Weak Shit - Page 2

But there is no "Atheist Dogma". People can be 'dogmatic' about their Atheistic beliefs (whatever they are and however they came about them) but there is no Atheistic dogma. You can't be a Catholic and be pro-choice (so says the head of the Catholic Church) but you can be Atheist and be pro-choice or pro-life or pro-infanticide.

Can we at least all agree that the argument that violations of the separation of church and state should be tolerated if they relate to silly things is flawed?

I think the agnostic credo should be put on money - "Fuck If I Know".

Or the IRS/Cosa Nostra credo - "Fuck you, pay me."

Wait, so "dogma" is an actual word? I thought it was something Kevin Smith made up to sound funny.

Well, "dogma" actually sounds kind of funny. More than "snoogins", anyway.

Hmm. The OP points out how the Religious Right are peeved not because God is being taken off of currency but because God isn't prominent enough on our money and that somehow leads to a discussion about how atheists are dogmatic.

Yeah... That's, like, ass backwards.

"Atheism is so dogmatic, it's almost as bad as religion.

P.S. religion rules"

Do you think the billions of decent people would be any worse if they didn't believe in God? If yes, that's what I disagree with. If no, then okay.

Are you saying Martin Luther King would have been a bad person if he didn't believe in God? Are you saying Stalin would have been great if he did?

And yeah, I was dumb to use the word "wrong."

I don't think I disagree with you here. I was saying that atheism (or, rather, the type of atheism I suspect we're discussing here) is more of a conclusion from the tradition of reason in the West, and it's probably more that this rationalism, itself, is what might be said to have a dogma, of sorts.

Atheism, itself, doesn't really suggest anything one way or another. There are belief systems not grounded in the rationalism of the ancient Greeks or Western Enlightenment thinking that are just as atheistic (Theravada Buddhism, for instance). Hypothetically, you can come to atheism from a variety of angles, so, no, I don't think you can say there's a dogma attached to atheism, itself.

However, as alluded to above, I don't think I'm assuming too much in thinking that the passionate anti-atheism that informs pretty much all religious topics on this board eventually is coming from Greek rationalism/Enlightenment thinking, which, as a specific school of thought has more baggage than something like atheism, which is really a pretty broad concept.

While it's hard to argue overall with the results of this particular school of thought, it still has to be acknowledged as a school of thought, thus its adherents are subject to occasional dogmatic thinking. It's, in fact, the dogmatic thinking associated with this rationalism that led not just to atheism as we know it, but directly to literalism and fundamentalism, as religious thinkers started devaluing the power of myth and needed their holy texts to be "true" in not just a symbolic, spiritual sense, but in a quantifiable scientific sense. This is pretty clearly a misapplication of reason, but it shows how adhering too firmly to dogma (even when it's dogma related to something as seemingly positive as reason) can make a mess of things. Would anyone here really have a problem with religion if it weren't for the misapplication of reason?

I wouldn't, and I'm the worst, most assholish person in this thread, so I think we're good.

The motto isn't the problem. Responding to complaints from the Religious Right is the problem. Religious groups should not have any more of a voice in government than sports clubs, particularly the Religious Right. Conservative social engineering is for the birds even if it isn't masquerading as Christianity.

Gee, those are straw man arguments I've never seen before.

Let's review, though (bolding is mine)...

"Probably the ones who are wrong/whose beliefs clash with civilized morality" refers directly to either A. "dogmatic atheists" or B. "religious people." Based on context, I assume you were referring to the latter.

Now, if you'd been smart about this, you might have specified that you were talking about the bad, non-MLK-like kind of religious people. But you didn't. You essentially wrote that "religious people are the ones who are wrong. Religious people's beliefs sometimes clash with civilized morality." And you know what? You're right. Religious people's beliefs sometimes do clash with civilized morality. So what? Secular people's beliefs sometimes clash with civilized morality, too. And religious people's beliefs sometimes contribute in huge ways to civilization.

Basically, you can't have it both ways. If you want to blame religion for Jerry Falwell, you probably have to credit it for MLK. If religion didn't have anything to do with MLK's successes, then you can't blame it for Falwell's character flaws. In one post, you blamed religious thinking for clashing with civilized morality. In another, you attempt to disassociate it from a very religious man who did as much for civilized morality in this country in the last 100 years as anyone. That's shoddy analysis.

So now that I've over-explained a post that probably should have needed no explanation, maybe an apology is due for assuming that MissZooey is an idiot?

Precisely. You can despise Hitchens and Dawkins all you like, for completely valid reasons, but they're not exactly shaping domestic policies.

Okay, I apologize. Saying right things in a mean way is bad, but I wasn't even doing that: I was going further and saying things that I wasn't sure were right. That's no good. I think I am right on the whole, but if I can't explain it, and if I can't discuss it without getting angry and stupid, then I'll shut up.

And I'll say, for posterity, that I'll be happy to play the asshole-ish, condescending, knows-absolutley-nothing-about-theology atheist here. Going up against DaveB and MissZooey is most certainly a lose/lose situation for me, but there's simply no way that I'll ever subscribe to the idea that absence of belief in a false positve is equivalent to positive belief in an unprovable.

When the assholes on the atheists' side have 1/10th as much power and impact as the assholes on the believers' side, I'll start to apologize for our antagonistic, condescending and pseudo-scientific ways.

This argument comes up often, and when I think I can jump in without actually hurting my side, I'll get in there, too, Jacob.

For the record, I've got absolutely no problem with opposing those in power when they attempt to put forth a faith-based agenda. I also don't think antagonism and condescension are particularly out-of-line when it comes to the literalists. But when the venom extends beyond them, it really doesn't do anyone any good. As far as I know, mastronikolas isn't intent on making you believe in God, and, like he said, there are probably billions like him and maybe a million or so of the nutcases, only some of whom actually have any real power, anyway.

As for the knows-absolutely-nothing-about-theology thing - why? Okay, I mean I understand not learning about theology in terms of how the trinity works or memorizing the eightfold path of Buddhism, but I don't get how someone can be vehemently against anything without knowing anything about it. Seriously, check out Karen Armstrong's A Short History of Myth. It'll take you a couple of days to read, tops. If you think it's horseshit, blame me. Her stance is as vehemently anti-fundamentalist as yours and mine, but she makes a pretty good case for the continued existence of religion, at least in some form, in these post-Enlightenment times. Also, I'd consider it a personal favor, since it would save me from basically rehashing her points on this board.

A lot of people like to talk about how disappointed Jesus would be in his followers if he were around today. But I'd like to see the early Christian leaders talk to today's fundamentalists.

Jerry Falwell: St. Paul! You're back!
St. Paul: The Lord has heeded your people's cries, Reverend, and he has sent me to help. So what's the situation?
Falwell: Oh, jeez, where to start? Well, first, there's this War on Christmas-
Paul: Christmas?
Falwell: When we celebrate Jesus's birthday.
Paul: See, I think that's a neat idea. When do you do it?
Falwell: December 25th. It's like the biggest holiday in the-
Paul: On the winter solstice??? What about the Saturnalia???
Falwell: ...We don't really do that anymore.
Paul: Wow. Sounds like you got that held down pretty well, Jer. Good looking out!
Falwell: Err, thanks. But, Paul, you gotta understand, the government's run by a bunch of heathens.
Paul: Haha, I know what that's like! So what're they doing?
Falwell: Well, they wanted to move the "In God We Trust" inscription to the side of our coins...
Paul: Well, our coins just had Caesar's face on them, and Jesus was pretty clear that he was fine with it...
Falwell: Okay, okay, but they're trying to take the Ten Commandments out of our courtrooms!!
Paul: Courts in our day fed us to lions just for being Christian.
Falwell: Yeah, but you gotta understand-
Paul: Fed us. To FUCKING LIONS.
Falwell: Okay, but see, America has always been a Christian n-
Paul: You called me away from Paradise for this shit??
Falwell: But, but, this one guy running for president went to a Muslim sch-
Paul: Fucking pussies.

Fair enough, and I will indeed look into it, but I can't, for the very life of me, imagine a "pretty good case" for the continued existence of religion in its current state in the 21st century. It's not like I wear my ignorance of the history of theology on my sleeve like an armor, merely that I knew I'd be going up against DaveB, and that I'd be at a disadvantage. My arguments come from a purely philososphical, layman's vantage point, and one that I'll argue from here to Eternity: religion continues to cause more harm, and be more devisive, than anything any non-believers have ever proffered.

I will say, though, that admitting that I'm a theological lightweight shouldn't neccessarily excuse me from the debate.

Something that's been bothering me for awhile with so-called liberals: while they readily acknowledge disparities that exist with regards to white/non-white & male/female, they're comparatively blind when it comes to existing disparities for religious/nonreligious. They'll chastize atheists in the same breath as the religious fundamentalists for the sake of appearing even-handed but, er, atheists (in the US) have no real political power to speak of. I expect Republicans to do that by now because the atheist boogeyman is a nice strawman for them but when, say, Al Gore does it, I just kind of scratch my head.

Schwartz, I just want to let you know that you just a) dragged me away from the television on Super Tuesday night longer than I intended and b) gave both DaveB and me a good giggle. Well done.

Yeah, Schwartz's post made me cum dollar bills.

Of course not. People can live perfectly decent lives and not believe in God. Faith and ethics are not a package.

Like GFC wrote, the percentage of douchebags is the same across all groups.

And you know, what? I don't believe in a God that would punish you for not believing in Him. I prefer my supreme beings not being petty.

She definitely doesn't make a case for it in its current state. A recurring theme in her work is the mutability of myth and religious belief. Just because litaralism and fundies (in various guises) have guided how we view religion in the last few hundred years doesn't mean that's how it has to be.

(Incidentally, I should also mention that the Armstrong book I suggested is basically the condensed version of her much longer books, A History of God and The Great Transformation, both of which contain more sources and citations. My one complaint about A Short History of Myth is that it seems like she's kind of pulling some of these ideas out of her ass if you haven't read her other stuff - but it's a good intro to the basic concepts.)

No, I wouldn't say that. I'm a theological lightweight, too. I've just read a few books that made me come around on the idea that religion can be more complex than anthropomorphic men up in the sky and a bunch of seemingly silly rules. Now I'm more careful in how I frame my arguments - fundamentalists, not religion, are the real problem.

I'll track this down and read it if you'll read "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris (if you haven't already). I'd love (being completely serious here, you know I love me some well-reasoned DaveB) to hear your responses to his arguments, specifically as they relate to religious moderation and the cover moderates give to fundamentalists. I think I might be able to guess how you might react to his advocacy of "Conversational Intolerance."

After glancing at her Wikipedia entry, would it be fair to say that in her book Armstrong talks about what she feels are the "good reasons to believe those things," and that her reasons aren't really talking about the literal "truths" of religious faiths? I can see that, but, being a life-long atheist, (like Singer, I think this really puts me at a disadvantage when it comes to arguing religion. I never even set foot in a church until my mid-twenties, and it was for job-related reasons. I've still never cracked open a Bible.) I can't really understand it at a core level. I'm just not wired that way.

Harris argues that just as we don't have a word that means "not an astrologer", one day "atheist" will be equally superfluous, because all of our current religious dogma will sit on the same shelf as the Greek pantheon, i.e. with all of the other things that people really once believed in but that nobody gives any credence anymore. But his argument really goes one step further and posits that unless this happens the long-term survival of humanity is in real jeopardy.

I don't really want to engage in any more cutting and pasting and paraphrasing either (I've already done more than I intended and veered into too many topics), so I'll just link to the Sam Harris wiki entry. It does a pretty good job of summarizing the major points of his writings, most of which (aside from his strange detours into mysticism and Buddhism, for which many atheists have criticized him) I find hard to argue against, since I'm really interested in what I think will constitute the aforementioned long-term survival of humanity.

I know I come off like a Sam Harris fanboy - that's not really true, I've just been re-reading The End of Faith and heard him on a SALT podcast the other day, so he's fresh in my mind. I do have some of my own ideas rattling around in my sleep-deprived head, really!

As for the topic at hand, when you have a good portion of the public (around 40% in America, according to polls cited by Harris) that thinks that it is either certain or likely that Jesus will return in the next 50 years, the "In God We Trust" money issue seems a little insignificant. We have a much deeper problem.

Finally, I apologize if I'm not around to continue this discussion after dumping all of that. I tend to have limited time to read and post, therefore I tend to post-and-run. Also my wife may be having a baby any day now, so I could conceivably disappear for a couple of months. Sorry!

Hey, congratulations!

Eyeball, thanks for that extremely informative post and for the recommendation. I can, based on what you posted, see where I will part ways with Harris, but that doesn't mean I don't want to give it a whirl. Congratulations and best of luck to you, your wife, and your new little one.

I haven't read The End of Faith, but I've read excerpted bits of it and Dawkins' work. I've got a pretty big stack of books to make it through at the moment (the aforementioned Pynchon tome is practically a pile unto itself), but I'll try to get to it eventually.

This will probably seem like hairsplitting, but I'm starting to realize that it really all depends on the regard you have for the non-literal with regard to truthfulness. To me, there's a lot of truth you can get out of art and fiction, in particular. It's not the kind of truth that will allow humanity to cure cancer or build a better spaceship, but it's the kind of truth that illustrates why people do the things they do (among other things).

I bring this up because Harris' notions of conversational intolerance make perfect sense in regard to taking myths literally. If we're having a conversation about the physical origins of man, and you insist on bringing up Adam and Eve as actual, living, breathing people and disregarding evolution, Harris' argument is airtight.

The type of religious belief that Armstrong advocates is far more symbolic, far more conscious of the unreality of its mythology, but just as accepting of it as exhibiting a kind of truth. Is this how anyone worships today? No idea. She does, I suppose. But her point is that religion, at most points in man's history, was not meant to function as a realistic depiction of reality. It's not meant to compete with science.

When we think of it in this way, it becomes far more ethereal, far more similar to art or maybe a political ethos like libertarianism or communism. In other words, you can argue it as you might the interpretation of a piece of literature or whether socialism is more or less immoral than rugged individualism, but you can't really disprove it in the way that Harris seems to think one can.

For the record, I'm a life-long atheist, as well. I think that's why Harris and Dawkins don't hold much appeal for me. I don't need them to convince me that religion can be harmful when followed on a literal level, because I've always known that. When I first read Armstrong (and others like her), I found her work a lot more interesting than I probably would that of atheists with whom I probably agree on some key ideas.

Congratulations, by the way.

My problem with this line of reasoning is that it seems to take the religion out of religion, and by doing so argues for religion based on what it could be rather than what it is. And all religion is literalist to a degree; even Christians who think biblical literalists are crazy think that there is literally a God and a Heaven.

I also have a pile of books to get through (including Against A Day), but Armstrong's argument seems to say to me that religion has value as a philosophy, as a school of thought, as great works of art. But it doesn't tell me that it has value as religion.

Dave, if you end up liking any of the atheist writers, Harris would be the one. He still operates completely under 'reason' and Enlightenment principles, but, unlike Dawkins or Hitchens, Harris doesn't scoff at contemplative/meditative endeavors and 'spiritual' experiences. He even says that mysticism is rational, as long as it doesn't claim to connect to, or be evidence for, supernatural elements. If I remember correctly, there's a good chunk of this kind of stuff in the final chapters of The End of Faith.

Interestingly enough, Armstrong basically argues the exact opposite - that literalist interpretations are what take the religion out of religion. I quoted her in one of "these" threads not too long ago, and the comment was along the lines of "if you asked an ancient Greek if he actually believed that Zeus and the rest were actually hanging around on Mt. Olympus, he would have looked at you as if you were crazy." I believe another point she makes is that the gospels don't jive with each other not because the authors were shoddy historians, but because they were storytellers/mythmakers, each with his own point to make and each fully conscious of the existence of the other gospels. If that's not an argument for the non-literal intent of the early Christians, I don't know what is.

Basically, when you say that a religion has value as a philosophy, school of thought, and great work of art, you are saying that it has value as a religion. Anything beyond that, and you're basically arguing for it as a literal system - an uneasy rival with science in explaining the world in physical terms. I think the problem may be that that our modern conception of the term "religion" is informed by what we see on a day-to-day basis, and this has been colored by prevailing literalist interpretations since the 1500s or so, when rationalist philosophers started trying to prove and disprove myths. And that's not necessarily true to its origins or history.

What happened to E Pluribus Unum? That's a nice sentiment, and it stems from the founding of the US. If there are two things I've learned about Americans, they're that Americans like to eat something called 'red sauce', and that Americans are really big on the founders of their country.

Based on the (lack of) evidence, the chance of any type of deity existing is the same as leprechauns existing.

That's not dogmatic. Prove the existence of either, and my bet is most atheists will thank you. Point out the lack of evidence for God, and you simply don't get the same reaction from religious people. Whether or not people benefit from religion or 'need' God is irrelevant to the possible existence of a deity.

P.S. I get that there is no strong correlation between atheism and moral conduct, but I would argue that there is a strong correlation between religious belief and extremism (Extremism being a term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society, or otherwise claimed to violate common standards of ethics and reciprocity.)

BTW I, like most, largely spend my day interacting with decent religious folk, so the argument that most religious people are good should go without saying. The fact that there is no evidence for God has nothing with the preceding statement.

I think posters on this thread are using the word "dogmatic" as synonymous with "person whose opinion I find inconvenient".

Naturally the agnostics are telling atheists they're as bad as religious fanatics, because they believe there's only a middle ground on religion while we live. In this instance, the religious fanatics and atheists are having a logical debate, because they disagree and recognize their differences.

The agnostics try to leverage themselves above the fray, making their opinion seem more reasonable with doublespeak (ie. an opinion against something is the same as one for something) and trying to be as impartial as possible, so it seems like they're not offering a third option, when they are. So it is easier for people to side with the agnostics.

No Dawkins a dick for the same reason Pat Robertson, and BEN LAWDEN are dicks

I for one agree with Roosevelt reasons as it smacks of sacrilegious.

then again the hexagram 'Star of David' is a sign of idolatry according to the book of Amos. although I would not advise pointing that out to religious Jews as it really pisses them off.