The article isn't that complimentary, but it does bring up a good point:
quote:Orson Scott Card is a Latter Day Saint and as an organization the Latter Day Saints have a real problem with homosexuality. The Mormon church was deeply involved in getting gay marriage banned in California, using the 10% tithe it gets from each of its members to fund an anti-gay agenda. According to the site What Mormons Believe, “The Mormon Church is firm on its position condemning homosexuality as sinful behavior.”
What I’m getting at here is that while Card states his views on homosexuality a little more vehemently and openly than the average Mormon, he’s pretty much in line with the beliefs of the other 12.3 million Latter Day Saints in the world. If you’re going to take a stance against Orson Scott Card then to be fair, you’ll have to start boycotting pretty much every other Mormon in the world too.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
I don't mind boycotting all Mormons. But as an atheist, I really don't like any religion. So when they start talking crazy or bashing homosexuality, I just chock it up to their society accepted insanity.
I still eat Chik-Fil-A, even though I disagree with some of their executives/owners completely.
I still read Orson Scott Card as well. I've seen him say some pretty decent things, that I agree with, as well as some pretty ignorant things. That's just how it goes.
Posted by ADStryker (Member # 12948) on :
On that, we can agree. I don't mind boycotting all homosexuals. But as a Christian, I really don't like any deviance. So when they start talking crazy or bashing Christianity, I just chalk it up to their socially accepted insanity.
At any rate, I found the following interesting. James Taranto, in the Feb. 12th Best of the Web, quotes from a story in London's Guardian ...
quote: Comic giant DC has commissioned Orson Scott Card ... to write for DC's Adventures of Superman series...
The news has sparked a furious backlash from Card's critics. Card is a long-time critic of homosexuality and has called gay marriage "the end of democracy in America." ...
"Superman stands for truth, justice and the American way. Orson Scott Card does not stand for any idea of truth, justice or the American way that I can subscribe to," said Jono Jarrett of Geeks Out, a gay fan group. "It's a deeply disappointing and frankly weird choice."
Then Taranto makes this cogent observation ...
quote:Same-sex-marriage advocates would have more credibility in objecting to Card's warning about "the end of democracy in America" if they weren't trying to get him fired simply for expressing his opinion.
ROFL! True, dat.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by ADStryker: Then Taranto makes this cogent observation ...
quote:Same-sex-marriage advocates would have more credibility in objecting to Card's warning about "the end of democracy in America" if they weren't trying to get him fired simply for expressing his opinion.
ROFL! True, dat.
...That doesn't actually make sense.
It's also not exactly true. OSC is a director for the National Organization for Marriage, which is a pretty awful anti-gay group. So, there's actions here as well.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Stoney, It bothers me when people view complex issues as binary choice operations. In this case, either pro or anti gay with no gradations or actual examination of the behavior.
OSC is not just the same as other LDS. He doesn't just believe that the engaging in homosexual acts is a sin. He has written some pretty terrible and usually false things about gay people. He has advocated many anti-gay measures; for example, throwing gay people in jail from time to time to let them know that they aren't welcome in our society. And he's a director of NOM, which has waged a campaign of lies and fear mongering against gay people.
I'd expect even people who do believe that homosexual behavior is sinful to be pretty critical of OSC on this. If they are decent folk, at least. It is never okay to lie about people. It is never okay to use fear mongering to depersonalize and dehumanize a group of people. If that stuff becomes okay just because you agree with some form of the ultimate goal of a person or view them somehow as being on your side, you are not a very moral person.
---
To be fair, many on the pro-gay rights side see the issue in the same sort of binary situation, where anyone who opposes gay marriage or often even just view homosexual behavior as sinful as the worst thing ever, no matter what their actual character is.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The article is very poorly written, and factually wrong. The church did not use the 10% tithed money to fund its efforts to get Proposition 8 passed. It used funds from other investments and holdings.
And so no, by implication you can't boycott the other 12.3 million Mormons. Many of us spoke out openly against Proposition 8.
If you meet a Mormon who does support Proposition 8, and there are also many of them, go from there.
quote: He’s one of 6.3 million Latter Day Saints in the United States, worldwide more than 12 million people profess to believe that after Jesus was done with the Jews he came to hang out in the United States.
American continent, not necessarily the United States. So pretty much could have been anywhere within North, Central, and South America. The second and third being the most likely.
So anyway, his assertion that poor Katherine Heigl who isn't a Mormon anymore, should be boycotted too if anybody should, seems a little specious.
By all means, don't give somebody your business if you don't like what they will do with your money. But at least admit to yourself that unless you do the same due diligence on every business you are a patron to, you're being inconsistent. So get to work making sure millions of workers at Mcdonalds are in compliance with your political ideology.
Further, don't try to take away somebody's livelihood because they believe things you think are evil. If you are going down that road, do it because the person *does* things you believe actually causes harm.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I just read the article and it is pretty bad. It falls into just that sort of super simplistic binary choice I was decrying.
You are not an asshole or homophobe just because you think homosexual behavior is sinful. It is unjustifiable to reduce an entire group of very different people, such as the LDS, to a single stereotype, especially one so weakly constructed. I'm sure many of them are assholes and homophobes. Many of them are not. It is even likely that belonging to the Mormon religion makes them more or less likely to be those things (actually, like most actual real world things, it probably makes them both more and less likely to be those things, often even in the same person). Believing this way isn't just morally wrong, it's stupid.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Stoney, It bothers me when people view complex issues as binary choice operations. In this case, either pro or anti gay with no gradations or actual examination of the behavior.
Agreed (as with just about everything else in this post).
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The church did not use the 10% tithed money to fund its efforts to get Proposition 8 passed. It used funds from other investments and holdings.
This is not a gotcha question...just seeking info: What source of money did the church use to purchase said investments and holdings? Because if the original purchase was made with tithe money, then it is a meaningless delineation I'd say.
quote:By all means, don't give somebody your business if you don't like what they will do with your money. But at least admit to yourself that unless you do the same due diligence on every business you are a patron to, you're being inconsistent.
This concept is basically why I posted this article in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: You are not an asshole or homophobe just because you think homosexual behavior is sinful. It is unjustifiable to reduce an entire group of very different people, such as the LDS, to a single stereotype, especially one so weakly constructed.
While the linked article is not by any means top notch, after reviewing it, the only claims upon LDS in general are:
quote:What I’m getting at here is that while Card states his views on homosexuality a little more vehemently and openly than the average Mormon, he’s pretty much in line with the beliefs of the other 12.3 million Latter Day Saints in the world.
...And any finger pointing at a$$holery or homophobory is directly aimed at OSC, and not all LDS.
The binary reactions you speak of are, again, why I posted this article. OSC is many things, but he is still my favorite author (that being said, I haven't read anything new of his in long time, but to be fair, my reading life has disintegrated under the weight of running my household while watching two small children 24/7). While I disagree with OSC's stated views about homosexuality vehemently, I also do not hesitate to recommend him as an author, and recently gave a copy of EG to a teenage family friend.
Or to put it another way, no one is perfect, and to reject people's gifts because you don't like their faults is in the end counter productive as no one could possibly live up to absolute standards.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Stone_Wolf: Tithed funds can only be used for very specific activities. Building churches, upkeep costs for the buildings and materials for the members. Church welfare programs, etc.
Members of the church can also donate money to the church through several other programs beyond the 10% tithing requirement. Members also leave money to the church after they have died, the church by this point has been in the corporate game for many decades and has accrued hundreds of millions of dollars in holdings completely separate from its tithed funds. It uses these funds at its discretion. Proposition 8 was financed by some of these holdings, but members of the church also made additional donations to the fund outside of their tithing.
It's possible individual members misunderstood the request of the church for funds and simply put their tithing funds into that account instead of the regular fund, but the church did not ask for people to do so.
edit: Theologically speaking, there's no way you could supplant tithing with a political action fund.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
quote:I'd expect even people who do believe that homosexual behavior is sinful to be pretty critical of OSC on this. If they are decent folk, at least. It is never okay to lie about people. It is never okay to use fear mongering to depersonalize and dehumanize a group of people. If that stuff becomes okay just because you agree with some form of the ultimate goal of a person or view them somehow as being on your side, you are not a very moral person.
I'll believe anybody actually believes this when I see them decrying some of the lies, fear mongering, depersonalization, and dehumanization that has taken place by the SSM folks of Orson Scott Card.
Seriously, for anyone moderately familiar with his works and writings, some of the things being said are, at best, simply mean-spirited assumption, and at worst, out and out deception in the name of making him out to be someone who actively spends most of his time trying to make sure gay people are driven out of society.
Card didn't believe in throwing gay people in jail, and has stated now, "I have no interest in criminalizing homosexual acts and would never call for such a thing, any more than I wanted such laws enforced back when they were still on the books." It's in the actual link that the article at the start of this thread links to while calling him a homophobe.
But that's too nuanced a view for people who just want to believe he is evil incarnate.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
If he has changed his tune, great! Love to hear that, but it isn't a question of nuance, he said it, and if people are stuck on it, then he made that bed and gets to lie in it.
quote: Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
So... you have people struggling to pay their bills and that's what the church spends that money on? Gay marriage?
Urg. Stopping it at that. And not even letting gays have civil unions either. This really is an issue the LDS Church and OSC needs to get over. There's real things that hurt the family, why not focus on that?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: So... you have people struggling to pay their bills and that's what the church spends that money on? Gay marriage?
It's not a binary arrangement, wherein only a single cause gets funded.
quote:Urg. Stopping it at that. And not even letting gays have civil unions either. This really is an issue the LDS Church and OSC needs to get over. There's real things that hurt the family, why not focus on that?
Rather than engage you on this for the umpteenth time, I'm going to just note that you have been answered on this before, on this site.
If you can make an argument using Mormon theology as to why the Mormon church should not spend money supporting its vision of marriage, then that might be a discussion worth having.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: If he has changed his tune, great! Love to hear that, but it isn't a question of nuance, he said it, and if people are stuck on it, then he made that bed and gets to lie in it.
quote: Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
quote:The Supreme Court had declared in 1986 (Bowers v. Hardwick) that a Georgia law prohibiting sodomy even in the privacy of one's own home was constitutional. I was also writing this essay to a conservative Mormon audience that at the time would have felt no interest in decriminalizing homosexual acts. In that context, my call to "leave the laws on the books" was simply recognizing the law at that time, and my call to not enforce it except in flagrant cases was actually, within that context, a liberal and tolerant view -- for which I was roundly criticized in conservative Mormon circles as being "pro-gay." Those who now use this essay to attack me as a "homophobe" deceptively ignore the context and treat the essay as if I had written it yesterday afternoon. That is absurd -- now that the law has changed (the decision was overturned in 2003) I have no interest in criminalizing homosexual acts and would never call for such a thing, any more than I wanted such laws enforced back when they were still on the books. But I stand by the main points of this essay, which concerns matters internal to the Mormon Church.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Thanks for posting that, Scott. I was about to do so myself. The attacks against OSC for his anti-gay positions are so bizarre.
It's weird to see how people shut down their critical thinking processes around the issue of gay marriage.
I guess it's an extension of the way people often take steps to avoid thinking critically about marriage in general. Still, it sort of baffles me.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:I have no interest in criminalizing homosexual acts and would never call for such a thing, any more than I wanted such laws enforced back when they were still on the books.
quote:Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
If you guys think that the problem with those two statements is MY critical thinking processes being shut down, then there is not a whole lot left to talk about.
Yes, context matters, yes, who you are talking to will change the angle of attack you take to try and get through to your audience, but you can not say words like "send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society." and not expect to be considered a bigot and a homophobes. Full stop.
I'm glad that OSC changed his point of view, but I will not for a second pretend that he didn't say those things he said simply because he said he didn't say them.
P.S. What is a homophone and why does spell check always suggest it when I misspell homophobe?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Homophones are words that are pronounced the same but have different meanings (and usually spelling).
e.g. wretch and retch, ate and eight, etc.
Here's a website website of pretty much every single homohpone in the English language. Enjoy!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Thanks, and here I thought it was a cell phone that like other cell phones instead of landlines. And that OSC said was the end of democracy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you can make an argument using Mormon theology as to why the Mormon church should not spend money supporting its vision of marriage, then that might be a discussion worth having.
Sure. Here you go: The Mormon vision of marriage already deviates strongly from the state's definition of legal marriage. As such, Mormons should not be concerned with aligning the definition of legal marriage with their definition of spiritual marriage, since those definitions already do not align, and should concentrate their time and money on causes which are more likely to actually affect the moral lives of individuals.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The Mormon vision of marriage already deviates strongly from the state's definition of legal marriage.
In what way do you feel Mormonism deviates strongly from the state's definition of legal marriage?
Keep in mind that state-backed marriages are performed in our temples and in our meetinghouses. The Mormon concept of marriage requires that the marriage be "legal and lawful" in order for it to be valid in the eyes of the Church.
quote:Mormons should not be concerned with aligning the definition of legal marriage with their definition of spiritual marriage, since those definitions already do not align, and should concentrate their time and money on causes which are more likely to actually affect the moral lives of individuals.
Indeed, the Mormon church isn't necessarily concerned with aligning the state's definition of marriage with specifics of our own. Until fifteen or so years ago, the fundamental elements of what marriage means was widely understood to be an exclusive arrangement between male and female monogamous partners.
Certainly, that's what the state demanded of the Church back in the late 1800s.
From the standpoint of God's Church on the earth, the Church has a responsibility to all nations of the world to warn against unrighteousness and sin, and to encourage all people to live according to God's commandments. That's why the Church unites with other churches in opposing casinos; in speaking out against infidelity, drug use, alcoholism; in responding to disaster with compassion and aid.
And its also why the Church takes a strong position against same sex marriage. It is as moral a stance (according to our doctrine) as being a designated driver; as helping out a neighbor; as preaching the gospel of repentance and redemption.
I'll also note, Tom, that you haven't actually used any Mormon theology in your argument.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And its also why the Church takes a strong position against same sex marriage. It is as moral a stance (according to our doctrine) as being a designated driver; as helping out a neighbor; as preaching the gospel of repentance and redemption.
Hardly. There is nothing inherent to the marriage contract, for example, that might prevent two gay men from marrying each other and living without sex. In what way do you believe that would be sinful?
(Note that a lifetime of celibacy is already the LDS Church's recommendation for gay men. Can you explain what moral argument they might muster against two non-LDS men being legally married and remaining celibate?)
quote:I'll also note, Tom, that you haven't actually used any Mormon theology in your argument.
Sure I have. I just wasn't explicit. While Mormons certainly recognize non-Temple marriages, the fact remains that Mormon "marriage" is a distinctly two-tiered affair: you have secular marriages, and then you have what amounts, from the Mormon perspective, to "real" marriage. That "real" marriage bears no resemblance whatsoever to legal marriage, and is not threatened in any way by a change in the legal definition of marriage.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't see how at least allowing gays to have the same benefits of marriage like being able to decide about their spouse's health will have a negative affect on "real" marriage.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Can you explain what moral argument they might muster against two non-LDS men being legally married and remaining celibate?
Sure. Generally speaking, one of the purposes of marriage is to bind a man and a woman together as a unit in parallel to the union of our Heavenly Father and Mother. The spiritual connection to our heavenly parents is fostered when we emulate them as closely as we can-- and that means participating in the same relationship that they enjoy (male/female pairing).
From that perspective, male/male pairing is immoral even if the pair remains celibate. Whether they are LDS or non-LDS isn't important-- the relationship inherently undermines a fundamental piece of eternal identity according to Mormon theology.
To answer Synesthesia's question along the same lines, social approbation of such a relationship encourages its promulgation. Individually it won't matter much (or shouldn't); the damage is done in the aggregate.
quote:hile Mormons certainly recognize non-Temple marriages, the fact remains that Mormon "marriage" is a distinctly two-tiered affair: you have secular marriages, and then you have what amounts, from the Mormon perspective, to "real" marriage.
Incorrect. The Mormon view of non-Temple, heterosexual marriages is that they are still "real." That is they are still sacred. Even if the participants are athiests, our belief is that God wants that marriage to succeed, regardless of whether or not the individuals will ever find belief in this life.
I don't think you really understand the Mormon perspective well enough to speak from it.
Edited to add an important doctrinal distinction. See the italicized section.
[ February 17, 2013, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's just your religion doesn't rule the whole world. You have no right to push your doctrine on people when gays are not forcing straights to marry people of the same sex. They just want the same rights. That is not unreasonable.
Plus, it's kind of hypocritical considering the Mormon church's history of polygamy. They want to preach to people about heterosexual monogamy now? They need to step back and leave people alone. Even some hard core Mormons, catholics and ect will want to choose the happiness of their kids and friends over pushing doctrine on everyone. I will never give up tea.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Even if the participants are athiests, our belief is that God wants that marriage to succeed, regardless of whether or not the individuals will ever find belief.
And you believe that if two men are married, God does not want that marriage to succeed?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Even if the participants are athiests, our belief is that God wants that marriage to succeed, regardless of whether or not the individuals will ever find belief.
And you believe that if two men are married, God does not want that marriage to succeed?
According to Mormon doctrine, and from an eternal perspective, the relationship is inherently limiting. As the doctrine exists right now, homosexual relationships simply CANNOT succeed. At least one leader of the Church has recently commented that homosexuality doesn't even exist outside of mortality.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
"Success" in this case means being able to create spirit children in the next life.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, that's a pretty silly -- and limiting -- definition of success. If you ask someone, including Mormons, "how do you help a marriage succeed," they're probably not going to give you a list of things that'll ensure spirit pregnancy.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Note the qualifiers and context, bro.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The context, of course, is that of the secular, nationwide legal definition of marriage. If the Mormon definition of "success" isn't relevant in that context, then it shouldn't apply.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm sorry, but that's not the context of the statement you responded to.
Would you like to change the topic?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I don't have a problem with LDS for being against homosexuality (and SSM) morally. I have a problem with them trying to make it illegal. Laws should not be used to force your concept of morality on to people who are not causing direct harm onto others with their actions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm sorry, but that's not the context of the statement you responded to.
Of course it is. God would like all marriages to produce "spirit children." Because you don't believe homosexual marriages can produce spirit children, you don't believe they should be permitted. Isn't that it in a nutshell?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
There are infertile and child free straight people... The world should not be run based on your doctrine. I will never give up my earl grey, and gays should have the same marriage rights. They pay taxes in society. They deserve that right too.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
This is what is out of context, Tom:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Well, that's a pretty silly -- and limiting -- definition of success. If you ask someone, including Mormons, "how do you help a marriage succeed," they're probably not going to give you a list of things that'll ensure spirit pregnancy.
If you feel that the post I made prior to this was out of context, please let me know-- we can reset this conversation, if you want.
In the meantime, I'll just note that you haven't provided an explanation (based on the Mormon church's doctrine) as to why the Church should not spend its funds to promote its ideas regarding marriage to voters.
Syn:
quote:The world should not be run based on your doctrine.
Actually, creation is run according to our doctrine. It's only politics that deviates. (Which speaks poignantly to the supremacy of human free will.)
quote:There are infertile and child free straight people...
Indeed. I think you're having the same context problem Tom is having, though. At least you're in good company.
quote:I will never give up my earl grey
By all means. Enjoy.
quote:gays should have the same marriage rights. They pay taxes in society. They deserve that right too.
The payment of taxes doesn't guarentee rights. If it is a right, then it's inherent, regardless of whether one pays or not. They are HUMAN rights, not "taxpayer rights."
(Caveats-- such as criminal convictions-- may apply.)
I'm not actually arguing against marriage rights for homosexual couples. I'm arguing that the doctrine of the Mormon church is such that funding opposition movements is intellectually and doctrinally consistent; and that the right of freedom of speech permits it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you feel that the post I made prior to this was out of context, please let me know-- we can reset this conversation, if you want.
Oh, I don't think it was out of context at all. There's no disputing that if you ask a Mormon how to make a marriage succeed, he will not assume that you're asking how to make spirit children. The idea that a "successful" marriage is one that produces spirit children is pretty much a non-starter; it doesn't come up in any practical way, except when justifying oppression against homosexuals.
quote:In the meantime, I'll just note that you haven't provided an explanation (based on the Mormon church's doctrine) as to why the Church should not spend its funds to promote its ideas regarding marriage to voters.
Again, I believe I have. I have explained that the Church's doctrine of marriage already deviates strongly from the legal definition and practice of marriage. Attempts to spend money to make marriage hew more closely to that definition when speaking specifically to homosexual relationships seems to be horrifically narrow-minded, given that there are several ways in which the Mormon understanding of marriage deviates far more meaningfully from the secular practice of marriage. Even if one grants that the fantastically wealthy church should be spending money on marriage advocacy instead of charity, football, or acquiring real estate, the idea that the greatest threat to "spirit children" is the practice of two men who love each other living together in a legally sanctioned way is one that I think'd be pretty impossible to justify doctrinally, and moreover will almost certainly prove deeply embarrassing to the church within three decades.
quote:The payment of taxes doesn't guarentee rights. If it is a right, then it's inherent, regardless of whether one pays or not.
While this is a niggling criticism, I should point out that rights are not necessarily considered "inherent" in the way you're describing. We provide different rights to citizens, to voters, etc.; we deny some rights to people we believe no longer deserve them; we circumscribe the practice of some rights, do not recognize others, and so forth. You speak of "caveats," but the simple fact is that pretty much all "human" rights have "caveats" that do not depend on whether or not the person being denied -- or extended -- the right is actually a human, but instead falls into some other class.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: ... If you’re going to take a stance against Orson Scott Card then to be fair, you’ll have to start boycotting pretty much every other Mormon in the world too.
Ummm, ok then. Saves me some money?
Don't you normally have to put something undesirable in the second part of this kind of argument?
"If you're going to enjoy bacon then in fairness, you'd better eat some pork chops and roast pork."
*Goes through list in the article* I'm going to have to boycott Grey's Anatomy, the Republican Party, Dell computers, and Twilight? Oh noes, that's going to be tough. I get the idea of the article, but you really have to put some negatives in the "to be fair" part, you know?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Um, I was quoting the article (which I didn't write) so you are misquoting me there.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Attempts to spend money to make marriage hew more closely to that definition when speaking specifically to homosexual relationships seems to be horrifically narrow-minded, given that there are several ways in which the Mormon understanding of marriage deviates far more meaningfully from the secular practice of marriage.
It's possible that the Church's very present opposition to SSM has already undermined missionary efforts with bad publicity; is that what you're getting at here?
quote:The idea that a "successful" marriage is one that produces spirit children is pretty much a non-starter; it doesn't come up in any practical way, except when justifying oppression against homosexuals.
Actually, it comes up very often in situations not relating to homosexual marriage at all. Maybe you don't hang out in the right circles?
Quick return back to this:
quote:Even if one grants that the fantastically wealthy church should be spending money on marriage advocacy instead of charity, football, or acquiring real estate, the idea that the greatest threat to "spirit children" is the practice of two men who love each other living together in a legally sanctioned way is one that I think'd be pretty impossible to justify doctrinally,
Really? Can you explain why?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Because of all the threats to spirit children, men who wouldn't be producing spirit children seem to be among by far the slightest. Consider the number of spirit children who aren't produced because people die in car accidents every year before they get married -- and yet the Church isn't opposed to driving at all. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
According to Mormon theology, people are not limited to marriage in this life. It is generally believed that people who did not have the opportunity to marry in this life will be afforded an opportunity in the next life. Same goes for those who were trying, but did not meet a suitable companion. It is also believed that children can also be conceived in the next life. I suspect arrangements can be made for couples where the partner died before children could be born, or people who are biologically impeded from having children.
I have no idea how God handles homosexuality in the next life, only that in our society should make allowances for it since we live in a secular democracy.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What "threats to spirit children" are you talking about, Tom?
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
@Mucus: By that logic, shouldn't you also be boycotting this forum?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Like I said, ad blockers.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: ... If you’re going to take a stance against Orson Scott Card then to be fair, you’ll have to start boycotting pretty much every other Mormon in the world too.
Ummm, ok then. Saves me some money?
Don't you normally have to put something undesirable in the second part of this kind of argument?
"If you're going to enjoy bacon then in fairness, you'd better eat some pork chops and roast pork."
*Goes through list in the article* I'm going to have to boycott Grey's Anatomy, the Republican Party, Dell computers, and Twilight? Oh noes, that's going to be tough. I get the idea of the article, but you really have to put some negatives in the "to be fair" part, you know?
Well, you should boycott everything Romney has invested in with his company Bain Capital, right?
Staples, AMC Entertainment, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel radio stations, Dunkin Donuts, Warner Music, The Weather Channel, Domino's Pizza, Sports Authority, and every movie made by Artisan Entertainment before being bought by Lion's Gate in 2003.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Aaron Eckhart and Katherine Heigl movies.
Never stay in a Marriott hotel. Don't they even put the Book of Mormon in the rooms?
JetBlue
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
If your point is that no boycott is 100% complete, then as I said, I get the idea of the article.
But if you're going to provide examples, can we assume when I went through the article and picked out the most prominent examples to me, that these other repeated examples are even more obscure to me? For example, best I can tell, JetBlue doesn't even fly to Canada or Asia for that matter.
And many of the recognizable examples look out-dated or irrelevant. For example AMC has long been bought by a Chinese company (something that I'm pretty thankful for since they seem to be boosting more Chinese language films at our local location), Burger King is a public company and Bain sold their stake in 2010. And there are ones in there I have no idea what a Brookstone or a Burlington Coast Factory is, etc.
Honestly, your argument seems more convincing in abstract than in concrete terms. If in reality, I'm going to have to go out of my way to find relevant companies, that kind of feels against the spirit of a boycott.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: Burlington Coat Factory is a great place to buy coats (obvious neh?) and baby accessories such as strollers and car seats (weird neh?).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Thanks for posting that, Scott. I was about to do so myself. The attacks against OSC for his anti-gay positions are so bizarre.
It's weird to see how people shut down their critical thinking processes around the issue of gay marriage.
I guess it's an extension of the way people often take steps to avoid thinking critically about marriage in general. Still, it sort of baffles me.
Dan, I've been dealing with a sick 7 month old and my memory is pretty terrible, but didn't we already have a conversation that involved me saying something terrible OSC said about gays, you taking exception to it, and then me showing you where he said it?
I could probably find it through searching, but I figured you'd remember better than I.
---
On this particular issue, of course OSC advocated prosecuting gay people. That is literally what he wrote.
To me, the part that is even more telling, the one that he has called for many other times is the reason why he wanted to do this. Not because he thought that it was just or that they were a danger to society. It was to send a message that they aren't welcome in society. This has been a consistent theme in his writing about them, even when he's had to tell lies (e.g. All the gay people he knows secretly hate the gay sex they have) to support it.
OSC has consistently written false, malicious, and consciously dehumanizing things about gay people. He is now a leader of an organization who has consistently advocated against gay people using fear mongering and bigotry based on similarly false, malicious, and consciously dehumanizing things.
There's a pretty extensive history of people talking about that here. I happen to be among the most prominent. You can look me up, Dan. I don't believe I deserve your drive by insults, much as you seem to like throwing them at me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
For me, I don't outright boycott people whose opinions I don't like. Even with OSC, where I know that by giving him money I am indirectly supporting an evil organization like NOM. Because, let's face it, whenever you spend money on anything but the purest of stuff, you run a pretty good chance of it going to support some pretty bad people.
But that doesn't make it to me that you shouldn't let this affect your purchasing decisions. For me, some of my money going to support NOM or, to a lesser extent, even to people who are using shameful, abhorrent tactics like OSC in their public advocacy, is a negative, and it makes me less likely to spend my money that way. Honestly, for me, OSC's best years are far behind him, so when it's pretty easy for me. There's plenty of other stuff out there at the level of quality that he currently produces and a fair bit at much better quality, so it's not hard to not buy OSC. I consciously stopped buying IGMS because again, plenty of other similar stuff out there so why support NOM?
This fits in kind of oddly with what I wrote before. I don't get why people would see this as a binary situation. It's not either full boycott or don't care. This seems so obvious to me and is so obviously missing from most discussions of this topic.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Also, even while I don't necessarily agree that the absolute calls for boycotting here are justified, it is hard to argue with results. The gay lobby has made amazing strides in large part because it is becoming socially unacceptable to openly express anti-gay bigotry or the sort of lies and fear mongering that OSC does.
We've gotten to a place where things like adopting a pro-gay stance can be reasonably criticized as a political move. Compare that to Karl Rove's gay-baiting in the 2004 election - which, incidentally, OSC supported and aided.
Heck, the LDS church's prominent anti-gay stance and its close involvement with things like the bigoted, fear mongering campaign for Prop 8 have hurt it so badly that they are changing these aspects somewhat.
I don't believe you could achieve results like this with a moderate, judicial course. It is in large part because of things done in the spirit of this boycott that we've gotten here.
If they could be successful with this and cause OSC's projects to fail because of his morally poor anti-gay advocacy (and again, I don't think this is justified), isn't that better, both morally and for society?
I mean, the injustice done by the anti-gay people is orders of magnitude worse than if they could ruin people for anti-gay advocacy, isn't it? And we'd be better off as a society like that, wouldn't we?
Because, sure OSC doesn't really deserve to be ruined because of his writings and actions with NOM, but he sure as heck deserves it a lot more than gay people deserve the crap they have to put up with in large part because of people like OSC.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I don't believe you could achieve results like this with a moderate, judicial course. It is in large part because of things done in the spirit of this boycott that we've gotten here.
I have said this in regards to people arguing for the appeasement or courting of anti-gay elements:
quote:when you make this an issue of the utility of differing techniques, then challenging and demeaning the anti-homo as readily as one should challenge and demean racism wins, and abstaining from that challenging and demeaning in order to 'reach out' to the 'fence sitters' loses. The reason, as I elaborated upon, is simple: when you're trying to use either as an intending tactic to change popular attitudes, you get an extraordinarily minimal benefit from trying to respectfully court the "defense of marriage" crowd. They are not fence-sitters. They will not be swayed in large numbers.
They're not going to be converted by the respect of society, they're going to have their ideas emboldened and preserved by the respect of society, where if instead you demean their discrimination and bigotry, it erodes conspicuously. By treating it as the entrenched ignorance of a bygone era (which I will submit and argue that it really is) and stigmatizing discriminatory attitudes towards homosexuals (again, discriminatory attitudes which the Defense of Marriage movement is ultimately about), you cut off the intergenerational transmissibility of those attitudes.
Considering that anti-gay bigotry comes at great and measurable harm to queer folk, additionally, emboldening and preserving it in the name of respect comes at too great a cost to pay much attention to the reactionary complaints about reverse discrimination.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sam: That sounds remarkably like the reasoning most noble villains use in story books.
Also, courting and appeasement are not the only two options. You seem to have left out loving persuasion. You don't get to play with the fire of, "I'll do what is necessary to kill the weeds, even if that means scorching the earth." What kind of society is it that allows institutionalized bigotry of one kind to exist, at least until the other bigots are dead or silent, and then we lift the chains? All in the name of "They've already suffered enough, there's no way we're hurting their oppressors as much." As if everybody on one side of the issue is a victim, while everybody on the other is a oppressor.
I hate that people pretend anybody even keeps track of those ledgers. If I am injured by another person intentionally, I don't have some sort of "vengeance credit" built up that I am now justified in drawing from when I attack them.
I can see the people in my life who have been influenced on this issue by me. Do you have somebody you know you shamed into submission?
If supporters of same-sex marriage are allowed to laugh, taunt, shame, and exile their opponents from the public stage, then opponents are justified in acting the exact same away (aka bullying).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
No no no, Samp is fully justified in bullying because he is bullying the bad people.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Uh, I'm sorry, but these folks equal the majority of society. Their religion is in the majority. Most politicians are Christian, and quite a few of them are anti-gay. So they do NOT have the right to claim they are being bullied when they are putting laws on the books against gays left and right. They SHOULD be ashamed. They should be ashamed for driving kids into suicide, for kicking out their children, for gay couples who don't have the same hospital visition rights straight married people get so they can't even see their partner one last time or make medical decisions. It's like all the folks who tormented my relatives about their race and having them whine that they are being bullied and oppressed because people don't like THEIR bullying and oppression.
Plus pointing out these problems ISN'T bullying. Folks have every right to go to whatever church they want to. There's no laws saying you HAVE to marry someone of the same sex, but laws can be created saying people of the same sex can't marry, or can be legally fired from their jobs in some places? No, sorry. Mormons and these other sects are NOT being oppressed here. They do NOT get to whine that they are being bullied because people are saying they don't want to put up with their crap anymore.
Plus, you have folks saying that gays destroy society. Gays, lesbians, bi and trans people are just supposed to nod their heads and go, we are destroying society so back into the closet for us? This is NOT going to happen. Even members of the Catholic church or the Mormon church or all of these other churches are leaving in droves because they see and understand the problem with this.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
People are not leaving the Mormon church "in droves" because of this issue. There is a slightly higher rate of people asking to be removed from Church rolls because of the Church's stance on SSM, but only among those who are already lapsed..
At least that's my understanding from the numbers I've seen.
Posted by mulrich (Member # 12863) on :
Also remember that while the LDS church was actively apposed to same sex marriage, it was also actively promoting equality in housing and employment for same sex couples in Utah. The church is and forever will be opposed to same sex marriage, but it is willing to defend same gender couples in other ways.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Lapsed? No, chances are they are tired of the church's bull when it comes to this.
And give me an example of the church promoting equality in housing and employment, please because I feel skeptical like I always feel.
Posted by mulrich (Member # 12863) on :
The church has been supporting this type of bill going back to 2009.
It's just, they said they were TALKING to the church, not that the church was taking an active step in stopping discrimination. http://www.mormonsandgays.org/ And their website is so helpful. -_-
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: . . . please because I feel skeptical like I always feel.
You're not always skeptical.
You're skeptical of things that challenge your existing biases, and you uncritically accept things that confirm those biases.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: No no no, Samp is fully justified in bullying because he is bullying the bad people.
I'm sorry, should a greatly impacted and persecuted minority or its allies be in any sense obligated to care about the hurt feelings of organizations and people who contribute to persecuting them? Would they like to consider themselves the wounded party?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Sam: That sounds remarkably like the reasoning most noble villains use in story books.
Also, courting and appeasement are not the only two options. You seem to have left out loving persuasion. You don't get to play with the fire of, "I'll do what is necessary to kill the weeds, even if that means scorching the earth." What kind of society is it that allows institutionalized bigotry of one kind to exist, at least until the other bigots are dead or silent, and then we lift the chains? All in the name of "They've already suffered enough, there's no way we're hurting their oppressors as much." As if everybody on one side of the issue is a victim, while everybody on the other is a oppressor.
I hate that people pretend anybody even keeps track of those ledgers. If I am injured by another person intentionally, I don't have some sort of "vengeance credit" built up that I am now justified in drawing from when I attack them.
This is not about "vengeance." Nobody is being scorched-earthed, or destroyed, or killed like weeds. Gays and their allies are not looking to do the same thing to the anti-gay that the anti-gay have done and in many ways keep doing to them. If they were, I wouldn't support them. This is not counter-oppression. This is challenging, shaming, and eradicating toxic views that create great and measurable harm to gays. And like clockwork they respond to this as though they are suffering INJUSTICE.
so, a relevant quote, in response to those who cry INJUSTICE to those who are having their views shamed and marginalized because they shame and marginalize:
quote:that's the thing about civil injustices. When they shift, it's not a pendulum. This won't arc around and place homosexuals as a ruling caste of media and politics. We'll never have our day in the sun. We won't be allowed to shackle them and beat them through the streets while their friends and neighbors spit on them.
We'll just eventually enjoy similar rights, and try not to resent them for the hell they've put us through. We'll try our hardest not to hold every one like them personally responsible for whatever plight we've survived. We'll be the bigger man, and be honorable, and decent. And it will have cost us our troubled youth who couldn't make it to the other side. Our homes, our jobs, our parents and their love.
Every day is straight pride. Every day is Christian pride. And in the meantime, every night in Uganda is hell. Every day in the high school locker room is a powder keg. Every second is a silent prayer that our parents don't find out, that our friends will still love us, that our employers don't exercise their ability to ruin our careers and our landlords don't throw us out in the streets in twenty-nine states.
They tell us to get over it, but they won't stop putting it in our way. They tell us that we're just as bad as they are. Just as preachy or full of ourselves. Every time we speak out against their cruelty, it's shaming them. Every time we dodge their stones, we're oppressing them. Every time we remind them of our humanity, we're asking for special treatment.
/ edit
and hey synesthesia, you really utterly totally have no idea what you're on about.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: No no no, Samp is fully justified in bullying because he is bullying the bad people.
I'm sorry, should a greatly impacted and persecuted minority or its allies be in any sense obligated to care about the hurt feelings of organizations and people who contribute to persecuting them? Would they like to consider themselves the wounded party?
If they are using negative tactics, then yes, if they are not, then no. Because doing harm for the sake of good isn't justifiable. Wait a minute...that is not right. Because sometimes doing harm for the sake of good is justifiable. So, let's rephrase. Doing unnecessary harm for the sake of good is not justifiable. And bullying people into silence is not the necessary to win a moral argument, and note that promoting shame and bullying are not the exact same thing. At times promoting shame (of what should be a shameful belief) is a useful and productive tactic.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: [QUOTE]/ edit
and hey synesthesia, you really utterly totally have no idea what you're on about.
Explain? Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Lapsed, in this case means members who haven't been attending church meetings for a while.
Can you link to the source where you got the notion that LDS members are leaving in droves?
You might find this interesting. 48% of respondents who lost their belief in the church cited treatment of homosexuals and the church's activity related to Prop 8 as a major factor.
Most people cited multiple factors, so it's probably not the sole issue for most people for whom its an issue, but, still, I think it's a pretty major issue.
(There are some challenges collecting data on this - but this is about the best data I've seen on why people are losing their faith in the church, and I think that's a pretty fair substitute for why people are leaving. It also comes up a lot in the ex-Mormon communities I lurk in.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: No no no, Samp is fully justified in bullying because he is bullying the bad people.
I'm sorry, should a greatly impacted and persecuted minority or its allies be in any sense obligated to care about the hurt feelings of organizations and people who contribute to persecuting them? Would they like to consider themselves the wounded party?
If they are using negative tactics, then yes, if they are not, then no. Because doing harm for the sake of good isn't justifiable. Wait a minute...that is not right. Because sometimes doing harm for the sake of good is justifiable. So, let's rephrase. Doing unnecessary harm for the sake of good is not justifiable. And bullying people into silence is not the necessary to win a moral argument, and note that promoting shame and bullying are not the exact same thing. At times promoting shame (of what should be a shameful belief) is a useful and productive tactic.
This "but that's bullying! It's not right!" thing comes all way too close to being straight out of Derailing for Dummies, tbh:
quote:Because they’re angry about the treatment they undergo and because they are aggressive and persistent in wanting to see change happen, you can target this behaviour (remembering that it is unseemly for Marginalised People™ – they’re supposed to set an example at all times by being humble and long suffering) by suggesting it puts them on a par with the people and system that stigmatise, ostracise and target them every second of every day of their lives. This also suggests that reacting to such discrimination is totally unreasonable and out of proportion (they should just take their knocks!) and that has the benefit of indicating your ignorance to just how pervasive and constant this discrimination truly is.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Am I shocked that you are so familiar with that particular work?
If you can't delineate between appropriate declarations that a view that oppresses people should be shameful and overt hostility in the form of bullying, then clearly I must be trying to derail the conversation. Or something. Blech.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Scifibum:
The first pie chart in that link points to what I'm getting at. Haven't read the rest yet.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Am I shocked that you are so familiar with that particular work?
zing
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Am I shocked that you are so familiar with that particular work?
Yeah. Am I unhappy that it seems to apply? You bet.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
If ignoring what I actually say and inventing whole cloth motivations for me makes you unhappy, you could always stop. Mind you, I'm only concerned with your happiness.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Well, these guys have a great way to avoid a boycott.
quote: We're retailers. We got into this business to sell more comics, not less. When we've donated to causes in the past -- animal shelters, Haiti disaster relief, etc. -- we've done so by selling comics and other items for a benefit. That's the first thing that occurs to us as retailers: What can we sell to do the most good? In this case, rather than decline to carry his comic, we wanted to sell Orson Scott Card's Superman comic and use the money to fund the Human Rights Campaign. That's just how we approached the problem of stocking a comic that stood to fund an organization, the National Organization for Marriage, with which we disagreed.
[ March 17, 2013, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bijoux regionaux point fr: OSC's problčm...
While I publicly condemn OSC's view's on SSM and homosexuality, I would never go so far as you have to assume he has a secret longing for little boys, and do not feel it is appropriate nor justified. Especially as your first and only post.
[ March 17, 2013, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Kelly1101 (Member # 12562) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bijoux regionaux point fr: OSC's problčm...
Funny, I never saw having a naked boy in a book as a sexual thing.
That's how you view naked children? That may say something more about you than about OSC.
[ March 17, 2013, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Golly, I didn't even notice the edits because the last poster/time didn't change.
Posted by Kelly1101 (Member # 12562) on :
It's not even worth it.
The next time someone says that the Bonzo fight scene in Ender's game is erotic I think I'm going to throat punch them. I read that book, and therefore that scene, several times before I ever saw anything about it on the internet. And the first time I heard someone saying that it was erotic I was so "WTF WTF WTF" about it... I mean, really? Sexuality was the last thing that scene brought to my mind. I really think that you can only view the scene in that way if you are inclined to think of it in that way.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Agreement.
Posted by bigmamaT (Member # 12974) on :
OK, so I just discovered OSC in the last 6 months. I LOVE his writing. I am also very pro civil rights, and support gay marriage. I did not know that OSC had anti gay marriage views, and frankly, I don't care. In the books I've read, I've noticed that he always treated gay characters respectfully. (although he did show a lack of understanding when the scientist in the Shadow series got married so he could have kids.) Also, if I were to boycott his books, I would really be punishing myself. If OSC starts putting anti-gay stuff in his books, I will probably just stick to reading his early books. It is my understanding that Card is a church elder, and he probably has an obligation to his church which includes supporting whatever agenda that is. I forgive him for this! As long as he finishes his Ender, pathfinder, and gate thief series, I'm OK!
Posted by Kelly1101 (Member # 12562) on :
quote:Originally posted by bigmamaT: OK, so I just discovered OSC in the last 6 months. I LOVE his writing. I am also very pro civil rights, and support gay marriage. I did not know that OSC had anti gay marriage views, and frankly, I don't care. In the books I've read, I've noticed that he always treated gay characters respectfully. (although he did show a lack of understanding when the scientist in the Shadow series got married so he could have kids.) Also, if I were to boycott his books, I would really be punishing myself. If OSC starts putting anti-gay stuff in his books, I will probably just stick to reading his early books. It is my understanding that Card is a church elder, and he probably has an obligation to his church which includes supporting whatever agenda that is. I forgive him for this! As long as he finishes his Ender, pathfinder, and gate thief series, I'm OK!
Yeah, that's pretty much my exact position on this.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
I was thinking about Anton myself recently - and I think it's an interesting portrayal. There certainly does seem to be a lack of exploration of the options available to someone like him, but Anton himself is a pretty cool character, and never seems like he's shamed or less of a person.
I also buy books and films from companies and authors that I profoundly disagree with on many very important issues - so I don't see why OSC should be different.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm sorry, but that's just not a healthy system to push. Plus, if they are pushing gayness in that book as a way of limiting population, Anton was just having anonymous sex? So gay guys can't commit to each other and be apart of the web of life on their own terms? And does the woman he's marrying know about this? A woman deserves to be with a man who desires HER who doesn't have to force himself to get through sex thinking about dudes. There's a potential to cause a lot of heartbreak with a situation like that.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I always thought Anton was simply just asexual hence his loneliness. Since it means there's virtually no one he is likely to understand.
If there's a god that would not allow for spirit children of same sex couples in the next life then I would consider such a god inherently evil and should be destroyed by a more just and virtuous god.
Posted by Marcoudesept (Member # 12981) on :
Gay is a different religious view just as atheism is. To attempt to stop gay marriage in this country's freedom of religious views would be equal to allow Catholics, Muslems or Jews to stop Mormons from getting married because of the allowance of some mormon groups to allow polygamy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Gay is a different religious view just as atheism is.
...
no, being gay isn't a 'different religious view'
and atheism isn't a religious view. it's a non-religious view.
Posted by Marcoudesept (Member # 12981) on :
I'm more offended by how OSC can be so open minded in so many writings but be so blindly manipulated by religious fear in this regard. If it can seduce him then it feels that no one is safe. I dont even want to be around religion anymore. There like "the body snacthers" or something.
Posted by Marcoudesept (Member # 12981) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Gay is a different religious view just as atheism is.
...
no, being gay isn't a 'different religious view'
and atheism isn't a religious view. it's a non-religious view.
Umm what? To not believe in any gods IS very much so a religious view! To belive that homosexual is not a "sin" would be a religious veiw on what constitutes a "sin" and YES many homosexuals still believe in God, some of them are even priests.
Do you also belive that nonpartisan is not a political veiw? So i guess gaseous is not a "physical" state And how to explain plasma
Zero degrees IS a temperature and non-fat IS a "fat content"
Polytheism Monotheism Atheism If it was not a theistic view it would not have "theism" in it
Asexuality is a sex and by this law they could not marry another person born without sex organs. But since that does not include your family i guess you dont care about those few "insignificants"
Look up the website "how to think"
[ April 10, 2013, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: Marcoudesept ]
Posted by Marcoudesept (Member # 12981) on :
*edit... Sorry that sounds like a slam. I actually ment there are websites that explains subjuctive and objective veiw and arguements. It will shed alot of light on Understanding veiws that have been lost or muddled in current american culture by lazy wording and creative interpretation or wording to advertise and/or contractually confuse you as a buyer, employee or religious follower to obtain and retain your money. Or to keep you subservient to whomever is in a position of power
[ April 10, 2013, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Marcoudesept ]
Posted by Marcoudesept (Member # 12981) on :
For those that are unwilling to be logical here is the legal explanation: I have proven the 2 people of the same sex can copulate without being homosexual. Therefore they are not a threat to the "sanctity of marriage" and any laws agaist them being married are by all means discriminatory by nature.
I'd further think that, in this light, most religons would find this unjustly judgemental and left to a higher power to decide.
If any groups wish to stop "homosexual marrige" all laws and arguements will need to be changed to reflect that distinction before any further logical debate can be made.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Marcoudesept, you really must stop assuming you know so much about the views of your interlocutors without taking care to learn about them. As it is, you're embarrassing yourself.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You are way too hard to follow. I don't even get an inch of how you are trying to explain, for instance, that gay is a religious view.
There's a possibility we're on the same page (I honestly can't tell because you are somewhat incomprehensible) but it's like you are asserting something like that atheism is a religion just as much as christianity is because it is a view about gods. That being "atheist" is a religious view just like being "monotheistic" is a religious view, because they both have the 'theist' part in it.
nah
like i've trotted out before, atheism is a religion like 'off' is a television channel
quote:Asexuality is a sex and by this law they could not marry another person born without sex organs. But since that does not include your family i guess you dont care about those few "insignificants"
what are you even talking about. do you mean, like, "asexuality is a sexual orientation"
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Umm what? To not believe in any gods IS very much so a religious view!
Semantics. I'd argue that "Not believing in any Gods" is not a religious belief, same way that "Not being a actor" is not a career.
It's a personally held idea about religious matters.
??? How is that different than any other personally held ideas about religious matters? Doesn't have a book?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's a personally held idea about religious matters.
No, it's not. It's a default lack of religious views.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:How is that different than any other personally held ideas about religious matters? Doesn't have a book?
Many religions don't have books, so no, it's not that.
For starters religions aren't "personally held ideas". They're a combination of descriptive concepts about the history and structure of the world; of prescriptions about how people should behave and written or unwritten laws; of traditions expressed in rituals, ceremonies, and holidays. Psychologically, the concept of "sanctity" is crucial to religions.
Atheism on the other hand: On the prescriptive front, it has no injuctions and no laws. On the descriptive front, it's a mere *lack* of belief in supernatural beings. Culturally, it has no traditions, no rituals, no ceremonies, no holidays and no holy sites.
When an atheist doesn't go to church every Sunday, it's not that they have a different religious tradition of *not* going to church. It's that they have no tradition relevant to churchgoing at all.
Atheism is an *absence*, not a thing by itself.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Atheism is as much of a religious belief as off is a tv channel.
Posted by Kelly1101 (Member # 12562) on :
Bullshit.
Atheism is as much of a religious belief as Christianity, Islam, Scientology, etc.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't invalidate it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And profanity isn't a persuasive argument no matter how much you use.
For that matter, neither is "nuh-uh".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kelly1101: Atheism is as much of a religious belief as Christianity, Islam, Scientology, etc.
You can repeat this pretty as much as many times as you want, but it doesn't make it any less completely untrue. Not believing in any religion isn't a religion. Not being religious isn't a religion. Belief structures are not defined or made into something you have membership of just by not believing in something.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Hmmm. A while back this was discussed here. There was a differentiation made between atheism and agnosticism. A number of agnostics stated the same thing as Kelly- a belief that there is no God and that there is evidence for His non-existence is as faith based as the opposing viewpoint.
('Course that's part of the agnostic creed-- no one can prove anything. :-) )
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marcoudesept: [QB] I'm more offended by how OSC can be so open minded in so many writings but be so blindly manipulated by religious fear in this regard. If it can seduce him then it feels that no one is safe. /QB]
It is entirely possible that people are more complex than you may have considered. That complexity- and your apparent lack of regard for it-- may be the cause of your distress.
I suggest a remedy. Two alternatives, actually: get to know people better; and/or refrain from judging them based on partial knowledge.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
You might be able to argue that atheists have a religious fact.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Atheism is as much of a religious belief as Christianity, Islam, Scientology, etc.
Kelly, let's answer these questions:
1) What are the core doctrines of atheism? 2) What rituals are observed by and expected of atheists? 3) Who are the leaders, clergy, and missionaries of atheism? 4) How can one be kicked out of the atheist religion? 5) What are the doctrinal punishments for an atheist who has apostatized? 6) What are the primary scriptures of atheism? 7) What would all atheists agree is the purpose of life?
The idea that "there is no God" is a faith-based claim -- while a somewhat stupid claim, since it's rather like saying "there are no leprechauns" is faith-based -- is not, even if we grant that, insufficient to establish atheism as "as much" of a religion as Christianity or Scientology or Islam. If it were, simply saying "there are no leprechauns" would be enough to argue that Aleprechaunism is a religion, or asserting "the Greek pantheon never actually existed" means that the speaker is a devout Agreekgodist.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Bullshit.
Atheism is as much of a religious belief as Christianity, Islam, Scientology, etc.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't invalidate it.
We've given many arguments why it's not so -- and "we don't like it" wasn't one of them.
And "bullshit" isn't an argument in favour of your position. It seems you're emotionally attached to the idea that atheism is a religion.
But as a sidenote, something I recently heard and like is that atheism can be considered a "degenerate case of religion"
In short, much like you can call a point to be a degenerate circle (one with a radius of zero), you can argue that atheism is a degenerate religion (a religion with zero gods, zero rituals, zero moral injuctions, zero holy sites, and a single epistemic belief that theism is false)
But that's silliness. In ordinary human language, such extreme degenerate case get given their own names -- that's why we say "a point" instead of "a circle with 0 radius".
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
There are a lot of folks who believe in God who would have difficulty answering those 7 questions for themselves, Tom.
Just because the belief isn't encoded or communally structured does not signify it isn't faith based.
(Do atheists commonly distinguish between the terms "spiritual" and "religious"?)
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: (Do atheists commonly distinguish between the terms "spiritual" and "religious"?)
That is the thing. Some do, some don't. There is no doctrine.
My sister-in-law claims to be an atheist, but believes in ghosts. Some people claim to be atheist but believe UFO's are regularly abducting people and visiting us on a regular basis.
I don't believe in any of it.
But to be honest if it means i can operate tax free under the guise of a religion, so be it.
Also if atheism is a religion because we have faith that there is no god, does that mean you have multiple religions because you have faith the Muslims and Hindus are wrong?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm not sure I follow the logic of your last question
As far as not having doctrine-- well, that's kind of my point. Lots of theists have no defined doctrine either.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I would argue that lots believers have no doctrine, but that no theists lack them.
Sure, atheists have a belief, but clearly they do not have a religion.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:"Lots of theists have no defined doctrine either."
If that's the case, then I think those particular theists will probably disagree with being called "religious" also.
There was a time in my late teens or early 20s when I considered myself "άθρησκος" ("non-religious" "not having religion") but not "άθεος" ("atheist").
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Just because the belief isn't encoded or communally structured does not signify it isn't faith based.
It seems to me that holding a single faith-based belief (if we grant -- which I normally do not grant, mind -- that "there is no God" is a faith-based claim) does not mean you are religious.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm going to claim to be God, so that anyone who denies the truth of me being God is now part of a new religion.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
I think it's inaccurate, and perhaps even somewhat ridiculous, to call atheism a religion (though someone could make one and attempt to co-opt the term). But I think a declaration of "no such thing as God exists" (which I do understand isn't necessarily what is meant by some who use the term "atheist") in most cases is a religious belief (as it's usually given specifically in contrast to the claim that God or a god does exist). Is it possible to consider the belief not to be a religious one, but the claim to be? I think that might be where I land.
I don't think I consider it worth arguing over, though were I an atheist I suppose I might.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
1) What are the core doctrines of atheism?
That there is no God.
2) What rituals are observed by and expected of atheists?
It really depends on the sect of Atheism. Evangelical Atheists require that their members never let a remark about God go uncontested.
3) Who are the leaders, clergy, and missionaries of atheism?
Leaders: Sagan, Dawkins, Hickens - any famous scientist - preferably a cosmologist or evolutionary biologist - who writes a book about how God doesn't exist and religious people are deluded, then goes on the lecture circuit. It's especially fun to pull them out like a rabbit in a hat to argue against a Mormon rockstar on tour.
(In regards to the video - because Atheism is the One True Belief system, it is okay to not research the subject's religion properly and use straw man and weak arguments to support Atheism against a subject who has been ambushed and is not trained in public religious debate. Also, one can talk over them. This is okay because we must use any means necessary to convince the religious of their delusions.
Clergy - Atheist and/or secular humanist professors of any stripe.
Missionaries - Every Member a Missionary!
4) How can one be kicked out of the atheist religion?
Belief in God.
5) What are the doctrinal punishments for an atheist who has apostatized?
Public flogging and shunning, loss of status and reputation, loss of publishing privileges and maybe even grants, everlasting delusion. Of course, they could repent of their godliness and be welcomed back into the fold.
6) What are the primary scriptures of atheism?
All writings of the above mentioned leaders. Things like The God Delusion and Demon Haunted World. It's a large body of work, even devout atheists are not likely going to have read all of it.
7) What would all atheists agree is the purpose of life?
This is a fringe doctrine, and as such atheists are allowed to have differing opinions. Please don't stereotype an atheist by just one example. Some atheists may believe that there is no purpose of life. Others think that the purpose is simply to enjoy life, while others think that as intelligent beings we have a great imperative to explore and understand the universe. Also, in order to succeed, life must procreate so another purpose is to make sure the human race doesn't die. This dovetails nicely with the imperative to explore - by spreading our seed across the galaxy and indeed the universe, we insure that our intelligent species won't die and that we may someday come a point when we fully understand the universe.
[ April 18, 2013, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Amka, you're just choosing to be snarky and insulting, not making serious discussion.
You could even more easily construct similar lists showing how the LA Lakers is a religion, or being a Star Trek fan is a religion. (The vision of Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek is much more important to Trekkers than the words of Dawkins or Sagan or anyone else is to atheists, and Star Trek has a much fuller set of doctrines)
If you want to believe atheism a religion, your choice. But the very fact that you try to insult it by calling it a religion indicates to me that deep down you recognize that religion is stupid.
But in the end it doesn't matter what label you attach to it -- atheism's virtue lies only in the fact of its correctness, not in whether you call it a "religious view" or not. Such a label will lead to completely unpredictive models, and is therefore generally a wrong way to use words -- but that which we call atheism by any other name would be as correct.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
That was a clever bit of snark, Amka.
I think the most accurate and useful definition of "atheism" is "lack of theistic beliefs".
A lack of a belief in something is not a faith based belief. It's just nothing.
The belief that something does not exist is usually just an example of "skepticism" and everyone has some of that same religion.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
I was snarky because I'm tired of the "atheism is not a religion" trope. And you're right, Aris - I was trying to double turn the tables and it came out wrong.
I am deeply religious and don't believe it to be stupid at all.
So, let me approach this with less snark and more explaining.
Atheists try to disavow the label of religion because of what they perceive as ills that only religions have. Problems like biased thinking, war over differences of belief, or other perceived ills.
It is a way to further cement the "They are Other" and Us vs Them mentality.
Aris, you said:
quote: You could even more easily construct similar lists showing how the LA Lakers is a religion, or being a Star Trek fan is a religion. (The vision of Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek is much more important to Trekkers than the words of Dawkins or Sagan or anyone else is to atheists, and Star Trek has a much fuller set of doctrines)
Similar lists yes. In fact, those of the Abrahamic faiths agree with you that Lakers fandom and being a Trekker is like a religion. They call this Idolotry - worshiping something that isn't God.
Atheism doesn't suffer from that, though.
To illustrate that, we'll talk about 1st and 2nd causes. Theists believe that God created the universe, therefore God is the first cause and the Big Bang and Evolution are second causes - the method by which God created the universe. Theists worship and have awe towards their First Cause.
Atheists don't believe in God. The Big Bang and Evolution, etc are their first cause. Though they don't pray or conduct rituals (well, maybe scientific method and inquiry could be called a ritual) they do have great awe in regards to the First Cause. Atheists wax poetic about the wonders and beauties of the Universe and our capacity to understand it. "Billions and Billions..." So they have deeply held beliefs regarding the First Cause which instruct their day to day living.
Atheists believe strongly in integrity and cognitive cohesiveness, and in fairness. Many studies, as well as personal experience, prove the benefits (not just for themselves, but for society) of moral behavior. So Atheism, as a belief system, encourages moral thinking and behavior.
Based on this, I think one could argue that Atheism is a religious belief, but is not an idolatrous one like fandoms are.
Atheists proselytize. They have members of their society which are revered, who regularly preach the word of Atheism. Atheism is for the most part unorganized, but there are some very organized groups - some of which disagree with each other.
quote:The study also found that devout Christians and nonbelievers use the same brain regions to judge the truth of both religious and nonreligious propositions. The results, the study authors say, represent a critical advance in the psychology of religion. The paper appears Sept. 30 in the journal PLoS One.
Atheists are not free of the ills of religion. It has caused the death of people who disagreed with it, on purely ideological grounds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
Atheists are often prone to the cognitive dissonance and bias they so accuse others of having.
They usually believe that they are "The one true system of belief", and so are right in taking away the right of others to express their own beliefs. Again, labels such as "Religion is the opiate of the masses" serve to reduce the label of religion to that of people who are lower in intellect and sometimes class. Therefore, it is very distasteful to have the religious label applied to them.
But in fact, Atheism - though not formally organized - is a system of belief which earns protection as a religion under the law.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Atheists try to disavow the label of religion because of what they perceive as ills that only religions have. Problems like biased thinking, war over differences of belief, or other perceived ills.
Nope. Speaking as an atheist, I disavow the label of religion for the same reason that I don't call "cookies" "bagels." It confuses the reality and makes it harder to have a discussion, since most properties of religion and most properties of atheism do not actually overlap. I also do it because I find many religious people like to try to draw false equivalences: "just because there's no actual evidence for my belief that God once covered the Earth with water as a punishment for wickedness doesn't mean I shouldn't hold it; after all, there's no actual evidence that proves conclusively that no gods of any sort exist, and you believe that." Leaving aside whether sufficient evidence of a negative claim does exist, or even the specific terms of that negative claim -- is it enough to believe that the Christian God doesn't exist, or all the Gods except the Christian God don't, or that nothing supernatural exists at all, or... -- the truth is that the sorts of truth claims and demands on behavior being made by religion are very different from the truth claims and behaviors required of atheists.
(The single truth claim required of atheists: there are no gods (generally asserted due to an asserted insufficient quantity of positive evidence of gods, but other rationales can be put forward). The behavior required of atheists: none.)
I think you're confusing atheism with humanism, which is at the very least a positive belief (and I don't mean "positive" in the "good" sense, mind; I mean it in the "this is an actual sort of belief that I hold" sense.)
quote:So they have deeply held beliefs regarding the First Cause which instruct their day to day living.
This is, quite frankly, bull-pucky. There is not a single decision I make in my day-to-day life that is informed by my personal belief that the observable universe is actually the manifestation of the edge of one brane passing through another in multi-dimensional "space." It's just not particularly useful when I'm trying to decide whether or not to have anal sex.
quote:When evaluating whether to believe something or not, Atheists and Theists use the same part of the brain.
In related news, when seeing things, both atheists and theists use the same round, squishy things set into holes in their faces. More important, I would argue, is whether atheists and theists use the same epistemologies. (News flash: some do. Not all theists are stupid, and not all atheists are rational.)
quote:Atheists are not free of the ills of religion. It has caused the death of people who disagreed with it, on purely ideological grounds.
And here I think we run into your most glaring error of kind, Amka. Atheism is not an ideology. But atheists can hold other ideologies; the only ideologies excluded by atheism are ideologies that are predicated in a belief in deity. So, yes, ideological atheists can do stupid things in the name of their ideologies. But there is no such thing as an atheist ideology.
quote:They usually believe that they are "The one true system of belief", and so are right in taking away the right of others to express their own beliefs.
Really? Again, I'm going to call bull-pucky on this one. It's entitled whining.
[ April 18, 2013, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I think there is some talking past each other here...
On one hand, atheism as a concept is -not- a religion, by any useful definition of term religion and trying to force that square peg into that round hole requires a heavy hand indeed.
On the other hand, there are some militant atheists who treat their personal credo as a religion, (borrowing the worst possible attributes of religion) to be championed by themselves as missionaries, and some who even pass judgement upon those ignorant enough to still believe the antiquated hog wash which clearly shows the inferiority of their intellect.
So, is atheism a religion...no.
But do some people treat it that way...yes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* That I'll definitely agree with. Atheism is not a religion, but some -- far from all -- atheists are religious.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
While I agree with what you posted, Stone_Wolf, to me the interesting and most relevant part of that is that when we say that atheism can borrow from religion, it is almost always used to point to bad attitudes or practices not of atheism itself but of particular atheists or groups. So the point being made is that: yes, some atheists mimic the worst aspects of religion and human arrogance and in effect proselytize. We don't just say 'boy, are they arrogant' we say 'they're like religious zealots'.
Whereas on the other side of things, you don't need to borrow from religion to get those good things that individual atheists and groups do. You might say 'she's a saint', but then many of us know people without religious leanings who are that good.
--------
quote:Atheists try to disavow the label of religion because of what they perceive as ills that only religions have. Problems like biased thinking, war over differences of belief, or other perceived ills.
This is not actually accurate, as others have noted. It would be an incautious atheist indeed who said that religion was the only path to those flaws-but pointing out that religion is an often and hard to argue against path to them is a different matter.
quote:Based on this, I think one could argue that Atheism is a religious belief, but is not an idolatrous one like fandoms are.
This to me is very odd-it seems to strip the definition of religion of one of its most important components: belief in things not seen. I'm not talking about what a religious person believes other people, such as prophets or ancestors have seen, but things they have detected-and can demonstrate-with their own eyes. The kind of seeing of things one does that when they tell others and then go and show them, they are believed so long as that other person's eyes are working. And I don't mean metaphorical eyes or anything.
But in any event, you're still wrong about what beliefs atheism professes. To be an atheist doesn't require absolute belief in the Big Bang, Evolution, or any other scientific belief you would care to name. It's a lack of belief in deities, and that's all. That is the bedrock, but unlike many beliefs its bare rock. It's not like, say, Christianity where you believe Jesus is the Son of God and so necessarily you'll believe the things said by him as true, which means you'll believe things related to those things. Atheism doesn't go further that 'lack of belief in deities'.
Finally, let me add a rejection of the claim 'atheism has caused deaths'. It's one which is very commonly trotted out, and it's both bizarre in its mercy to monstrous people and systems and offensive for its nature as a false attack, however earnestly it might be believed.
If we are to be rejected when we try and point out 'religion caused such and such atrocity', then it *certainly* doesn't get to be applied to us. There is nothing about atheism which says: atheists, advance your non belief into the minds and lives of believers, even if they don't want it, and if they resist, for their own good or because they're simply heathens, use force. Contrasted to this, many religious systems do *exactly* that. I might as well say vegetarianism and golfing-Germany and North Korea-lead to atrocity.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Stone_Wolf_ - I think you may have it right.
Still, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when someone asserts "Religion is the cause for all the evils in the world" and "Atheism is not a religion."
Also, I still contend that Atheism and Theism are both in the same category as "Belief systems that explain the first cause."
quote: This is, quite frankly, bull-pucky. There is not a single decision I make in my day-to-day life that is informed by my personal belief that the observable universe is actually the manifestation of the edge of one brane passing through another in multi-dimensional "space." It's just not particularly useful when I'm trying to decide whether or not to have anal sex.
Many who strongly self identify as Atheists also identify as humanists. One of their primary arguments is that they don't believe a good god would allow that. They believe every human being - indeed, every creature - has value. And so the same thing that informs their First Cause beliefs inform their daily moral choices.
So what does inform your choice as to whether or not you'll have anal sex. How about, does your wife want to? You value her comfort and pleasure too, because you believe in humanist ideals and you believe there is no God because at least in part, you believe no good God would allow the evil that exists in this world.
But then again, perhaps you realize some of the fallacies of the problem of evil, and it is just a matter of "I'll believe it when I see it (or reputable scientists show it is true)"
quote:And here I think we run into your most glaring error of kind, Amka. Atheism is not an ideology. But atheists can hold other ideologies; the only ideologies excluded by atheism are ideologies that are predicated in a belief in deity. So, yes, ideological atheists can do stupid things in the name of their ideologies. But there is no such thing as an atheist ideology.
I'll recall the word ideology, but I will not recall my assertions that some Atheists claimed that because theirs was the superior belief, they had to right to discriminate against, imprison, throw into labor camps, and kill people who practiced religion.
How many times do I have to hear, Religion is the cause of most problems in the world, and in the same breath, Atheism is not a religion.
It isn't religion that causes those kinds of evil. It is human nature. Pride, the need for dominance, the need for security, Us vs Them mentalities, shame and honor.
We wrap it up in whatever beliefs we have, to give ourselves permission to do horrible things. And when we do those horrible things, and feel the shame, we dig ourselves deeper by saying "They aren't us, so it's okay."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Many who strongly self identify as Atheists also identify as humanists.
And many do not. I don't, for example; I'm sympathetic to humanism, but I think a lot of it is soggy, feel-good crap.
quote:you believe there is no God because at least in part, you believe no good God would allow the evil that exists in this world
Nope. While that's certainly a good reason not to believe in an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god, non-omnipotent gods, ones who have not created the laws of the universe -- like, say, the Mormon one -- don't fall under the whole Problem of Evil thing. Me, I don't believe in gods because I don't think there's any compelling evidence for a single one.
quote:How many times do I have to hear, Religion is the cause of most problems in the world, and in the same breath, Atheism is not a religion.
I don't know. Certainly no one here has said it, but I don't know where you hang out. Obviously it's something you think you hear pretty often.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Still, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when someone asserts "Religion is the cause for all the evils in the world" and "Atheism is not a religion."
Even if the first were a common statement of atheists-and I suspect that while neither of us has polling on the question, I am more often in conversation with atheists than you are-it wouldn't address the accuracy of the second statement one way or another.
Atheism is not an explanation for first cause, Amka. Saying 'I don't believe god did it because I don't believe in deities' *is not* saying 'I believe this did it'. This is a common argument I hear from one particular theist-that to have a lack of belief in God is actually a belief in something else. He's never been able to assert an argument for why this is true except to repeat that it's inherent in disbelief. For example, I don't believe in deities, but I'm not convinced that the Big Bang is the cause of existence. It seems like a good explanation so far, compared to others, and so far as I understand it-which is poorly-I think it's got a good solid grip on the truth. But that's a long way from the sort of claims religion makes.
quote:Many who strongly self identify as Atheists also identify as humanists. One of their primary arguments is that they don't believe a good god would allow that. They believe every human being - indeed, every creature - has value. And so the same thing that informs their First Cause beliefs inform their daily moral choices.
To me this serves as an example that you don't understand atheism nearly as well as you believe you do. Starting point: belief in a good, kindly deity is far from the only religious belief possible. It's far from true that to believe a good god wouldn't allow this, that is existence, then that means there is no god.
quote:I'll recall the word ideology, but I will not recall my assertions that some Atheists claimed that because theirs was the superior belief, they had to right to discriminate against, imprison, throw into labor camps, and kill people who practiced religion.
I'll challenge you plainly to name a single example of someone who has said, and then done, this. Not just an atheist who has committed atrocities, but an atheist that says and professes 'because you do not disbelieve in deities, and we do disbelieve in deities, we will kill you'. I'll just avoid potential trouble and point out that the most common examples of this, actually aren't. If you were going to say 'atheists can be monsters', you would have a case, but you go further than that and say 'atheism can tell atheists to be monsters', just like religion can. It can't. How could it? What is the chain of reasoning that links 'I don't believe in any gods' to 'therefore I can take your land and kill you if you resist'? Or 'I can make you swear on a book I revere and if you don't, I can torture you'? So on and so forth.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
You don't think Stalin qualifies, Rakeesh?
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
quote:
quote: Still, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when someone asserts "Religion is the cause for all the evils in the world" and "Atheism is not a religion."
Even if the first were a common statement of atheists-and I suspect that while neither of us has polling on the question, I am more often in conversation with atheists than you are-it wouldn't address the accuracy of the second statement one way or another.
It isn't that the first statement addresses or doesn't address the accuracy of the second.
It's that by labeling something, and then saying, we, however, are NOT that label but are the cure to it, they are saying that Atheism does not lead to similar social problems.
Atheism is not just some philosophy that is neutral in regards to religion. It is the One True Truth in the eyes of atheists. It sets itself at opposition to all other religions. It's most famous adherents write books and teach and lead. New Atheists strive to convert others. In an age where it is easy to find each other, there are organized meetings of atheists.
Putting religion and atheism in the same classification might be the same as putting apples and oranges in the same class. And they are: both are fruit from a deciduous tree.
Since Atheists feel they have The Truth, by extension they believe everyone else is wrong.
When one begins to think of themselves as being unquestionably right and hold no doubt, they tread on dangerous ground.
quote:If you were going to say 'atheists can be monsters', you would have a case, but you go further than that and say 'atheism can tell atheists to be monsters', just like religion can. It can't. How could it? What is the chain of reasoning that links 'I don't believe in any gods' to 'therefore I can take your land and kill you if you resist'?
Actually, it has though probably not in those specific words. It's more like, I don't believe in God. I think you use God to enslave people, so I can take your land and kill you if you don't agree with me. If you practice the religion you believe in, I will kill you."
See the French Revolution and the Soviet Union (an Atheist State until 1939, merely secular after that.) and more.
Or sometimes even, "Because I am stronger and have more technology, I have the right to overwhelm you and take over your land (or ability to reproduce), because morality is determined by might not God. We must ensure the strength of the race." Do most atheists believe that? No, but the idea of no God has lead to this logic. Many supporters of eugenics used this logic. However, the "might makes right" can also derive from false notions of Divine Right.
All I am saying is that people will use whatever logic they want to gain power over others. They may even have a vision of a beautiful utopia where everyone is free and happy (so long as they are the same as us), and then they'll commit grievous atrocities to bring it about. Atheism is often as central to that logic as other religions are.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Atheism is not just some philosophy that is neutral in regards to religion. It is the One True Truth in the eyes of atheists. It sets itself at opposition to all other religions.
Seriously? You're just going to dig in your heels here and be as wrong as possible?
There are other ways to handle being egregiously wrong, you know; you're picking one of the worst of them. And I can tell from your tone that you know it, that you've been handed your ass on this one but are just going to double down over and over again until people get tired of arguing with you or get tired of it enough to insult you, at which point you'll feel free to write them off. But you're ridiculously wrong, here.
You realize that there are atheistic Buddhists, right? Unitarian Universalists and Humanists are religious, as well, while remaining compatible with atheism.
What you're meaning to say -- what you're desperately trying to say -- is that merely being an atheist doesn't mean that someone is free from irrationality or dangerously committed to some ideology or another. But you're refusing to let go of the convenient false equivalence -- "atheism is just another religion" -- because you're too lazy to work around the distinctions. Get over it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: You don't think Stalin qualifies, Rakeesh?
I think Stalin qualifies brilliantly, as in really fits the bill, as a monstrous atheist. But be didn't just say 'you believe in God, therefore I get to relocate you' or so on and so forth. The relevant question is why he believed-or stated, anyway-that the belief in God was dangerous and invited oppression. It would hurt the people, it would hurt the state, it would hurt the revolution, it would adhere to foreign elements, it was in bed with fascists, so on and so forth. It wasn't atheism that Stalin 'defended' against theists, it would invariably be those other things. His power-well, truthfully his power was vested in guns and propaganda, but the disguise he put on those things wasn't atheism, it was communism, the people, the workers, glorious Russia, the party, etc.
Posted by Kelly1101 (Member # 12562) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Atheism is as much of a religious belief as Christianity, Islam, Scientology, etc.
Kelly, let's answer these questions:
1) What are the core doctrines of atheism? 2) What rituals are observed by and expected of atheists? 3) Who are the leaders, clergy, and missionaries of atheism? 4) How can one be kicked out of the atheist religion? 5) What are the doctrinal punishments for an atheist who has apostatized? 6) What are the primary scriptures of atheism? 7) What would all atheists agree is the purpose of life?
The idea that "there is no God" is a faith-based claim -- while a somewhat stupid claim, since it's rather like saying "there are no leprechauns" is faith-based -- is not, even if we grant that, insufficient to establish atheism as "as much" of a religion as Christianity or Scientology or Islam. If it were, simply saying "there are no leprechauns" would be enough to argue that Aleprechaunism is a religion, or asserting "the Greek pantheon never actually existed" means that the speaker is a devout Agreekgodist.
You are making up a definition of religion to suit your purposes with these questions.
Definition of RELIGION 1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Atheism is compatible with 2 and 4.
I think you're confusing religion with ORGANIZED religion, which are two different things.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think you'll find that atheism is not a personal or institutionalized set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices; and moreover that it is not a cause, principle, or system of beliefs. It is the lack of belief in the existence of god(s); it has no other properties.
Pointing that out was, in fact, the point of my questions.
If atheism meets your criteria for #2 and #4, so does a belief in the existence of pancakes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ok, since the #2 definition of religion hinges on...well, what the definition of religion is, Kelley, that one's a wash. #4 *could* apply, but then if you decide that it does, then Yankees fan is a religion. Starcraft fan is a religion. A specific method of cooking and eating is a religion. Etc. As others have said, it is quite unusual to hear such things labeled religion, even though technically it fits 25% of one dictionary's definitions-the last, no less.
By this reasoning, you don't have one religion, you have dozens, hundreds, or even thousands. You do not believe in Zeus, so according to your reasoning this is a religious belief. You're a Zeus atheist religion member. Same with Thor, Vishnu, and for that matter Crom or is it Krom? You're also not just a Thor atheist religion member, but one for the comic book Thor as well as the movie Thor.
If it weren't so human, it would be odd how quickly so many people are to turn arguments they reject onto people they disapprove of or disagree with. When someone, whether it's an atheist of just a heretic says, 'This religion is responsible for this bad thing' the accepted thing to do is to reject it and say that no, it's not the religion but what people have made of it.
But along comes some atheists who-according to some people, often with a poor understanding of the term to begin with-who treat their disbelief in an aggressive, religious style and suddenly the common talk about 'it's not the belief that does it, it's what some people make of it!' goes right out the window.
If atheism is going to be labelled a religion because some disbelievers act on it in an evangelistic* way, then Islam is a terrorist religion, Judaism is a land-stealing religion, Catholicism is a child molesting religion, Protestantism is a money-worshipping religion, so on down the line. If I made those claims, the people who are now labeling atheism a religion would very quickly remember that I don't get to pick a few examples out of a large group and say their behavior speaks for the entire belief system.
Posted by Kelly1101 (Member # 12562) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think you'll find that atheism is not a personal or institutionalized set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices; and moreover that it is not a cause, principle, or system of beliefs. It is the lack of belief in the existence of god(s); it has no other properties.
Pointing that out was, in fact, the point of my questions.
If atheism meets your criteria for #2 and #4, so does a belief in the existence of pancakes.
I find that atheism is a personal set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices.
I also find that many hold it as a cause, principle, and system of beliefs.
Something doesn't have to be organized to be religious. Plenty of protestants do not abide by the dogma of their particular sect. That does not prevent them from being religious. Religion can be, by definition, a *personal* set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices. ORGANIZED religion is not defined in the same way, but I think relatively few people abide by and believe in every bit of dogma contained within an organized religion-- I would still consider that they "have" a religion.
Saying that someone whose religion is based around the belief in a natural creation rather than an intelligent creator is "not a religion" does not fit the actual definition of "religion."
Posted by Kelly1101 (Member # 12562) on :
Basically-- something does not have to have a certain number of adherents to become a religion. There is no numerical dividing line between religion and non-religion. If one person or one hundred people or one million people have a set of religious beliefs, they have a religion.
So yes, if someone's belief system revolves around Star Trek, that would be a religion.
I don't see why ya'll are so determined to invalidate a religion.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Kelly, we've been telling you why we don't think atheism is a religion -- the reason you keep on saying you "don't see", is because you keep on metaphorically closing your ears and humming at everything we say.
You say atheism has practices, but neither you nor anyone else here has yet listed a single one -- and please try to have a serious discussion instead of stating something like "atheism's practice is to snark at theists" or "atheism's practice is to not worship God".
You say atheism has attitudes, but again not a single one has been listed. What's atheism's attitude towards premarital sex? What's atheism's attitude towards abortion? THERE IS NONE. Atheism has no attitudes or injuctions.
Atheism isn't even a *set* of beliefs. It's a single belief, and one negatively defined -- that what theists describe as God doesn't exist. NOTHING else. It can only be defined by the negation of what other people believe.
Now you can keep playing the "You strange people, I don't see why keep denying the obvious" game, or you can actually read what we are saying.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So yes, if someone's belief system revolves around Star Trek, that would be a religion.
This may be the problem you're having. There is no single atheist belief system, and very few atheists base their belief system on the absence of God. Some theists may base their beliefs on the perceived properties and desires of the god(s) in which they believe, which only makes sense -- but when you don't believe in god(s), you wind up basing your belief system (your ethical framework, your morals, your epistemologies) on something else.
And this makes sense. If you don't believe in something, then its absence isn't something that's going to be core to your life experience; it's just not going to figure in. You'll find something else to base your life on -- and atheists do. And because there are so many, many alternatives available, I think you'll find a fairly diverse group of atheists with a wide range of beliefs. The only true commonality -- a lack of belief in god(s) -- is no more universally unifying than a lack of belief in yetis has been bringing people together for hundreds of years.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Yup, pretty much requires a belief in some form of mythological creature.
Posted by Kelly1101 (Member # 12562) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: Kelly, we've been telling you why we don't think atheism is a religion -- the reason you keep on saying you "don't see", is because you keep on metaphorically closing your ears and humming at everything we say.
You say atheism has practices, but neither you nor anyone else here has yet listed a single one -- and please try to have a serious discussion instead of stating something like "atheism's practice is to snark at theists" or "atheism's practice is to not worship God".
You say atheism has attitudes, but again not a single one has been listed. What's atheism's attitude towards premarital sex? What's atheism's attitude towards abortion? THERE IS NONE. Atheism has no attitudes or injuctions.
Atheism isn't even a *set* of beliefs. It's a single belief, and one negatively defined -- that what theists describe as God doesn't exist. NOTHING else. It can only be defined by the negation of what other people believe.
Now you can keep playing the "You strange people, I don't see why keep denying the obvious" game, or you can actually read what we are saying.
Atheists absolutely have positions on premarital sex or abortion. They may not have identical positions, but neither do Christians. Some Christians support and practice abortion even if their avowed church is against it. Does that mean that they have no religion?
Again, again, again-- it is not NUMERICAL. You don't need a hundred people to all believe and act in the same way to qualify as a religion. That really doesn't even happen in the Big Three-- not all Christians have the same beliefs, practices, views of god, etc., etc. Christianity is a vast variety of individual beliefs that are labelled under the umbrella term of "Christianity" because they have all one basic thing in common-- the belief in the Christian god(s) as creator of the universe. Just as "atheist" is an umbrella term of people who have the basic belief that the universe sprang from natural causes. Within atheism you can have sects (like Humanism), within Christianity you can have sects (like Methodists), each sect having widely varied dogmas, rituals, etc-- and even within sects you have varying levels of compliance or agreement with the dogmas and rituals. But that doesn't mean that someone who does not have the "official" set of beliefs and practices as a Christian sect has "no religion."
There are a lot of religious beliefs in the world, some shared by lots of people, some individual. It does not seem productive or intelligent to attack one of them because it does not follow the same pattern as your own.
And you can dogpile all you want with imaginary qualifications like being able to EXPEL someone from it, or otherwise it's "not a religion," but it is still by definition a pretty open concept that can be assigned simply to someone's personal beliefs, attitudes, and practices (personal-- just one person), so such imaginary qualifications are meaningless.
Posted by Kelly1101 (Member # 12562) on :
Yup, pretty much requires a belief in some form of mythological creature.
The definition of "religion" you post is the same I posted. Only 1(b) mentions a mythological creature. And that means... "requires"? LOL. How does that work?
Posted by Kelly1101 (Member # 12562) on :
Oh, I like the "religous" definition even more. only mention of a mythological creature in that one is this:
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
"Ultimate reality or deity."
... "Ultimate reality" does not have to be an entity. Did you read these links before you posted them saying it "requires a belief"?
Posted by Kelly1101 (Member # 12562) on :
To try to be clear-- because no, really, Aris, I don't know why this is not coming through--
There are "Christians" who do not go to church, do not take communion, support same-sex marriage or abortion or premarital sex or whatever, do not believe in a literal translation of the Bible, basically diverge widely from what would be the "official" beliefs, practices, and attitudes of Christianity. But this person could still call themselves a Christian if they believe that the creator was the Christian God. You wouldn't say that they have no religion just because they are the only person to hold their particular, individual set of beliefs. And you wouldn't make up a whole new name to call their particular, individual sets of beliefs-- you would call them a Christian because they meet the one very basic qualification to be considered under that broad term.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kelley,
quote:Atheists absolutely have positions on premarital sex or abortion. They may not have identical positions, but neither do Christians. Some Christians support and practice abortion even if their avowed church is against it. Does that mean that they have no religion?
The standards for what qualifies as religious thinking continue to expand, it seems. Christianity teaches some very specific attitudes towards premarital sex, in particular. Different sects may interpret things differently, but the point is that the religion isn't silent on the subject. It's an issue, and the religion speaks to it, by name in fact.
What is the atheist teaching on premarital sex? I'm not asking whether individual atheists have attitudes on premarital sex, because that's not the same thing! Find me an atheist who says, "There are no deities, therefore premarital sex is moral or immoral." I'll wait. An atheist might say-and often does-I don't believe in religious teachings on premarital sex, therefore I'll create or go find a teaching on it I like. But that still wouldn't be atheism having a position.
quote:Again, again, again-- it is not NUMERICAL. You don't need a hundred people to all believe and act in the same way to qualify as a religion. That really doesn't even happen in the Big Three-- not all Christians have the same beliefs, practices, views of god, etc., etc. Christianity is a vast variety of individual beliefs that are labelled under the umbrella term of "Christianity" because they have all one basic thing in common-- the belief in the Christian god(s) as creator of the universe. Just as "atheist" is an umbrella term of people who have the basic belief that the universe sprang from natural causes. Within atheism you can have sects (like Humanism), within Christianity you can have sects (like Methodists), each sect having widely varied dogmas, rituals, etc-- and even within sects you have varying levels of compliance or agreement with the dogmas and rituals. But that doesn't mean that someone who does not have the "official" set of beliefs and practices as a Christian sect has "no religion."
Now you're-again-claiming that atheism is making a positive claim about something. It isn't. "I don't believe in deities" is not an affirmative statement about the origins of the universe. Now at this point, you can behave as though you haven't been told this a half dozen times already, or you can listen. An atheist might say, if you'd actually ask instead of conducting both sides of the hypothetical conversation, "I don't believe in any deity. As for how the universe began, I believe it never did begin and has always been cycling through expansion and contraction," or, "I'm not convinced all of reality isn't an illusion," or, "I have no idea at all." It's not a 'I disbelieve in deities, therefore...', it's an entirely separate thought. It's not at all the same thing as 'I'm a Christian, therefore I believe God created the universe.'
It's not about numbers of people, although it's interesting you'd use that rebuttal since your argument has essentially been 'some atheists behave religiously, therefore it's a religion'.
quote:And you can dogpile all you want with imaginary qualifications like being able to EXPEL someone from it, or otherwise it's "not a religion," but it is still by definition a pretty open concept that can be assigned simply to someone's personal beliefs, attitudes, and practices (personal-- just one person), so such imaginary qualifications are meaningless.
You can self-pity all you like, but it's not an 'imaginary' qualification but one that is often used. You're right to say that it IS an open concept, but you're broadening it to the point of meaninglessness. Star Trek fan is a religion, Yankee fan is a religion, dog show competitor is a religion, pescatarianism is a religion, *everything* in which some number of practitioners behave in similar ways is a religion.
quote:The definition of "religion" you post is the same I posted. Only 1(b) mentions a mythological creature. And that means... "requires"? LOL. How does that work?
So what, at this point are you just going to pretend I didn't point out 'hey, #2 doesn't actually apply since your use of it is completely circular?' LOL. How does that work?
Another question you have repeatedly ignored: do you consider yourself to be religious dozens of times over, one for each religion you don't believe in? Of course not. No one does.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality
To what ultimate reality do atheists manifest faithful devotion? *blink*
Again, your own faith is blinding you a bit here: in the absence of god(s), the absence of god(s) is not an "ultimate reality" at all. It's background noise. If you do not believe that a god has ever existed, the non-existence of that god has as much influence on your "ultimate reality" as the non-existence of yetis. It's not something to which most people are "faithfully devoted" at all.
Heck, even the loudest and most evangelical atheists will almost certainly not say that they are "faithfully devoted" to the absence of gods; such people are, if anything, faithfully devoted to the belief that rational empiricism (or a handful of similar models, depending on the person to whom you're speaking) is a superior epistemological model. If there were empirical evidence of a god, those same people would incorporate the existence of a god into their beliefs without blinking, since their "faithful devotion" is not to the absence of gods but to a method of modeling reality.
Posted by Kelly1101 (Member # 12562) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Kelley,
quote:Atheists absolutely have positions on premarital sex or abortion. They may not have identical positions, but neither do Christians. Some Christians support and practice abortion even if their avowed church is against it. Does that mean that they have no religion?
The standards for what qualifies as religious thinking continue to expand, it seems. Christianity teaches some very specific attitudes towards premarital sex, in particular. Different sects may interpret things differently, but the point is that the religion isn't silent on the subject. It's an issue, and the religion speaks to it, by name in fact.
What is the atheist teaching on premarital sex? I'm not asking whether individual atheists have attitudes on premarital sex, because that's not the same thing! Find me an atheist who says, "There are no deities, therefore premarital sex is moral or immoral." I'll wait. An atheist might say-and often does-I don't believe in religious teachings on premarital sex, therefore I'll create or go find a teaching on it I like. But that still wouldn't be atheism having a position.
quote:Again, again, again-- it is not NUMERICAL. You don't need a hundred people to all believe and act in the same way to qualify as a religion. That really doesn't even happen in the Big Three-- not all Christians have the same beliefs, practices, views of god, etc., etc. Christianity is a vast variety of individual beliefs that are labelled under the umbrella term of "Christianity" because they have all one basic thing in common-- the belief in the Christian god(s) as creator of the universe. Just as "atheist" is an umbrella term of people who have the basic belief that the universe sprang from natural causes. Within atheism you can have sects (like Humanism), within Christianity you can have sects (like Methodists), each sect having widely varied dogmas, rituals, etc-- and even within sects you have varying levels of compliance or agreement with the dogmas and rituals. But that doesn't mean that someone who does not have the "official" set of beliefs and practices as a Christian sect has "no religion."
Now you're-again-claiming that atheism is making a positive claim about something. It isn't. "I don't believe in deities" is not an affirmative statement about the origins of the universe. Now at this point, you can behave as though you haven't been told this a half dozen times already, or you can listen. An atheist might say, if you'd actually ask instead of conducting both sides of the hypothetical conversation, "I don't believe in any deity. As for how the universe began, I believe it never did begin and has always been cycling through expansion and contraction," or, "I'm not convinced all of reality isn't an illusion," or, "I have no idea at all." It's not a 'I disbelieve in deities, therefore...', it's an entirely separate thought. It's not at all the same thing as 'I'm a Christian, therefore I believe God created the universe.'
It's not about numbers of people, although it's interesting you'd use that rebuttal since your argument has essentially been 'some atheists behave religiously, therefore it's a religion'.
quote:And you can dogpile all you want with imaginary qualifications like being able to EXPEL someone from it, or otherwise it's "not a religion," but it is still by definition a pretty open concept that can be assigned simply to someone's personal beliefs, attitudes, and practices (personal-- just one person), so such imaginary qualifications are meaningless.
You can self-pity all you like, but it's not an 'imaginary' qualification but one that is often used. You're right to say that it IS an open concept, but you're broadening it to the point of meaninglessness. Star Trek fan is a religion, Yankee fan is a religion, dog show competitor is a religion, pescatarianism is a religion, *everything* in which some number of practitioners behave in similar ways is a religion.
quote:The definition of "religion" you post is the same I posted. Only 1(b) mentions a mythological creature. And that means... "requires"? LOL. How does that work?
So what, at this point are you just going to pretend I didn't point out 'hey, #2 doesn't actually apply since your use of it is completely circular?' LOL. How does that work?
Another question you have repeatedly ignored: do you consider yourself to be religious dozens of times over, one for each religion you don't believe in? Of course not. No one does.
I don't know how to quote-box, but--
They absolutely ARE imaginary qualifications-- they don't exist within the definition but you are trying to put them there to confirm your ideas. You keep trying to narrow down the definition, when the definition has been stated and it has nothing to do with a laundry-list of "must have a means to expel members from it", etc. I think, again, that you are confusing religion with ORGANIZED religion. Yes, ORGANIZED religion has that laundry list, and ORGANIZED religion has specific viewpoints, but religious individuals do not have the same characteristics.
As a member of an atheist sect that DOES make positive claims-- it's not just "there is no god." That's not all it is at all, and I think that's the problem you're having is that you don't understand that atheism is not as simple as you seem to think it is. Just as Christianity is not as simple as you seem to think it is.
Same-sex marriage is an "issue" that is dealt with in Christianity-- and different sects and different individuals have some completely contradictory views on it. Some people would say, "I believe in God so I think we should have same-sex marriage BECAUSE..." or "I believe in God so I think we should NOT have same-sex marriage BECAUSE..."... or a Christian's view on marriage may not be tied to a belief in God AT ALL. Because EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT in their religious beliefs, even if they fall under an umbrella term expressing an organized religion or related set of religions. Just so-- someone can make the argument of "I don't believe in a deity so I think we should have same-sex marriage BECAUSE..." or "I don't believe in a deity so I think we should have same-sex marriage BECAUSE..."
And, like some Christians, some atheists don't connect their views on same-sex marriage to their religious beliefs at all. With the "imaginary qualifications"-- "atheists" don't have to address pre-marital sex to be religious. For that matter, different Christian sects take opposing views on different issues-- and different atheistic sects could also take opposing views on different issues. That doesn't mean that atheistic sects have to all talk about the same issues-- just as Christian sects don't talk about the same issues-- OR that atheists have to be concerned with the same issues that Christians are concerned with to be a "religion."
Your "Dog show competitions is a religion" spiel is an absurdity. "Star Trek" is not a religion unless it deals with religious beliefs. If someone believes that Star Trek has something fundamental to do with their religious beliefs, then yes, that is part of their religion. Why do you have a problem with this? People can have any crazy religious ideas they like-- it doesn't mean that if they don't fall in with the large organized religions that they don't HAVE a religion. It's ridiculous how important it is to you to degrade and invalidate what doesn't fall in line with your personal belief system. Some would say that Christianity or Islam or Scientology is just as crazy as a person whose religion is built around Star Trek-- but that doesn't keep these things from being religions.
I did not see you pointing out anything being "circular." And I still do not see how the definition requires a supernatural being, considering that only one small part of it even mentions a supernatural being. Please explain that further.
I don't consider myself to have dozens of religions. I consider myself to have one religion, which is an atheistic sect that makes positive claims about proper human action based on religious beliefs.
I'm not going around saying crap like "Christianity isn't a religion, it's just a conquest tool for subjugating the masses, blah di blah di blah"-- I have no interest in invalidating your religion-- why are you so damn interested in invalidating mine? What benefit do you get out of it?
Posted by Kelly1101 (Member # 12562) on :
And my name is Kelly. It's at the start of every post I make.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As a member of an atheist sect that DOES make positive claims-- it's not just "there is no god."
See, that's the thing. In the phrase "atheist sect," the important word is "sect." You cannot say "as an atheist;" you must say "as a member of an atheist sect." Because, yes, there are many philosophies and religions which permit or require atheism; as I've noted, both Unitarians and Buddhists can be atheists.
Based on this last post, I think your problem is that you don't actually know what a "religious belief" is, which makes it doubly problematic when you define "having a religion" as "having a religious belief." Your particular religion is an atheist one that apparently does a bad job of educating its members; that does not necessarily mean that all atheists are religious.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But as an atheist, I really don't like any religion. So when they start talking crazy or bashing homosexuality, I just chock it up to their society accepted insanity.![[Confused]](confused.gif)