonomy of Arabs in return for their rebellion against the Muslim Turks, their fellow religionists. Despite these promises, the European powers devised the mandate system which carved up the Ottoman Empire into several states to be ruled directly by Britain and France. This was justified as a "civilizing" mission. In effect, Arab countries were assured that they would become beneficiaries of the European enlightenment which would help bring them into the 20th century by developing their political, economic and social institutions after Western models. This was to prepare them to assume responsibility for themselves once they had learned how to emulate the Europeans.
Haddad notes that by the end of WWI, Afghanistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen were the only Muslim countries "which had not experienced direct or indirect European rule".
Sure, the evidence points away from our neighbor's suggestion that "religion drives one's economic outlook", but, you know, he qualified it. He thinks. That is, sure, it's an irrational belief, but, you know, the obligation to be rational ends at the rational rejection of God's existence.
Seriously, guys who get tattooed with the Virgin Mary because they think it will protect them in gunfights? Would we blame that solely on Christianity, or might the facts of being economically deprived, undereducated, and ensconced in the cultural produce of such conditions have something to do with why these young Americans join the sorts of gangs that get into those fights? Frankly, I'm less worried about the proposition that Catholicism is responsible for Florida drug gangs.
That these bangers have incorporated their religious identity into their gang identity? That is a human behavioral trait. And, you know, frankly, I just have a hard time imagining Mater Mary with a MAC-10 in each hand, leaning out the car window, spraying bullets into a crowd. We can look to the socioeconomic long before we look to religion.
I'm searching through Google, looking for the times from 2004, '08, '09, '10, '11, and '13 (discovered so far) in which I posted the article for one reason or another. People's unwillingness to address its content might actually seem striking, and the one I'm presently pausing to take in is a 2013 discussion about women serving in combat roles for the American armed services; Spidergoat made his point about religion driving economy, I countered with Haddad, and nobody bothered responding to the article. But his response was to form: A swing at Catholicism, and a declaration of his own lack of bigotry.
And it's not just Spidergoat; he happened to provide a couple of recent examples that strike after the heart of the problem, and, well, it turns out this is one of his packaged routines. But it's true that for ten years I've tried to get people to consider the history of what they're complaining about in Islam, and, really, it's quite difficult to get anyone to answer its content. For some, it is simply the rational decision that they should not address history that conflicts with their beliefs. For others, perhaps it's just the comfort of sloth in the face of a point that doesn't mean that much to them.
But in our neighbor's case, it is emblematic.
Look, I'm not going to deny that relying on God for one's moral compass isn't helpful. But it's also beside the point.
It's fine with me if "atheism" is just some abstract proposition disconnected from everything else in the life of one who adopts it. But that's all it is, then. As far as I'm concerned, at that point theist/atheist is a distinction without a difference. That is to say, good, fine, get rid of that irrational belief in God. It makes little difference, however, if one continues to believe and act according to other irrational principles.
I dare anyone to try to tell me that there are no atheists who are homophobes, or sexists, or racists. The only real difference between the religious homophobe and the homophobe who happens to be atheist is that one can reason with the religious person. Specifically, as there is no rational reason to refuse civil rights to homosexuals in the United States, those who weren't leaning on God pretty much went with the "ick" factor, imagining how awful it was to stick their dick in another man's mouth or ass when everyone knows the only asses and mouths dicks should go into are women's. With the religious person, say, a Christian, one can appeal to all sorts of constitutional angles, judgment and compassion, and so on. With the atheist on the "ick" factor? I don't know, negative reinforcement? Maybe shock therapy? No, seriously, how do you break that kind of aversion?
Or what else is there? Atheists aren't a range of one-trick ponies. Um ... oh, right. Someone mentioned "Laws of Nature". Well, you know, Nature made men to be with women, not with other men. Yeah, by the same token, Nature didn't exactly intend dicks to go in mouths and asses, either, so perhaps some dude going on about the Laws of Nature in such a circumstance should remember that when he wants a hummer from his wife.
But, no, really, what does it matter to me if one overcomes the "God" irrationality and just dives into a sea of neurotic irrationality? Congratulations, one just became an atheist. Now what?
And what I've learned from these discussions over the years is that the answer is simple enough: What do you mean, "Now what?"
I suppose it comes down to a coin toss. Heads atheism is atheism is atheism. Tails, we pursue the persuasion of religious people to convert to rationality.
In the event of that latter, it helps to remain rational. For some reason, many atheists find this proposition offensive and persecutory.
____________________
Notes:
Haddad, Yvonne Y. "The Islamic Alternative". The Link, v.15 n.4. September/October, 1982. AMEU.org. May 6, 2014. http://www.ameu.org/getattachment/95724959-9612-4f5f-a769-ee876b1972aa/The-Islamic-Alternative.aspx
TV Announcer.
And now we return to the Sciforums Peace Conference in Geneva..........
Marmalade Cat: Let's make love on the towel.
Tabby Cat: No way, you ferkin hypocrite.
And now we return to the Sciforums Peace Conference in Geneva..........
Marmalade Cat: Let's make love on the towel.
Tabby Cat: No way, you ferkin hypocrite.
Last edited:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Is they dancin'?
Love a good old fashioned cat fight... Meow... Hiss.
ETA... You're not calling us pussies are ya?
Watch those nails dammit.
Tiassa said:
Tends. To. He's describing a factorial modifier of quantitative outcomes. I appreciate that your syntax is probably laced with these "political twists of the knife", but unfortunately this is an unethical and malicious habit. It suggests another recent problem with discussion on here; deliberate misrepresentation via shading to black. This, too, must stop.
Not really. One of the worst aspects of religion are it's antiquated and fixed immoral laws.
They are adults not infants. They can handle it. I'm satisfied with current trends.
Are you aware that the laws in the OT are attributed to a specific set of people, for that specific time and place. ''Religion'', as it pertains to humans, have no laws other than those humans set.
''Religion'', is nothing more than a way of living ones life.
jan.
This and That
Forest for Trees
There are reasons I don't grant you any credibility, Geoff, and the above is an example of why. Your pedantic fisking indicates that you are more focused on the individual than the issue. This is one of those moronic behaviors that must stop, Geoff.
Meanwhile, you are welcome to demonstrate that the historical record reflects the assertion that religion drives economic outlook. You know, instead of trying to invent a fake issue?
And yet you show no comprehension of the question.
So much for "trying to convert the religious over to reason".
Yeah, there's a reason I don't count myself among the atheist population. Such as it is, it would make just as much sense to join the KKK.
But thank you for the confirmation that this isn't really about "trying to convert the religious over to reason".
Forest for Trees
GeoffP said:
There are reasons I don't grant you any credibility, Geoff, and the above is an example of why. Your pedantic fisking indicates that you are more focused on the individual than the issue. This is one of those moronic behaviors that must stop, Geoff.
Meanwhile, you are welcome to demonstrate that the historical record reflects the assertion that religion drives economic outlook. You know, instead of trying to invent a fake issue?
• • •
Spidergoat said:
And yet you show no comprehension of the question.
So much for "trying to convert the religious over to reason".
Yeah, there's a reason I don't count myself among the atheist population. Such as it is, it would make just as much sense to join the KKK.
But thank you for the confirmation that this isn't really about "trying to convert the religious over to reason".
Bells
Staff member
Tiassa said:
Of course there are homophobic, sexist and racist atheists. But I disagree that one could reason with a religious person while one could not reason with an atheist person. The absolute prime example is women's rights. I would argue that the continued arguments with religious people in the US has done little to stem the rising tide against the denial of women's rights to reproductive health care. Far from it, attempts to reason have seen people excommunicated from their religion and branded as murderers in the general community. There was no reasoning with the religious right who saw fit to keep a dead woman alive to grow a child, for example.
There is little to no appeal to constitutional angles, judgement and compassion with the religious right when it comes to many aspects of society, especially when it pertains to women and their rights over their own bodies. There is a direct correlation between religious worship and church attendance and the belief that abortion should be illegal. The result of this can be seen in the many articles and cases linked in the abortion threads on this site. Suffice to say, we have now reached the point where religiously owned or managed hospitals are happy to let women die instead of performing a routine and safe medical procedure to end her pregnancy, even in cases of miscarriage or ectopic pregnancies. They do this while citing religious based doctrines.
And I have not even touched on the support of religious doctrines in shutting down clinics and denying women birth control and other reproductive health care.
So in that regard, I have to disagree with your assessment that one could reason with a theist by reminding them of their compassion and asking them to use their judgement. The women being sent to jail in America for miscarrying, because the religious politicians in their state believe in life at conception based on their religious beliefs deemed it was necessary, would disagree with you.
In and Out
Tends. To. He's describing a factorial modifier of quantitative outcomes. "Tends to" does not bring one to "any".
You know, I never quite know if you're just trolling all this. It's possible. But taking your commentary at face value, I do appreciate that your syntax is probably laced with these "political twists of the knife". There are several possibilities: i) you don't notice that you're doing this, ii) this is deliberate misrepresentation; shading to black, iii) you don't care whether you do it or not, and so the misrepresentation occurs randomly, or iv) you're just careless. If it's deliberate - or indeed anything but i) - it's an unethical and malicious habit. That's another problem on here, the casual ignorance of proper discussion and debate format. I expect that, as someone more familiar with politics and pedantry than hypothesis construction and debate, it might be old hat to you. That's as may be... but I think you have to start appreciating that other people tend to be as direct and, well, honest as they can. I get the rationale you use for this kind of thing, but what you don't seem to realise is that not everyone is so committed to a resolution that they don't mind bending the norms of cogitation or argumentation. (This was suggested by the 'ego' comments earlier; it's not for nothing that people bring this up seemingly out of nowhere in the middle of a debate.) I also appreciate this perspective you have about the spirit of the discussion being more important than the facts of the case; again, I think you have to appreciate that other people approach an argument from a more rational foundation. But, if deliberate, it raises another point about discussion on SF; this, too, must stop.
I missed this initially:
I distinctly recall a discussion earlier about how the easily offended atheists of SF weren't being stereotyped, or denigrated because in fact it was only all of some of them that were really offensive. Themselves, like. To other people. Anyway, there was a lot of convoluted logic and then someone piped in you're trying to make y'sef a Vic-Tim, yer pommie bugger, yer! I think someone wrote, or something like that. And then an elder statesman descended to give his view: some of these reprobates, far from cheering the delicate extra-endogenous other-self-reflection of the OP, had actually jumped on a bandwagon. They had! There had been a bandwagon, and the idiots or evil people had actually jumped atop it! And now they were careening around in it, or maybe just standing in it and jumping, I don't know but I'm sure that it was malicious jumping and I can guarantee you they didn't have a permit. I've no idea what the zoning conditions are like in your municipality, but I can tell you that we don't stand for such nonsense out here in Dunny-on-the-Wold. We clamp down on it, especially when it wasn't our idea.
One thing that was made clear by this statesman was that atheists or atheism was not being insulted. That was clear. And that was why this same statesman made a point, above, of illustrating just how not-not-nasty atheists really are, by inferring that they had no humanity. Of course, I expect some of them will take offense: tchuh! That's just like them, isn't it? And so the old that was really new is... old again? Whichever, it doesn't matter: the question of the hour is now: "How can the atheist homophobe be reached? He's different than regular homophobes! Without his or her having an approbation of the merciful philosophies that contributed to thousands of years of horror and slaughter, or a soul, or even the kind of soul that lets one make unsupported arguments on the internet, how can we reach through the blustery, conceited shell of the atheist bigot into the soul he doesn't have?" And it is a trying question.
In the several full seconds I took to consider this daunting issue, I've found I really have no idea. I understand that atheists, because of their essential rejection of humanity along with theology, are more like zombies or rabid gods - excuse me, dogs; don't know how I could have made such an mistake - with their skepticism and their rationality n' such. It's kind of like witchery, isn't it? Except a soulless, rational witchery. Well, whatever. And, just like zombies or rabid dogs, they exist only to spread their infection - no, no, don't disagree, I've caught the scent of your southern wind now. You're just saying what everyone knows is true. It's revelation! It's like a blind light!
And really, really, what can we really expect from them? Specifically, what do we imagine a committed atheist homophobe can possibly be expected to try to make of a practicing homosexual, besides meat patties? We can only imagine the confused skeins that must rake through their robotic minds: Perhaps they just stare, wondering how such a strange creature hasn't been selected out of existence by now. Or maybe they react like a flightless Galaphagos bird, unable even to recognise the being before them, so fundamentally inconceivable as it must be to them.
But anyway, I can surely understand your terror, given the high percentage of atheist homophobes out there. Well, all right, the stats suggest something radically different, but still, if only in the name of ego: robotic atheist murderers. Why, why, I dare someone to tell me there are no robotic atheist murderers in the atheism movement! And even if there aren't, don't you all appreciate how there could conceivably be some, theoretically? Surely it's just the kind of organisation they'd join.
But as to your essential question: With the religious person, say, a Christian, one can appeal to all sorts of constitutional angles, judgment and compassion, and so on. With the atheist on the "ick" factor? I don't know, negative reinforcement? Maybe shock therapy? No, seriously, how do you break that kind of aversion? Well, you don't have to tell me how important your comment is: I can tell from your use of the word "seriously" that this issue is, indeed, very serious. Indeed.
Leaving aside the fundamental disregard of constutional process and judgement that atheism engenders, might I suggest that the homophobic atheist might be (and pardon the pun here) 'converted' to social integration with discussion, fear-lifting and outreach, like one would do for any other human being? I mean, we all know that atheists, because of their atheism, can't be appealed to on basis of common feeling or humanity, but at the least it should be attempted. You know, so that at least we can just say to ourselves - who are clearly the most things in this discussion - that at least we tried.
Tiassa said:
Tends. To. He's describing a factorial modifier of quantitative outcomes. "Tends to" does not bring one to "any".
You know, I never quite know if you're just trolling all this. It's possible. But taking your commentary at face value, I do appreciate that your syntax is probably laced with these "political twists of the knife". There are several possibilities: i) you don't notice that you're doing this, ii) this is deliberate misrepresentation; shading to black, iii) you don't care whether you do it or not, and so the misrepresentation occurs randomly, or iv) you're just careless. If it's deliberate - or indeed anything but i) - it's an unethical and malicious habit. That's another problem on here, the casual ignorance of proper discussion and debate format. I expect that, as someone more familiar with politics and pedantry than hypothesis construction and debate, it might be old hat to you. That's as may be... but I think you have to start appreciating that other people tend to be as direct and, well, honest as they can. I get the rationale you use for this kind of thing, but what you don't seem to realise is that not everyone is so committed to a resolution that they don't mind bending the norms of cogitation or argumentation. (This was suggested by the 'ego' comments earlier; it's not for nothing that people bring this up seemingly out of nowhere in the middle of a debate.) I also appreciate this perspective you have about the spirit of the discussion being more important than the facts of the case; again, I think you have to appreciate that other people approach an argument from a more rational foundation. But, if deliberate, it raises another point about discussion on SF; this, too, must stop.
I missed this initially:
I distinctly recall a discussion earlier about how the easily offended atheists of SF weren't being stereotyped, or denigrated because in fact it was only all of some of them that were really offensive. Themselves, like. To other people. Anyway, there was a lot of convoluted logic and then someone piped in you're trying to make y'sef a Vic-Tim, yer pommie bugger, yer! I think someone wrote, or something like that. And then an elder statesman descended to give his view: some of these reprobates, far from cheering the delicate extra-endogenous other-self-reflection of the OP, had actually jumped on a bandwagon. They had! There had been a bandwagon, and the idiots or evil people had actually jumped atop it! And now they were careening around in it, or maybe just standing in it and jumping, I don't know but I'm sure that it was malicious jumping and I can guarantee you they didn't have a permit. I've no idea what the zoning conditions are like in your municipality, but I can tell you that we don't stand for such nonsense out here in Dunny-on-the-Wold. We clamp down on it, especially when it wasn't our idea.
One thing that was made clear by this statesman was that atheists or atheism was not being insulted. That was clear. And that was why this same statesman made a point, above, of illustrating just how not-not-nasty atheists really are, by inferring that they had no humanity. Of course, I expect some of them will take offense: tchuh! That's just like them, isn't it? And so the old that was really new is... old again? Whichever, it doesn't matter: the question of the hour is now: "How can the atheist homophobe be reached? He's different than regular homophobes! Without his or her having an approbation of the merciful philosophies that contributed to thousands of years of horror and slaughter, or a soul, or even the kind of soul that lets one make unsupported arguments on the internet, how can we reach through the blustery, conceited shell of the atheist bigot into the soul he doesn't have?" And it is a trying question.
In the several full seconds I took to consider this daunting issue, I've found I really have no idea. I understand that atheists, because of their essential rejection of humanity along with theology, are more like zombies or rabid gods - excuse me, dogs; don't know how I could have made such an mistake - with their skepticism and their rationality n' such. It's kind of like witchery, isn't it? Except a soulless, rational witchery. Well, whatever. And, just like zombies or rabid dogs, they exist only to spread their infection - no, no, don't disagree, I've caught the scent of your southern wind now. You're just saying what everyone knows is true. It's revelation! It's like a blind light!
And really, really, what can we really expect from them? Specifically, what do we imagine a committed atheist homophobe can possibly be expected to try to make of a practicing homosexual, besides meat patties? We can only imagine the confused skeins that must rake through their robotic minds: Perhaps they just stare, wondering how such a strange creature hasn't been selected out of existence by now. Or maybe they react like a flightless Galaphagos bird, unable even to recognise the being before them, so fundamentally inconceivable as it must be to them.
But anyway, I can surely understand your terror, given the high percentage of atheist homophobes out there. Well, all right, the stats suggest something radically different, but still, if only in the name of ego: robotic atheist murderers. Why, why, I dare someone to tell me there are no robotic atheist murderers in the atheism movement! And even if there aren't, don't you all appreciate how there could conceivably be some, theoretically? Surely it's just the kind of organisation they'd join.
But as to your essential question: With the religious person, say, a Christian, one can appeal to all sorts of constitutional angles, judgment and compassion, and so on. With the atheist on the "ick" factor? I don't know, negative reinforcement? Maybe shock therapy? No, seriously, how do you break that kind of aversion? Well, you don't have to tell me how important your comment is: I can tell from your use of the word "seriously" that this issue is, indeed, very serious. Indeed.
Leaving aside the fundamental disregard of constutional process and judgement that atheism engenders, might I suggest that the homophobic atheist might be (and pardon the pun here) 'converted' to social integration with discussion, fear-lifting and outreach, like one would do for any other human being? I mean, we all know that atheists, because of their atheism, can't be appealed to on basis of common feeling or humanity, but at the least it should be attempted. You know, so that at least we can just say to ourselves - who are clearly the most things in this discussion - that at least we tried.
Last edited:
Someone left this comment on an atheist support group. 
[video=youtube_share;-zSBz_2jm8o]http://youtu.be/-zSBz_2jm8o[/video]
Okay, Tiassa, I see your point, but a lot of anti-atheist bigotry and myths still remain. Humans have a deep need to be needed. There are support groups and they will continue to rise as more and more atheist come out of the closet.
http://recoveringfromreligion.org/
http://apostasy.org.uk/
http://www.seculartherapy.org/
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/sos
http://www.clergyproject.org/
What do you think about the "We Are Atheism" campaign mimicking the gay rights campaign?
[video=youtube_share;-zSBz_2jm8o]http://youtu.be/-zSBz_2jm8o[/video]
Okay, Tiassa, I see your point, but a lot of anti-atheist bigotry and myths still remain. Humans have a deep need to be needed. There are support groups and they will continue to rise as more and more atheist come out of the closet.
http://recoveringfromreligion.org/
http://apostasy.org.uk/
http://www.seculartherapy.org/
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/sos
http://www.clergyproject.org/
What do you think about the "We Are Atheism" campaign mimicking the gay rights campaign?
What and Why
But, Tiassa, you missed the best parts. There was so much there, such beauty. But the upshot is that I can finally see things as you do, T! And let me tell you, it is so liberating to narrow the view like that! I had no idea the richness of the restricted outlook before - everything increation Creation cluttering up our view - but now I see, brother. Now I see! Amen, brother: a-men.
You must be kidding - first we have to fight off the hordes of atheist homophobes in the face of the greater plurality of tolerant views in the atheist community. That is such a loaded task, brother, that one would literally not know where to begin.
For a start, how would we even begin to deal with the problem of numbers, and incidence, and, and... viewpoints? How is the movement expect to move forward - which I have every sense a movement should do, or at least that it should move from a dark, closed space into the light and then maybe into a basin of water before circling round and round, gaining force and speed until it whisks out of its watery prison on the path to ultimate freedom and probable chemical treatment - when we have this unconscionable restriction imposed by the God-haters of reality and fact? I say we keep on arguing from the ego and the personal dialectic; that'll really fuck them up. Right?
Darn right: throwing feces from that one side of the fence makes so much more sense. And just watch those god-damned - no, literally, they're literally damned by God, aren't they, Tiassa? - atheist scum "take offense" at being compared to a pack of murderous racists. Fucking atheists. They're just so much less than human, aren't they, brother?
But, Tiassa, you missed the best parts. There was so much there, such beauty. But the upshot is that I can finally see things as you do, T! And let me tell you, it is so liberating to narrow the view like that! I had no idea the richness of the restricted outlook before - everything in
You must be kidding - first we have to fight off the hordes of atheist homophobes in the face of the greater plurality of tolerant views in the atheist community. That is such a loaded task, brother, that one would literally not know where to begin.
For a start, how would we even begin to deal with the problem of numbers, and incidence, and, and... viewpoints? How is the movement expect to move forward - which I have every sense a movement should do, or at least that it should move from a dark, closed space into the light and then maybe into a basin of water before circling round and round, gaining force and speed until it whisks out of its watery prison on the path to ultimate freedom and probable chemical treatment - when we have this unconscionable restriction imposed by the God-haters of reality and fact? I say we keep on arguing from the ego and the personal dialectic; that'll really fuck them up. Right?
Darn right: throwing feces from that one side of the fence makes so much more sense. And just watch those god-damned - no, literally, they're literally damned by God, aren't they, Tiassa? - atheist scum "take offense" at being compared to a pack of murderous racists. Fucking atheists. They're just so much less than human, aren't they, brother?
Well, Tiassa appears to be 'indisposed' - contributing, no doubt, to the movement before sending it on its way down the channels of enlightenment - so I'll answer this one. I'll have it known, matey, that the inhuman, KKK-paralleled atheist movement - convincingly illustrated above with an off-the-hip assertion; a gunslinger, that Tiassa - has no right to make any such mimicking.
- Status