He's right,though, about the "ick" factor. Homophobia isn't a phobia. It originates from the feelings of disgust. I would suggest discussing disgust.
Holy shit! After Tiassa finishes with us, I might need a support group myself.
A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
He's right,though, about the "ick" factor. Homophobia isn't a phobia. It originates from the feelings of disgust. I would suggest discussing disgust.
Holy shit! After Tiassa finishes with us, I might need a support group myself.
Is There Really a "Better" Bigotry?
My example pertained specifically to homophobia, a case I've laid out before; even within a Christian structure, there are several routes through in the American political and legal calculation. However, when one is up against a conditioned "ick" response, well, we cannot force people into psychotherapy for that, can we?
(I just enjoy the irony of that point.)
As to the human rights example pertaining to women, I agree entirely.
But what I'm getting at with the point about atheists with bigotries about gays or race or sex is that such outcomes pretty much nullify any merit we might find in that person's assertion of rationality: Oh, good, you're not religious, and won't be suffering that religious irrationality anymore? Oh, I see. So you're not religious, and going to keep being irrational anyway, and just pretend you're rational because you don't believe in God.
In other words, does that individual believe himself a rational misogynist, and therefore not a misogynist at all? (After all, it's not "misogyny" if it's "true".) Or does that individual celebrate his rational rejection of God while treating other people poorly for irrational reasons? And if one happens to be the focus of that person's rational, cruel irrationality, is he or she supposed to feel any better that the hatred isn't justified by "God"? I mean, at least in that case the irrationality has a reason, that the person is deluded. Without that delusion, though, there really is no excuse.
The thing is, though, that trying to reorient one's life entirely around rational principle is hard. And this is why it's not surprising that the atheistic obligation to rationality is frequently declared to end at the atheistic assertion itself. And in those cases, it's all about ego gratification. These are people who still want to play the religious game, but just don't want to be seen as religious.
Consider a rhetorical conundrum, please. Recently I made a point of a cartoon about rape culture and the insistent, self-centered presence of the "not all men" argument. And while the initial response was about what we might expect, I think we can borrow the concept for illustrative purposes here.
Not all atheists? Of course not. But this argument is, to the one, as self-centerd as the "not all men" argument; to another, as much as we might see versions of "not all atheists", I wonder how well such constant reminders of "not all Christians" or "not all Muslims" would go over; to a third, if any member of any group wishes to rally 'round the label on any particular occasion, it behooves them to attend the actual point, lest they embarrass themselves such as so many Christians in the Puget Sound area did coming to the aid of an accused child molester. (If I vote for Bob Republican because I hate Obamacare and think the lower taxes I pay under Obama than I did under Bush means I'm being taxed too much, does that really excuse me from voting for the guy who sponsored the latest Personhood bill in Congress or a state house? I mean, sure, that's not why I voted for him, so you don't get to blame his empowerment to try to hurt women on me, right? Because it's a separate issue, and we shouldn't talk about Republicans being anti-abortion and misogynistic, because, after all, "not all Republicans" are like that. Seriously, what is it about "atheism" that is supposed to win that exemption?)
Looking to the individuals within the atheist movement, we can certainly observe the presence or lack of rhetorical integrity. And if atheists want a common identity of any real effect—i.e., more than a KKK for the anti-religious—yes, they have some obligation to such integrity.
To take the U.S. as an example, part of the problem is that many atheists are already ensconced in a traditional culture largely but not entirely derived from religious principles. We can certainly blame that heritage for part of the problem, but without that rhetorical and conceptual integrity, atheists will eventually lose out in a devastating way.
Imagine Justice Ginsburg to a lawyer for some atheistic organization: "You object to the religious influence alleged to cause irrational outcomes in legislation and jurisprudence because of that irrationality, but also petition the Court to honor an arbitrary and irrational 'sincere' belief. How do you suggest the Court reconcile the demand to pitch irrationality and replace it with irrationality?"
There is a tremendous danger that winning out on that count will simply reserve a broader swath of irrationality to protection under the law.
Or how do we countenance an atheistic outlook that leads to outcomes ranging from the merely uncomfortable to the downright horrifying? No, seriously, we need not condemn atheists as advocates of pedophilia, but I would suggest people think twice before citing a "rational" thought process that includes such results as advocacy of pedophilia. Dawkins ought to be persona non grata to the movement.
And what are we to think of such evangelical sloth as our neighbor Trooper offered? I don't know, do you recall I happened to mention, last year, the marriage of my cousin's eldest son? And how he and his bride didn't know what a marriage license was? He is developmentally impaired, there is no question. And he is of the sort to frequently blow your mind with odd recitations of "biblical" principle not found anywhere in the Bible. But here's the thing: Replace Nietszche and Frankl with Bible verses, and my cousin's mentally impaired eldest son could easily have written that post.
Furthermore, a recurring theme in the atheistic response is important. As Trooper noted, "You don't lose your sense of right and wrong". And as you inquired: "Why would you assume that we lose our morality or our ability to tell right from wrong when we abandon God?" There is no gentle way to put it; this is an ugly sleight. Consider the point again, please:
Where in there does one assert that one loses their sense of right and wrong?
Consider those human rights issues pertaining to women. I would like to think that among the arguments and perspectives we share is the idea that we're making a rational argument in support of the observable fact that women are human beings.
If a theist who happens to be misogynistic converts to atheism, what happens to a woman's proper place? How much difference does it make between yesterday and today if the theist-cum-atheist, having abandoned God as the justification, simply maintains arbitrarily his beliefs about a woman's proper place under a man?
Right and wrong still exist, but how does one differentiate? By habit? Is that really any better than by religious tradition or Godly dictum?
And when we ask atheists about that transition of justifications, the answer is consistently that such an issue is irrelevant to atheism.
I'm not sure just what magick those atheists are banking on, but they sure as hell aren't being rational. Well, okay, in a way they are; see related note at #540. But it's not a particularly useful version of rationality; as I noted then:
Honestly, would you prefer the person who believes God says, "Thou shalt not kill", or a more logical, perhaps capitalistic outlook, such as that expressed by the character Henri Verdoux: "One murder makes a villain; millions, a hero. Numbers sanctify, my good fellow!"
Or, as Monsieur Verdoux expressed: "This is a ruthless world and one must be ruthless to cope with it."
And as The Girl reminded: "It's a blundering world and a very sad one, yet kindness can make it beautiful."
Yes, it's a ruthless world; one could follow Verdoux's outlook to rationally justify all manner of wrongdoing. Indeed, the ruthless world that one must face ruthlessly is at the heart of our American dog-eat-dog "capitalism". And within those confines, certain acts we might otherwise be horrifed or outraged by are entirely rational; the problem is in the presuppositions, that this is the way it must be, the only way it can be.
As Goldman argued over a century ago:
This is still true. But the question, for instance, of what we will replace relgion with, is entirely irrational. Setting aside the puerile disdain such a question aims toward evolution itself, we might also observe that the question of what we will replace religion with is predicated on the presupposition that such despotism and gloom and tears and blood is the only way religion can be.
The question of replacing religion is a false promise until such time as the human brain undergoes specific adaptations to its creative centers. But it's also fun and easy self-gratification.
The human species has a better chance of wiping out a skin color than erasing religion.
But, you know, hey, that's a separate issue that has nothing to do with atheism, or so I hear from many atheists.
____________________
Notes:
Monsieur Verdoux. Dir. Charlie Chaplin. Perf. Charlie Chaplin, Marilyn Nash. United Artists, 1947. Film.
Goldman, Emma. "Anarchism: What It Really Stands For". Anarchism and Other Essays. 1910. New York: Dover, 1969. DWardMac.Pitzer.edu. May 6, 2014. http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/aando/anarchism.html
Bells said:
My example pertained specifically to homophobia, a case I've laid out before; even within a Christian structure, there are several routes through in the American political and legal calculation. However, when one is up against a conditioned "ick" response, well, we cannot force people into psychotherapy for that, can we?
(I just enjoy the irony of that point.)
As to the human rights example pertaining to women, I agree entirely.
But what I'm getting at with the point about atheists with bigotries about gays or race or sex is that such outcomes pretty much nullify any merit we might find in that person's assertion of rationality: Oh, good, you're not religious, and won't be suffering that religious irrationality anymore? Oh, I see. So you're not religious, and going to keep being irrational anyway, and just pretend you're rational because you don't believe in God.
In other words, does that individual believe himself a rational misogynist, and therefore not a misogynist at all? (After all, it's not "misogyny" if it's "true".) Or does that individual celebrate his rational rejection of God while treating other people poorly for irrational reasons? And if one happens to be the focus of that person's rational, cruel irrationality, is he or she supposed to feel any better that the hatred isn't justified by "God"? I mean, at least in that case the irrationality has a reason, that the person is deluded. Without that delusion, though, there really is no excuse.
The thing is, though, that trying to reorient one's life entirely around rational principle is hard. And this is why it's not surprising that the atheistic obligation to rationality is frequently declared to end at the atheistic assertion itself. And in those cases, it's all about ego gratification. These are people who still want to play the religious game, but just don't want to be seen as religious.
Consider a rhetorical conundrum, please. Recently I made a point of a cartoon about rape culture and the insistent, self-centered presence of the "not all men" argument. And while the initial response was about what we might expect, I think we can borrow the concept for illustrative purposes here.
Not all atheists? Of course not. But this argument is, to the one, as self-centerd as the "not all men" argument; to another, as much as we might see versions of "not all atheists", I wonder how well such constant reminders of "not all Christians" or "not all Muslims" would go over; to a third, if any member of any group wishes to rally 'round the label on any particular occasion, it behooves them to attend the actual point, lest they embarrass themselves such as so many Christians in the Puget Sound area did coming to the aid of an accused child molester. (If I vote for Bob Republican because I hate Obamacare and think the lower taxes I pay under Obama than I did under Bush means I'm being taxed too much, does that really excuse me from voting for the guy who sponsored the latest Personhood bill in Congress or a state house? I mean, sure, that's not why I voted for him, so you don't get to blame his empowerment to try to hurt women on me, right? Because it's a separate issue, and we shouldn't talk about Republicans being anti-abortion and misogynistic, because, after all, "not all Republicans" are like that. Seriously, what is it about "atheism" that is supposed to win that exemption?)
Looking to the individuals within the atheist movement, we can certainly observe the presence or lack of rhetorical integrity. And if atheists want a common identity of any real effect—i.e., more than a KKK for the anti-religious—yes, they have some obligation to such integrity.
To take the U.S. as an example, part of the problem is that many atheists are already ensconced in a traditional culture largely but not entirely derived from religious principles. We can certainly blame that heritage for part of the problem, but without that rhetorical and conceptual integrity, atheists will eventually lose out in a devastating way.
Imagine Justice Ginsburg to a lawyer for some atheistic organization: "You object to the religious influence alleged to cause irrational outcomes in legislation and jurisprudence because of that irrationality, but also petition the Court to honor an arbitrary and irrational 'sincere' belief. How do you suggest the Court reconcile the demand to pitch irrationality and replace it with irrationality?"
There is a tremendous danger that winning out on that count will simply reserve a broader swath of irrationality to protection under the law.
Or how do we countenance an atheistic outlook that leads to outcomes ranging from the merely uncomfortable to the downright horrifying? No, seriously, we need not condemn atheists as advocates of pedophilia, but I would suggest people think twice before citing a "rational" thought process that includes such results as advocacy of pedophilia. Dawkins ought to be persona non grata to the movement.
And what are we to think of such evangelical sloth as our neighbor Trooper offered? I don't know, do you recall I happened to mention, last year, the marriage of my cousin's eldest son? And how he and his bride didn't know what a marriage license was? He is developmentally impaired, there is no question. And he is of the sort to frequently blow your mind with odd recitations of "biblical" principle not found anywhere in the Bible. But here's the thing: Replace Nietszche and Frankl with Bible verses, and my cousin's mentally impaired eldest son could easily have written that post.
Furthermore, a recurring theme in the atheistic response is important. As Trooper noted, "You don't lose your sense of right and wrong". And as you inquired: "Why would you assume that we lose our morality or our ability to tell right from wrong when we abandon God?" There is no gentle way to put it; this is an ugly sleight. Consider the point again, please:
When a theist abandons God, the linchpin of their moral structure disappears, leaving their sense of right and wrong a house of cards susceptible to the slightest disturbance.
Where in there does one assert that one loses their sense of right and wrong?
Consider those human rights issues pertaining to women. I would like to think that among the arguments and perspectives we share is the idea that we're making a rational argument in support of the observable fact that women are human beings.
If a theist who happens to be misogynistic converts to atheism, what happens to a woman's proper place? How much difference does it make between yesterday and today if the theist-cum-atheist, having abandoned God as the justification, simply maintains arbitrarily his beliefs about a woman's proper place under a man?
Right and wrong still exist, but how does one differentiate? By habit? Is that really any better than by religious tradition or Godly dictum?
And when we ask atheists about that transition of justifications, the answer is consistently that such an issue is irrelevant to atheism.
I'm not sure just what magick those atheists are banking on, but they sure as hell aren't being rational. Well, okay, in a way they are; see related note at #540. But it's not a particularly useful version of rationality; as I noted then:
• Catholic doctrine can be extremely logical as long as one accepts the presuppositions.
• Rational calculation within an irrational formula is still irrational.
• Rational calculation within an irrational formula is still irrational.
Honestly, would you prefer the person who believes God says, "Thou shalt not kill", or a more logical, perhaps capitalistic outlook, such as that expressed by the character Henri Verdoux: "One murder makes a villain; millions, a hero. Numbers sanctify, my good fellow!"
Or, as Monsieur Verdoux expressed: "This is a ruthless world and one must be ruthless to cope with it."
And as The Girl reminded: "It's a blundering world and a very sad one, yet kindness can make it beautiful."
Yes, it's a ruthless world; one could follow Verdoux's outlook to rationally justify all manner of wrongdoing. Indeed, the ruthless world that one must face ruthlessly is at the heart of our American dog-eat-dog "capitalism". And within those confines, certain acts we might otherwise be horrifed or outraged by are entirely rational; the problem is in the presuppositions, that this is the way it must be, the only way it can be.
As Goldman argued over a century ago:
Religion! How it dominates man's mind, how it humiliates and degrades his soul. God is everything, man is nothing, says religion. But out of that nothing God has created a kingdom so despotic, so tyrannical, so cruel, so terribly exacting that naught but gloom and tears and blood have ruled the world since gods began.
This is still true. But the question, for instance, of what we will replace relgion with, is entirely irrational. Setting aside the puerile disdain such a question aims toward evolution itself, we might also observe that the question of what we will replace religion with is predicated on the presupposition that such despotism and gloom and tears and blood is the only way religion can be.
The question of replacing religion is a false promise until such time as the human brain undergoes specific adaptations to its creative centers. But it's also fun and easy self-gratification.
The human species has a better chance of wiping out a skin color than erasing religion.
But, you know, hey, that's a separate issue that has nothing to do with atheism, or so I hear from many atheists.
____________________
Notes:
Monsieur Verdoux. Dir. Charlie Chaplin. Perf. Charlie Chaplin, Marilyn Nash. United Artists, 1947. Film.
Goldman, Emma. "Anarchism: What It Really Stands For". Anarchism and Other Essays. 1910. New York: Dover, 1969. DWardMac.Pitzer.edu. May 6, 2014. http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/aando/anarchism.html
He's right,though, about the "ick" factor. Homophobia isn't a phobia. It originates from the feelings of disgust. I would suggest discussing disgust.
Holy shit! After Tiassa finishes with us, I might need a support group myself.
Listen, I didn't understand all that, because my focus has been sharply narrowed, and it makes me happy as a polygamist's bride. But listen, I don't think you understand the seriousness of the problem of opposition to religion. Don't you understand that making people feel good is paramount in this situation? And to that end, certain public speech - that against religion, specifically - must be suppressed. Or the people making it are evil. Or something. The facts don't matter in pursuit of the goal - that's another thing I've learned from a theist, recently.
It is actually. We want morals based on reason not divine decree. How do we transition to that? By not giving religious morality respect it doesn't deserve.
Still don't know what the hell you're on about. You are talking about people who no longer believe but still worry about sin? What's wrong with the answer, "There's no such thing as sin."? Is it that we don't say it nicely enough?
Last edited:
Oh my God! NOoo, Geoff, no! Tell me it isn't so. Who is this Tiassa? What is he? How can he see into my evil core? Is he a wizard, Geoff?
Listen, listen to me, Geoff...PLEASE! I've always wondered how the Ecclesiastes made its way into the bible. It’s prophetic, Geoff. It's a warning from a nihilistic preacher. I can see that now. Knowledge is portrayed in a negative light and in the end we are told to fear God. The lie must live on, Geoff. Can't you see that? That’s what it means. Cognitive dissonance is creeping through my veins. I’m coming apart at the seams. I can’t do it. It’s all up to you, Geoff. You must warn them. Knowledge is evil. You must stop this atheist movement before it’s too late.
May the force be with you, my friend.
So you disagree with Tiassa, who seems to be saying that going atheist creates all kinds of moral dilemmas that popular atheism fails to address?
Whoa thar... Tiassa got his pont across... ther was fun an laffter... those so inclined got to express ther hart-felt opinions... but best of all:::
How about that... Bells an Kitt workin together towards Sciforums civility... which will include posters an mods abidin by the same rules.!!!
Mods also bein subject to the rules woud grately increase civility makin Sciforums a beter experience for all... dont you agree.???
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I know, you're a terrible writer.
He really is, isn't he?
Bells
Staff member
This thread is more fallacious than a stripper dressed as a school teacher hanging off a light pole on a street corner in the Bronx...
Wait... thats fellatio... nevermind...
Deja..
Vu...
We meet again, twitchy kitty....
The basis of morality is to be able to discern the difference between right and wrong, is it not?Tiassa said:
A theist who is a misogynist is not a moral man and is a misogynist when he becomes an atheist is still not a moral man.
I have never understood when people ask how atheists are able to be moral, or where do our morals come from because we do not follow God. These very same individuals would scoff at 3/4 of the Old Testament as being immoral. I do argue that morality is not solely from religion, but from culture, community, family, education. My answer to your question is 'it is still in the place it always has been and I would ask them to remember who taught them right from wrong and their experiences that allowed them to differentiate the difference between what is moral and what is not'. If someone is an arsehole of a theist, he will still be an arsehole as an atheist. I don't think anyone has argued differently in that regard.
Nor have I ever argued that one instantly become rational when one becomes an atheist. Far from it. As we have seen, some remain irrationally evangelical and "religious" as atheists. I would assume the notion of 'rationality' comes from simply not believing in a deity that we believe is make believe and false. And everything else is just a side issue.
My problem with the New Atheist movement is that one has to be evangelical and we have to go out to convert people.. Which is religious in itself. I'd shut the door in the faces of atheist door knockers looking to convert, just as I shut the door in the faces of the Jehovah's Witnesses who plague my front veranda on Tuesday mornings with their booklets and messages of join or burn in hell.
Bells
Staff member
It is when the subject matter pertains to religion.
I know, you missed that bit..
It's okay..
/Pat
- Status