Weak Shit

Who cares if a fictional character is referenced on currency? I personally think it would be awesome if money started saying, "In Dumbledore We Trust."

Pardon the pun, but I've always found the atheist arguments to be the flipside of the same coin used by the religious nutjobs. They are just as dogmatic.

As far as the phrase on currency is concerned, it's pretty harmless since it does not specify who this God is. It doesn't favour a certain faith over the others, it just reinforces the belief of the majority in a some higher and infallible form of Justice.

I suggest that they change it to "Fuck, Our Economy's Going Into The Crapper" to more accurately reflect current events.

The Federal government isn't there to reinforce the belief of the majority, it's there to represent the Constitution.

And no, Atheists are not as dogmatic as religious types. They don't have dogma.

The athiest's lack of belief is their dogma, that is, their lack of belief defines their belief system, and that's not being said in a dismissive or derisive manner. In any event, this isn't a shock as Congress has a habit of focusing on non-issues while ignoring the real problems. Let's not actually do something about health care, the war or the economy, let's pass this law and set up a Congressional inquiry into whether or not the Patriots cheated and why the NFL may have destroyed some tapes. What a colossal waste of time.

I do love that argument, though. Its basis in absolutely NOTHING AT ALL is tough to refute.

You know, I hear what you're saying, but I still can't accept the argument that the absence of something has the same effect as its existence.

Semantics. I view the rhetoric under which people who believe in God are deluded and possibly idiots to be just as exclusive and in extreme cases hateful as that of the fundamentalists.

Anyway, since "In God We Trust" has always been on currency and it neither helped or hindered the establishment of a theocracy, I think this whole issue is of little importance. The Religious Right is just trying to create the perception of victory.

That's not atheism. That's like Atheists talking about bombing abortion clinics as a tenet of Christianity.

It hasn't always been on currency.

It's been on coins (some coins) since 1864. It's been on paper money since 1957.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_...ry_on_currency

From Wikipedia
eta: beaten to the punch...

I think keeping "god" and "money" as closely related as possible is quintessentially American.

If I propose an idea, and you dismiss it, that's enough. You're under no obligation to propose a replacement idea.

You can talk about how you don't believe God exists all day without ever indicating what, if anything, you do believe.

Why do you think atheists are "just as dogmatic"?

And that's the thing. Religious faith is not the exclusive domain of weirdos picketing funerals or people blowing themselves up for Allah or Tom Cruise. Yet, what I have witnessed from the more vocal atheists is using these cases of extremism to denounce the evils of religion. Hence my opening argument.

And I really find the attempts to belittle the faith of others (see the various snarky remarks here and elsewhere) to be insensitive and childish. There's a difference between not believing or agreeing with others and mocking them not sharing your beliefs.

As far as "In God we Trust" not always been on currency, I'd say being engraved on coins for the past 144 years makes that a moot point. It's proven to be inconsequential as far as the relationship between church and state is concerned.

You don't think insisting to adding "God" to money (and we're not eight years old here, we know what God they're talking about) is belittling the faith/lack of faith of others? Of course it is, and that's the whole point. You even said it yourself in your other post - "the illusion of victory". It's seen as a victory over people who don't believe.

It's seen as a victory by the Religious Right. Do you really care about what the Religious Right thinks as a victory? The rest of the world doesn't give a toss about this issue and rightly so.

I say, let them think they've won something. They haven't. And I'm pretty sure if they are ignored it will be even more meaningless.

I for one, as is customary in Norway, will burn a church tonight.
Just to even things out.

So when is it that you have such a problem with belittling attitudes?

On quarters, I suggest they put, "Call It, Friendo!"

But everytime they win one of these "pointless" battles, they keep going further, they keep chipping away at the laws of the land and the minds of the masses. If we can't fight these things on general principle, we might as well give up and let them have their bloody theocracy.

Try seeing it this way: Should a Christian living in Israel, feel belittled because there's a star of David on the flag? It's a proclamation of faith that is different from his but it would be preposterous to view it as an attack on other religions. What it says is "most of us are Jews". It doesn't say "most of us are Jews and you suck".

I love Norway's quaint socialist customs.

In this case you are falling into their trap. The want to stir up controversy and attract publicity. This very same phrase has been on coins for almost one-and-a-half century. Why should it become an issue now just because the fundamentalists are out baiting?

If all they've got to crow about is four little words on our money, I say let the babies have their bottles. I'd rather this than blowing up abortion clinics in a fit of pique after McCain gets the Republican nomination.

Atheism is certainly a belief. Believing that God doesn't exist is a belief. Moreover, it's probably a disbelief in a very specific conception of God. I'm reading a lovely little book by Krista Tippet, the host of the fantastic NPR show Speaking of Faith. In it, she writes that she defines a fundamentalist as "anyone who not only has the answers for himself, but has them for all the rest of us too." Now, I don't submit this as an airtight definition, but I do think it gets at something - namely, the audacity that it takes to be a fundamentalist of any religious stripe or a dogmatic atheist. To mock, deride, and dismiss out of hand the dearly held beliefs of others takes a lot of nerve. I'm not saying all atheists are dogmatic, but don't think that disbelief in God puts you above the fray and allows you to be contemptuous of others.

Israel is a Jewish state. Of course it has the Star of David on it. The country is defined by its Jewish heritage. America is not a 'Christian State'. These are apples and bananas.

Note that I don't really give a fuck what's on my money, I just think it's a bit hypocritical for someone so against the belittling of people's religious beliefs to not really give a shit about the belittling of people's lack of religious beliefs. Add that on to you playing the same game you're bitching about the Atheists for playing by ripping an entire group of people because some of the loudmouthes aren't nice about people who don't believe as they do. Yeah, there are Atheist douchebags. There are also Christian, Muslim and Wicca douchebags. 75% of the World is douchebag, and it extends to all parties.

You know, this is pretty much what I was trying to say. Points for economical use of language, GFC.

I love that!

Nope, me being a douchebag puts me above the fray and allows me to be contemptuous of others. The atheism is just icing on the douchebag cake.

So to speak.

I think it's easier to call an atheist out as a dick than any other group. I think an atheism pill is pretty fucking hard to swallow for many people. That's why someone like Dawkins always gets a "he's a dick" label all the time. When you speak objectively and imperically, you don't beat around the bush and wax beautiful metaphorical music that appeases all parties. You pretty much say, "there is no god."

You can't really sugarcoat that, and since it's harping on the core belief of theology, you can't help but come off like a dick. By stating you're an atheist, you're pretty much calling all faiths wrong... it's not like when two different theologies argue, "yeah, well my God is fat and likes cheetos and he's the right one." or "well, my God has a large growth that gives him his powers." They can at least agree that there's a god there telling them how to tell us how to live.

Can we please put the kaibosh on this stupid "if you belittle my faith, you're as bad as a fundamentalist" shit? And also the "there are dogmatists on both sides" shit? Look up the definition of "dogma" and then we'll talk.

I hate this fucking false equivalency. Fundamentalist Christians believe that everyone who doesn't agree with them is going to writhe in eternal torment for all eternity, that what they believe is axiomatically true regardless of logic or empirical observation, and that they are compelled by their divine spaghetti monster to keep fighting until their viewpoint has crushed all others. There are a few atheists for whom that last statement qualifies (aside from the 'divine compulsion" bit); otherwise, there's no comparison. Period.

And yes, the religious statements on US currency have been a source of contention since they were established. Teddy Roosevelt, for one, wanted to completely remove the word "God" from the currency. As usual, it was kept not because there's any legal reason but because fundamentalists form a large enough bloc to get things their own way. These people are anti-democratic, which is why this kind of crap matters. They're going to expect to be pandered to until we make it clear that democracy comes first in the political system.

But, for a large amount of the world's religious people in this situation, each one of them also thinks the other guy is going to suffer eternal torment. An atheist just thinks the other guy is incorrect.

edit: I wrote that before reading The Prankster's post, if you can believe it. We both just love the phrase "eternal torment," I guess.

I can't support the notion that atheists are being "just as dogmatic" on this particular issue. The Religious Right wants "In God We Trust" kept on the currency. Presumably, the atheist equivalent would be to print "In No God We Trust" or "In God We Don't Trust". But that's not what's being asked for. They'd rather not reference God one way or the other. In what sense is that not the middle ground?

Yes, in the scheme of things it is an inconsequential issue but what bothers me about it is this: if the Religious Right refuse to budge on such an allegedly unimportant issue, how are you going to get them to see reason on something that is genuinely important? That's the greater point here.

In God we trust, indeed.

I can't believe it. You must admit that it's hard to believe that two trailblazing posts the likes of which I've never seen before on CHUD could spontaneously erupt, challenging the religious status quo here and changing the board forever, without some sort of previous, covert PM activity.

No, especially not if you're going to take that tone.

Okay. This is from the Oxford English Dictionary, definition one -

"That which is held as an opinion; a belief, principle, tenet; esp. a tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down by a particular church, sect, or school of thought; sometimes, depreciatingly, an imperious or arrogant declaration of opinion."

What's your point?

That is pretty nasty, but, really, what does it matter? If you don't believe in damnation, it really takes the sting out of their plans for your afterlife, doesn't it? Dogmatic atheists believe that religious people are deluded morons, doomed to go through life looking through the wrong end of the ol' binoculars. Which, really, is worse?

Ah, let's go back up to that definition of dogma, shall we? You, as an atheist (I would assume) hold western logic and empirical observation as a principal dear to your worldview. You do not accept that others don't require their understanding of reality to be filtered through this same system at all times. Moreover, whether or not you fully intend to, you clearly assume that the belief systems of others should conform to your worldview. This is dogma. Period.

Fwiw, I do agree with you here, but please note that this, all of this, is a matter of belief. As atheists and agnostics, we do not see eye to eye with these people about how our country should work. Being a dismissive jerk simply lowers the argument to their level. And, unfortunately, it's not how democracy works.

Okay. I just saw that he used "eternal torment" and I thought it would look weird reading two posts in a row with the same phrase - i.e. why would I write it right after he just did? So I added a friendly little thing in an edit. But if you want to make fun of me, that's fine, too.

Probably the ones who are wrong. Probably the ones whose beliefs sometimes clash with civilized morality.

Sigh, I am getting angry, which sucks.

Most religious people - especially the fundamentalists - do not argue against western logic and empirical observation. They see themselves as perfectly reasonable. They don't do it very well, but that's a different thing.

You know what? You're right. Jesus, man, now there was someone who didn't know jack about how to behave morally in society. Abraham, Moses, Martin Luther King, Jane Addams, Buddha, Abraham Joshua Heschel - none of them knew thing one about how to treat one's fellow human beings. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot - they knew what was what, they did...

"Wrong?" Don't play absolutes, okay? It just sounds foolish. Anyway, you acknowledge that this conflict occurs only sometimes. So what's your point? Atheistic beliefs and religious beliefs sometimes clash with "civilized morality." What are you arguing here?

I think the layer that makes Atheists extra assholish is that to believe in the tenets of atheism takes no effort. "There is no god/supreme being/beef supreme/nacho supreme etc. That's what I believe." After that, generally an atheist, or more to the point, a self-prescribed atheist tends to understand empathy (pain hurts everyone, not just me, therefore causing pain is universally bad), and generally invokes the intellectual belief system that one can be good without having a God to punish them if they don't.

But with all other religions there are practices and tenets and ideologies that you'd think would have to be obeyed to be a member of the tribe. Alas, so much of religion - and lets narrow this down to American religion - is like sixth man syndrome. And I think the double frustration is the sense that not only do the religious believe something that an atheist disagrees with, they don't even practice their faith according to the - in this case most often - the words of Jesus Christ.

The "authoratatively" is the crucial bit. It means, in this context, that which is laid down by authority, usually of a divine nature. The term has, obviously, been stretched (some might say devalued) but this is the original definition. Properly speaking, there is no "atheist dogma" because there's no divine authority. Atheists, by definition, don't believe in things because a higher power tells them to.

You can call atheists close-minded if you like, but this unthinking application of the word "dogma" gets my goat. There is no equivalency here. There's just a baffling need by some to say "Both sides are just as bad, and in exactly the same ways," in order to provide some kind of false balance.

The first one is worse, because it's the literal wishing of pain and torment on those who aren't in the club. It's sublimated as "God will torment you after you die, that'll learn you" rather than the literal need to go out and CAUSE that pain (except in some cases, of course) but it's still a philosophy that glories in violence and suffering. Whether individual atheists want religious people to suffer or not, it's not inherent to the philosophy.

Agnostic, actually.

No, actually, I don't. My post was aimed (pretty clearly) at fundamentalists, not all religious people. I'm perfectly happy to live and let live, as it happens, and in fact I rarely wade into religious discussions for that reason. I would never think someone was a moron for believing in something ineffable, or believing something different happens after death. But this particular argument has been bothering me for quite some time, and it's used to excuse flagrantly unconstitutional behaviour on the part of government--a tyranny of the majority. That's not something I take lightly.

Zooey, I really think we're in violent agreement here, and that you've simply misinterpreted what I said. I'm not being a dismissive jerk. I'm aware that no one in this thread is a fundamentalist, but the arguments being thrown around in the name of "fair-mindedness" are inherently insulting, no matter how mildly they're phrased. I believe I'm justified in using strong language in defending my beliefs--not attacking.

MissZooey, I wish I knew how to rep you.

Why do people insist on confusing the several billions of decent, normal people who believe in God with the few million who are batashit insane and wait for the rapture?

I think the problem with these definitions is that it amounts to saying that if you think you're right about anything, you're dogmatic about it. If you think you have the answers for you, why wouldn't it be true for everyone else? Whether or not God exists, He does/doesn't for everyone. You don't have to be a dick about it, sure, but you also don't have to pretend that all positions have equal merit because people get sensitive about it.

All of this is beside the point however, that atheists are not trying to force the beliefs system on anyone by asking that religious mesages not be branded on money. It serves no purpose except to introduce by increments religious judgment and controversy into government.

Can I once again point out that I wasn't doing this?

You mean like you've done with Atheists, grouping an entire set of people into one mindset because of the actions of the obnoxious people who believe as they do?

As Prankster said, there is no Atheist dogma. As an Atheist, you're not required to believe anything or follow any rules. You don't have to think that everyone else should be Atheist, you don't have to live life a certain way, etc.

A belief in something - or more specifically, not believing in something - isn't dogma.

This is rapidly devolving into a discussion of semantics. Athiests have their own beliefs, and whether or not you choose to define "dogma" as a broad belief or more narrowly as a set of authoritative religious beliefs is irrelevant. Athiests have beliefs, and moving "In God We Trust" to a more prominent place on our currency can devalue those beliefs (and all other religions) in the public eye. It's a weak move calculated by fundamentalists to motivate their base, just like the attention paid to the so-called "war on Christmas" does every winter.

Prankster, sorry, I was not implying that you did that.

GFC, if you take a look around the boards, snark is the response to any hint of religious faith. Not only to the occasional wacko who somehow ends up here (and I'm all for frustrating the crazies) but also to anyone who might display a morsel of Faith. And to me, this is not that different from those obnoxious believers proclaiming that their faith is right and yours is wrong, wrong, wrong.

I'd prefer some genuine respect towards others' beliefs, no matter how much someone might disagree with them. Disagreeing with the militant atheists is a matter of principle, like disagreeing with the militant christians or muslims or Zarathustrans.

Which militant Atheist were you disagreeing with? You're complaining about one thing but doing the exact same thing back to them (someone, apparently).

That's a fair bit of extrapolation. The definition, itself, even says that "authority" is laid down by a particular church, sect, or school of thought. I'm reading Pynchon's Against the Day right now and one of the ongoing plot points is a dispute between Quaternionists and Vectorists, basically mathematicians and physicists who are dogmatic about their particular perception of reality. It's a good illustration of how dogma can work without a divine figure or even a single person at the heart of a particular school of thought.

Western-based reason (the system of thought that basically comes down from the Greek rationalists) is a school of thought. It's a very prevalent one that probably transcends that word "Western" at this point, but it's still absolutely a school of thought. To not be able to see past it and to insist on its primacy is, indeed, to adhere to a dogma, of a sort. For better or worse.

So, technically, you're not a dogmatic atheist (or agnostic - incidentally, depending on how you define your words, religious agnosticism is essentially just a subset of atheism, anyway). But your atheism and, more to the point, your condescension toward non-atheists is a product of dogmatic adherence to Western reason. Again, for better or worse.

As for Schwartz's concern in relation to the word, "dogma," I'd have to agree that there's a certain looseness to it. The key is in the connotation, not the denotation. The haughty, superior tone is what we associate with the word, and that's what gets everyone's hackles up, atheists and believers alike.