Apologies for my combative nature in some recent posts, I hope this explains some of it; the rest is just my nature.
Earlier this year I went to a small event hosted by the Common Weal in a Christian coffee shop (most amusing). It was by the Scottish Humanists and to do with religion in schools. Search Common Weal they are great people to talk and debate with [tangent 1 over].
I was interested in a few of the ideas that emerged. One commentator, an atheist from CW, did not like any argument from a religious perspective and would not listen to their explanation, yet they said that all theological trained people were not allowed to reason and were indoctrinated. I hope this raised your eyebrows, as it did mine! Did he not realise what he said? [tangent 2 over]
So I have been travelling over the internet learning about CW and atheism and I find lots that concern me, mostly to do with being hypocritical, uninformed or possibly just bigoted as the guy above possibly was. I am here then to ask a few questions, if I may?
1 – “We believe that atheists can proudly stand against the unfair judgment that so frequently plagues godless and non-religious people.”
What about the unfair judgement of the theists that appear to visit, are they somehow responsible for the wrongs of others? How about the broad generalisations that abound and the fallacious comments?
2 – “Atheist Republic advocates against religious and dogmatic teachings that promote violence and oppression.”
Great, how about using it to improve atheist/humanist ideology so that another`s belief can be respected rather than derided and abused.
3 – “We can’t stay silent while witnessing cruelty and injustice because we are not just atheists — we are atheists who care.”
If that is so then it is cruel and unjust to allow some of the crass comments here.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
For the moment, I'll pick one of your questions and provision my thoughts on it:
"Great, how about using it to improve atheist/humanist ideology so that another`s belief can be respected rather than derided and abused."
I do not think it necessary to respect any beliefs. IMO, many beliefs absolutely need to be derided and abused.
There is no, absolutely ZERO, 'atheist ideology'!
To my knowledge, AR was not started by any of the currently active posters on these forums. It's ineffective, therefore, to ask any of us why the founder(s) included what they did on this website.
The original statement “Atheist Republic advocates against religious and dogmatic teachings that promote violence and oppression.”
You say any and then many beliefs, can you expand? Zero atheist ideology is testicles, because it then does not allow for criticism, proof of God has been a big thing here yet science is allowed to be something that is not totally absolute, it is something to be built on. many correspondents then seem to attack religion as an absolute, when it clearly is not.
It is not innefective to ask that the preambles here, are either something that is relevant to the content or admit this is a site that is not relevant.
Don Logan: It has been explained that the preambles were written by people who formed an organization and no poster at this time is a member of that group. We no more represent AR than you do.
Then to quote another person, "Get them to fuck out of here" or if you prefer they are no longer relevant, remember relevance.....?
Don Logan : Sorry, I do not understand. Clarification please.
Don Logan : Sorry, I do not understand. Clarification please.
1) It isn't the obligation of anyone to respect YOUR mythology. I find that believers get upset if an atheist even questions a religion.
2) I can't agree with your statements because ever single instances is a separate situation, so in your OP YOU are generalizing.
3) Your comment on the atheist CW is vague at best, but realize this if you will. I for one as an atheist can never take a believer serious because they have no proof. They refer to the bible as their only proof. Most if not always they don't even understand what proof is. They say things like "just because you don't accept my proof only proves your lack of an open mind." That isn't true at all. The burden of proof and definition of proof are difficult but must be met to be accepted.
I can see why a person such as the CW commentator will not accept comments by a believer as they have experienced endless comments that don't have any proof to back them up.
1). "People require dignity, ideas do not require dignity" that's a quote from a college professor at Harvard I think it was, I can't remember his name but point is every idea demands to be questioned. I am in complete agreement with you here.
3). Someone being religious doesn't automatically discredit anything they say any more than being an atheist discredits what you have to say, and I wouldn't say that "the bible is their only proof," dentists for example believe in G-d because of what they believe to be sufficient proof, they believe in G-d because they themselves concluded this, no one told them to.
@Harry Truman
"dentists for example believe in G-d because of what they believe to be sufficient proof"
I have to ask. Which dentists, and why? Is there proof of god in our teeth? Or have they just been playing around with the novocaine and laughing gas too much?
@Algebe
You rock!
@harry Truman
as to point #3. It depends on what the person in question is saying and what proof if any is offered.
As far as "dentist believing in a god, that no one told them to", that is not true at all. Anyone that believes in a god has to be taught, brainwashed, indoctrinated,institutionally culturized, to do so. People are born not believing and coerced in some manner to believe in a god. They just don't start believing without an outside influence.
@Don Logan:
"What about the unfair judgement of the theists that appear to visit, are they somehow responsible for the wrongs of others?"
If you're a member of the Catholic church, for example, you share in the collective guilt of that organization for every child that has been abused by priests and brothers, and for every cover-up by bishops, archbishops, and cardinals. Through your role in that organization, however small, and through your silence, you have empowered it to do these terrible crimes.
Or do you just shrug and say "Am I my brother's keeper?" Perhaps you could say "I was just following orders."
Logical fallacy, look it up (bad company....)
@Don Logan
"Logical fallacy, look it up (bad company....)"
Not if you're putting money in the collection box, it isn't. If you're an active member of an organization, you share in the collective guilt of that organization. When I reread my post, I thought I'd come dangerously close to invoking Hitler with the "obeying orders" comment, but after thinking it through, I believe it's exactly right. When a Catholic/Anglican/Salvationist, etc., knows something is rotten in their church but keeps quiet, as most do, they're actually following orders, either explicit or implied.
Utter rubbish, it IS a logical fallacy to say that someone who knows nothing of a crime is guilty along with the perp. If you are an atheist are you collectively guilty of the chapel hill murders? Yes if someone does nothing about a crime then they are to be criticised, but if they do not know directly and are just a member of the organisation they cannot be guilty.
What's the relevance of Chapel Hill? Did Atheists for Freedom, whatever that is, create an environment that facilitated and concealed murder? Did they pay for the gun or the bullets? I don't think so.
The Catholic Church trains men for the priesthood, insists on celibacy, and creates situations where these men have unsupervised access to children, such as choirs, schools, and children's homes. When they offend, instead of reporting them immediately to the police, they move the offender to other dioceses, often in other countries, and try to intimidate or bribe the victims into silence. This has been going on for generations. Maybe 50 years ago there was an excuse for not knowing about it. Today there's no excuse. So everyone belonging to, supporting, or financing the Catholic church is guilty.
You'd need to draw a pretty long bow to show any parallel between that interlinked mass of individual and organizational guilt, and the actions of a deranged lone-wolf gunman in North Carolina.
I am an atheist poster on AR and no more a member of AR than the Christians or Muslims. I try to be rational and and engage in honest debate. I am not above using mockery or sarcasm at times. To paraphrase Carl from Slingblade : "Some ideas need killing , um!". Those are my own standards and other atheists may or may not agree. I try not to be mean but can be rude at times. Feel free to answer me in kind. I can take it. I have been told since I was a teenager that I will burn in hell, have no way to be a moral person, and am causing my parents undo suffering. This from friends and family I love and respect. I don't believe it and pity the fools. Not much anyone on AR can throw at me that will do any damage.
@Don Logan:
"One commentator, an atheist from CW, did not like any argument from a religious perspective and would not listen to their explanation, yet they said that all theological trained people were not allowed to reason and were indoctrinated."
That does raise my eyebrows. When I ran meetings I liked to let everyone have their say, though the meetings I ran tended to be long and inconclusive for that very reason. It's not really part of my skill set. Judging from what's on their website, the Common Weal appears to be a very left-wing organization trying to turn Scotland into Ceausescu's Romania.
"Government can’t just sit back and let the biggest win – we need action to promote the right kind of economy, to support good Scottish businesses in the face of aggressive low-pay multinationals, to kick-start industries that have potential but which free markets on their own are not growing."
The only way to "kick-sttart industries" that the free market doesn't want is by establishing a command economy. Perhaps they see the churches and religions as part of the establishment and as such as a barrier to that goal.
Anyway, while you will get vigorous arguments here and occasional flashes of anger, I don't think anyone will try to shut you up, however, combative you are. In fact some of us much prefer combative posters to the ones that simply prosyletize.
Don Logan,
POINT 1) What about the fact that some theists may be unfairly judged by some atheists on this (or any) forum? Who shall decide if some theist has been unfairly judged by an atheist, and what is your recommendation? More bureaucracy, more rules? Censorship? If a theist can't defend his or her position, then what is that theist doing here? If a theist has thin skin and can't roll with a few questionable punches (which sometimes follow their more absurd claims and attempts to proselytize), or they can't handle occasional tough language, then what is that theist doing in a debate forum?
Remember, atheists are not all alike. Some may throw questionable punches (usually provoked) on occasion, but others go out of their way to be patient and fair. Given the centuries that atheists have been persecuted, and the gross lies that have been rained down on them by theists, I see nothing wrong with the quoted statement. The focus of this site, after all, is on atheism. The fact that poorly judged theists are not mentioned doesn't imply an "okay" for poor judgment. So, what's the fuss all about? If you feel you have something, then spell it out in numerous, concrete examples. Avoid vague generalities and cryptic expressions that reference material I have not seen or have forgotten.
POINT 2) I think I can speak for most atheists in saying that religion should not be immune from criticism. Religions tend to be arrogant, intolerant to the point of violence, and where they have the power criticism usually becomes a crime, a crime punished by social judgment, shunning, banishment, or death. Religions absolutely must be criticized in any serious search for truth. If that makes your understanding of "respect" a casualty, then so be it! However, in many cases needed criticism can be delivered at a lower decibel level. But, unfortunately, there are times when one has to just slam the table!
POINT 3) I suspect that the author is talking about serious cruelty and injustice in a bigger world outside of this forum, not the bruising some unprepared people get in this debate forum. If a theist can't defend himself, then what is he doing here? You have to expect some questionable shots in a heated debate! A forum manager should step in only if the situation gets grossly abusive.
Isn't that sort of like walking into a church, shouting "THERE IS NO GOD, GET OVER YOURSELVES" and then asking why they are abusing me?
Maybe you should get over yourself.
@ kataclismic “Isn't that sort of like walking into a church….” Isn`t what like walking into a church? WTF are you are referring to?
@greensnake – TY for that, I had hoped you would add something to this as one of the more informed members here [ego massaged we move on :) ].
1 – Sorry it was not meant to read like that, I am constantly criticised for not being able to make myself clear with the written word [dyslexia/dyspraxia/ASD]. My concern was that by use of bad logical argument, of which I am also guilty, that a good debate then descends into abuse via these fallacies and generalisations. The reason I came here is the same as visiting the CW meeting, to learn more about this belief system, tonight will be “Death Café” which is exciting [return from tangent]
Regarding the centuries of abuse of atheists… It doesn`t make it right to say “They started it…” that is how fundamentalism can start.
If I understand you correctly, you want evidence of poor judgement? If so we`ll start with this thread http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/considering-jesus-chri...
Nyarlathotep tries to say (if I understand correctly) God can`t lie and Jesus as God incarnate can do anything are incompatible. This is ignorance of Christianity; Tieler follows up in the same vein showing the same ignorance. The upshot of the thread is seen at the bottom of the page where mykcob4 goes off on a frothing rant of generalisations he believes are true and gets all pissy about the OP`s avatar. This shoots Algebe squarely in the foot with his earlier post **"Love is patient love is kind.the real attributes of a follower of christ."No. Those are the attributes of decent people. Christians don't have a monopoly on them.** Chimp3 adds his/her 2p worth; “Christians do not own compassion, , charity, or selflessness. To think so is delusional.” Which is not what was said, and that is not right, it`s like watching kids in nthe playground attacking someone because they are not the same, shame on them!
2 – I think the term is “Fuckin A” The churches I have spoken with are very self-critical, with the obvious exception of the JW`s, so I guess it is a case of perception from our different locales.
3 – True that debate gets heated and as an ex-ruby player I would expect a “shoeing” if I were to not roll away from the ball at the right time, however in the above thread you have a young person (Seenyab4) who gets personal for no reason “Apparently Jesus can teach you love and hope, but not proper grammar.” (sic). Does this then indicate that he is not a decent person (cf. Algebe`s statement again). The cruel injustice that is repeated time and again on these threads increases a person`s belief that it is OK to continue in this way, as in any fundamentalist ideology.
Probably more to say but I need to work to eat :)
@Don Logan
"This shoots Algebe squarely in the foot"
Who shot me in the foot?
Did you notice the title on this forum. It's called the "Debate Room", and it's part of the Atheist Republic website. Yet the OP you refer to seems to think that it's a good idea to use it as a Christian pulpit. He also tossed around words like empty and nihilist. And like it or not, his avatar is part of his preaching behavior. On top of that his posts are often near unintelligible because of his refusal to use the shift key. I'm sure he's aware that his posts will trigger vigorous counter-arguments, irritation, anger and even ridicule here. Yet he keeps coming back. Did he ask you to defend him against the ill-treatment he gets here, or did you decide all by yourself to put your foot in your mouth?
If you can`t work it out by rereading it then I am unlikely to be of any service to your understanding.
No I do not know him/her and yes it isn`t a pulpit, but being kind and generous atheists you would allow a certain amount of slack rope?
Foot in mouth?? Please explain, I don`t know if I have done something to embarass someone else?
Well the other poster gets lot of flack for preaching and offering a view that many here consider irrational. Some of the criticism is pretty biting. But he keeps coming back, and you have to admire his persistence. But then you step in uninvited and ask for sympathy on his behalf as if he weren't able to stick up for himself. That looks like the unkindest cut of all to me.
"...unfair judgement of the theists that appear to visit..."
"...another`s belief can be respected rather than derided and abused..."
"...cruel and unjust to allow some of the crass comments here..."
Couldn't I use the same arguments if I go into a church and tell people that there is no god? That these are my beliefs and they should be respected? If I can't then why can you?
Do you understand what I'm referring to now? Do you have the ability to put yourself in somebody else's shoes, or is that an attribute that only I possess?
That`s better! I now understand rather than having to guess at your remarks. I can empathise or understand to a certain extent about anothers point of view, but only after they explain a bit better.
Yes you could go into a church and tell people that there is no God, I`m sure many would welcome you. I respect your belief, why can`t you do these things, in a caring and sympathetic way (obvs).
I don't know what churches you've been to but where I live and where I used to live you'd be met with a severe amount of hostility, abhorrence, condescension, and bigotry. I went to visit my dad awhile ago and there was a religious debate in the street the other day in down town los angeles. Haven't seen people that riled up in awhile. Looked like it could've easily turned into a brawl if tensions got any higher. Religion runs very close to the surface for most people. Especially because of the fanatic way it is often spread.
@ kataclismic “Isn't that sort of like walking into a church….” Isn`t what like walking into a church? WTF are you are referring to?
@greensnake – TY for that, I had hoped you would add something to this as one of the more informed members here [ego massaged we move on :) ].
1 – Sorry it was not meant to read like that, I am constantly criticised for not being able to make myself clear with the written word [dyslexia/dyspraxia/ASD]. My concern was that by use of bad logical argument, of which I am also guilty, that a good debate then descends into abuse via these fallacies and generalisations. The reason I came here is the same as visiting the CW meeting, to learn more about this belief system, tonight will be “Death Café” which is exciting [return from tangent]
Regarding the centuries of abuse of atheists… It doesn`t make it right to say “They started it…” that is how fundamentalism can start.
If I understand you correctly, you want evidence of poor judgement? If so we`ll start with this thread http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/considering-jesus-chri...
Nyarlathotep tries to say (if I understand correctly) God can`t lie and Jesus as God incarnate can do anything are incompatible. This is ignorance of Christianity; Tieler follows up in the same vein showing the same ignorance. The upshot of the thread is seen at the bottom of the page where mykcob4 goes off on a frothing rant of generalisations he believes are true and gets all pissy about the OP`s avatar. This shoots Algebe squarely in the foot with his earlier post **"Love is patient love is kind.the real attributes of a follower of christ."No. Those are the attributes of decent people. Christians don't have a monopoly on them.** Chimp3 adds his/her 2p worth; “Christians do not own compassion, , charity, or selflessness. To think so is delusional.” Which is not what was said, and that is not right, it`s like watching kids in nthe playground attacking someone because they are not the same, shame on them!
2 – I think the term is “Fuckin A” The churches I have spoken with are very self-critical, with the obvious exception of the JW`s, so I guess it is a case of perception from our different locales.
3 – True that debate gets heated and as an ex-ruby player I would expect a “shoeing” if I were to not roll away from the ball at the right time, however in the above thread you have a young person (Seenyab4) who gets personal for no reason “Apparently Jesus can teach you love and hope, but not proper grammar.” (sic). Does this then indicate that he is not a decent person (cf. Algebe`s statement again). The cruel injustice that is repeated time and again on these threads increases a person`s belief that it is OK to continue in this way, as in any fundamentalist ideology.
Probably more to say but I need to work to eat :)
Don Logan :"Chimp3 adds his/her 2p worth; “Christians do not own compassion, , charity, or selflessness. To think so is delusional.” Which is not what was said, and that is not right, it`s like watching kids in nthe playground attacking someone because they are not the same, shame on them!"
This is the sentence I responded too:
"imagine a world today without christianity.it would be nihilist only living for the here and now to get what i want when i want and by any means.no sympathy or compassion a complete nihilist existence."
And so, I repeat " “Christians do not own compassion, , charity, or selflessness. To think so is delusional."
No it wasn`t, the grey line indicating the reply (If I am correct) comes from this;
"may the love of jesus be in your heart love your neighbor as yourself,and love god with all your heart, soul strength and mind your whole fabric.love is patient love is kind.the real attributes of a follower of christ."
Link - http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/considering-jesus-chri...
Pages