This is topic Religulous in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=053581

Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
Link

Basically, it's a film featuring Bill Maher making fun of various religious beliefs. I think you can see where this is going.

As you can see from the trailer, the documentary mostly consists of Bill Maher openly mocking various religious people. While this will surely offend some people, it's actually an aspect of the film that I don't take particular issue with. I don't endorse acting like a jerk to people but when push comes to shove I think people should be able to handle being called stupid without getting too indignant. Maher's actions differ from PZ Myers' ("crackergate" guy) in that Maher is seeking to "call a spade a spade" (with a focus on being amusing) while Myers' was going out of his way to piss people off (Maher's actions may well piss people off but that is not the motivation for his documentary).

On the other hand, there are two main things about this documentary that I strongly dislike (both stem from the fact that Larry Charles, the director of Borat, directed the movie). First off, they tricked people into having interviews with Maher by lying about the title of the documentary to make it seem more neutral. The people eventually found out that they were being mocked but the fact remains that they were tricked into doing an interview that they would not have done otherwise. Ben Stein's documentary Expelled used the same dirty tactic (as did Borat). Even worse, and this is my main issue with Borat, the documentary seeks to create comedy at the extreme expense of those featured. I know that I would be absolutely mortified to be a laughing stock in a film like that. Holding a silly belief is not reason enough to publicly humiliate a person.

Thankfully the documentary is only being played in two theatres for a week.

EDIT: Bill Maher on Larry King. Okay, the clips they showed were actually pretty funny [Razz] However, that doesn't change my last two points.

[ August 21, 2008, 02:12 AM: Message edited by: Threads ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Maher's actions may well piss people off but that is not the motivation for the documentary
I'm pretty sure that PZ Myers' motivations for being PZ Myers don't include "pissing people off." [Wink]
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
Myers' can't escape the fact that pissing people off was crucial to his overall "demonstration."

I'm assuming you're talking about Myers' motivations for desecrating the eucharist (you're current post doesn't make any sense in the context of what I posted).

EDIT: Just to expand, Myers' would not have done what he did if people did not get pissed off whereas Maher's overall point in Religulous stands independent of whether or not it makes people mad.
 
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
 
Don't people have to sign something that says "I'm allowing them to do whatever they want with footage they take of me."
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
Maybe they signed the form before finding out that Maher would be the one interviewing them? Dagonee can probably lend some insight.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Starsnuffer:
Don't people have to sign something that says "I'm allowing them to do whatever they want with footage they take of me."

I doubt it. I think you sign a thing that pretty much releases the producers from having to consult with you on what the final product will be.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
My impression was that Myers was responding to people that were already pissed off out of proportion to an earlier event. The pissing more people off was just gravy.
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
Then why did he drive a nail through some eucharist crackers, throw them in the trash, and post pictures? His whole point depended on getting a reaction out of people.
 
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
Wait, Maher's movie is different from this how?
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
I already explained how.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Exactly.
 
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
Maher calling a spade a spade isn't so different from Myers calling a cracker a cracker, in my eyes.
 
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Threads:
but when push comes to shove I think people should be able to handle being called stupid without getting too indignant.

Seriously? We live in a country where I am allowed to believe whatever I want without persecution. Bill has the right under the first amendment to say I am stupid for believing the way I do, but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to get upset by what he says.
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Juxtapose:
Maher calling a spade a spade isn't so different from Myers calling a cracker a cracker, in my eyes.

In a previous post I said "Just to expand, Myers' would not have done what he did if people did not get pissed off whereas Maher's overall point in Religulous stands independent of whether or not it makes people mad." What do you think is wrong with that explanation or what am I missing?

quote:
Originally posted by brojack17:
quote:
Originally posted by Threads:
but when push comes to shove I think people should be able to handle being called stupid without getting too indignant.

Seriously? We live in a country where I am allowed to believe whatever I want without persecution. Bill has the right under the first amendment to say I am stupid for believing the way I do, but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to get upset by what he says.
I didn't say anything about rights to be upset and I'm not sure why you would particularly care what Bill Maher thinks about your beliefs.
 
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
 
You did say something about the right to be upset (or too idignant) and I don't care what Bill Maher thinks. You posted a thread and I responded. I've watched his show and he is fairly amusing. My issue was with your comment about people not being offended when someone calls them stupid.
 
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Threads:
Then why did he drive a nail through some eucharist crackers, throw them in the trash, and post pictures? His whole point depended on getting a reaction out of people.

Just to be clear, you're pluralizing here where you don't need to.

It was one nail, one cracker and one picture.

Included with the cracker and also pierced by the nail were ripped out pages of an english translation of The Koran and Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion.

Sorry, just a stickler for accuracy. Carry on. [Smile]
 
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
"I didn't say anything about rights to be upset and I'm not sure why you would particularly care what Bill Maher thinks about your beliefs."

Because disrespect of large populations leads to dehumanization. That can lead to other things that are not so harmless. I am afraid that today's Atheist Evangelicals are slowly paving a way for Mao and Stalinist justifications.
 
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Occasional:
Because disrespect of large populations leads to dehumanization. That can lead to other things that are not so harmless. I am afraid that today's Atheist Evangelicals are slowly paving a way for Mao and Stalinist justifications.

That has to be a record for the largest leap of logic I have seen in a long time.

So ridiculing leads to genocide, now?
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
It can be the first step in such a program. It doesn't have to be, nor is it even likely.
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brojack17:
You did say something about the right to be upset (or too idignant) and I don't care what Bill Maher thinks.

No I didn't. I said "I think people should be able to handle being called stupid without getting too indignant."
 
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
It can be the first step in such a program. It doesn't have to be, nor is it even likely.

But that suggests some sort of regime, which atheists certainly do not have.
 
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Threads:
quote:
Originally posted by brojack17:
You did say something about the right to be upset (or too idignant) and I don't care what Bill Maher thinks.

No I didn't. I said "I think people should be able to handle being called stupid without getting too indignant."
See, I don't agree with you. I "should" be able to get mad if someone calls me stupid. Whether it be for religious reasons or not.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Threads:
Then why did he drive a nail through some eucharist crackers, throw them in the trash, and post pictures? His whole point depended on getting a reaction out of people.

He followed through on what he said he'd do in his initial response. *Not* doing it would have been pretty awkward after making such a big deal about it initially and could have been interpreted as capitulation to the people issuing death threats.
 
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
People were making threats on his life? If anybody can be called stupid, it's those people. They're only proving any point he's trying to make, if any. I've read the Bible(since we're talking about eucharists here), and I believe it prohibits this kind of behavior. . .

[ August 21, 2008, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Bill Mahr is cherry-picking interviews with people he disagrees with in order to make fun of them? *yawn*
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Sounds fun, I'll keep an eye on it to see if they do a wider release, DVD, streaming video, or such.
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brojack17:
quote:
Originally posted by Threads:
quote:
Originally posted by brojack17:
You did say something about the right to be upset (or too idignant) and I don't care what Bill Maher thinks.

No I didn't. I said "I think people should be able to handle being called stupid without getting too indignant."
See, I don't agree with you. I "should" be able to get mad if someone calls me stupid. Whether it be for religious reasons or not.
What does that have to do with constitutional rights? You're using "should" in a completely different manner than I was. Nothing in my comment implied that you shouldn't be able to get mad. I was just expressing my opinion that you shouldn't get mad.
 
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 
I'll go see it in the theater. Should be playing in one of the small indy theaters here in Philly.

I'll be more interested to see who else attends, and their reactions.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Bill Mahr is cherry-picking interviews with people he disagrees with in order to make fun of them? *yawn*

QFT
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
It saddens me that evangelical atheists are choosing to marginalize and even make enemies of moderate and liberal religious people who are generally on their "side" about most matters of public policy. I'm not sure what they think they gain by it other than the opportunity to feel smug.
 
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
Shallow as it may seem, I've never been able to get past Bill Maher's looks. He just seems hastily put together.

That, and the years I glimpsed Politically Incorrect his public persona came off more as plaintive and needy than funny and smart. [Smile]
 
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Threads:
quote:
Originally posted by Juxtapose:
Maher calling a spade a spade isn't so different from Myers calling a cracker a cracker, in my eyes.

In a previous post I said "Just to expand, Myers' would not have done what he did if people did not get pissed off whereas Maher's overall point in Religulous stands independent of whether or not it makes people mad." What do you think is wrong with that explanation or what am I missing?
Well, you're sort of comparing intentions to consequences there. I think both men have something to say about faith and religious belief, and both men prefer to do so in ways which they know will shock and anger people. Which I don't think is always unwarranted. I just also prefer to call a spade a spade. Either way, it's not a big deal to me. It was just a quibble, really. [Smile]
 
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
It saddens me that evangelical atheists are choosing to marginalize and even make enemies of moderate and liberal religious people who are generally on their "side" about most matters of public policy. I'm not sure what they think they gain by it other than the opportunity to feel smug.

Many atheists think that the moderate religious people open the door for extremists, because of the nature of religious faith, and the level of respect it is often granted.

I agree with your point though, we are a bit too quick to throw away allies. The new atheist movement needs to mature some. The good news is that many atheists (though not the whole of the movement of course) are quite young, so I would expect a good deal of maturity to arrive naturally.
 
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
 
To be fair, the "new athiest movement" isn't as homogenous as you might think. It has mature proponents, and those that are rather more... how shall I put this diplomatically, direct than others.
 
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
I don't think it's homogenous. I do think a majority of the new atheist population base are rather recent "converts." The type of people who tend to be more confrontational, in my experience.
 
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
 
True. Also it seems to be a good time to "stand up and be counted". But that doesn't necessarily mean act like a jacka**.

It disheartens me.

On the other hand, I was referred to as "agnostic" recently, and felt the need to assert that I am actually quite athiest, after years of politely remaining silent. Even though I didn't say "and you are wrong about your beliefs", that was the way it was taken, as if my disbelief was in direct confrontation to theirs. It is frustrating.

I see great things being put forward, and some not so great things as well. This film seems to be one of the latter.
 
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
It saddens me that evangelical atheists are choosing to marginalize and even make enemies of moderate and liberal religious people who are generally on their "side" about most matters of public policy. I'm not sure what they think they gain by it other than the opportunity to feel smug.

Please.

Teaching sound science in science class is about as much of a no-brainer of an issue as there is.

And there is precious little that moderate Christians have ever done to defend it.

Do you think that any anti-evolution bill would pass if moderate Christians told lawmakers "Hey, we are 70% of your constituancy, and this is really stupid"? Not a chance.

So if moderate Christians won't rouse themselves to take a stand on an issue where the facts are so clearly on one side, there is no hope of convincing them to take a desired stand on anything else.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Juxtapose:
I'm not sure thats really all that true.
IIRC, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens both decided to be atheists as children. PZ Myer's Wikipedia article indicates that he decided before confirmation (whatever that is). I can't find a reference to Bill Maher's views, but they go back to at least 2002 and probably more.

All that I think that is occurring is that pre-existing atheists are becoming more vocal. I'm not even sure that the "evangelical" label is all that useful since Richard Dawkins in particular has often stated that his goal is not to convert people, but to create an atmosphere where pre-existing atheists can "come out of the closet" using pretty much that metaphor.

quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots
... I'm not sure what they think they gain by it other than the opportunity to feel smug.

Sometimes, a spade really is a spade. This seems to pretty much be comedy and entertainment, not a strategic move in a concerted campaign to convert people (as if one really existed anyways).
 
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 
I think juxtapose was speaking more specifically of those who really are recent "converts." The Rational Response people, for instance.
 
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 
Oh...Achilles, I think the term you were looking for is "douchebaggy."
 
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
I was, but I definitely don't discount the population of people who were always skeptical, but never felt safe admitting it. In many situations, I think that population overlaps with the "recent convert" population. There's no need for them to be mutually exclusive.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
It saddens me that evangelical atheists are choosing to marginalize and even make enemies of moderate and liberal religious people who are generally on their "side" about most matters of public policy. I'm not sure what they think they gain by it other than the opportunity to feel smug.

Please.

Teaching sound science in science class is about as much of a no-brainer of an issue as there is.

And there is precious little that moderate Christians have ever done to defend it.

Do you think that any anti-evolution bill would pass if moderate Christians told lawmakers "Hey, we are 70% of your constituancy, and this is really stupid"? Not a chance.

So if moderate Christians won't rouse themselves to take a stand on an issue where the facts are so clearly on one side, there is no hope of convincing them to take a desired stand on anything else.

You mean other than the moderate religious people who are science teachers? Or who vote democrat?

I admit that we are not a loud as the evangelicals. We are not, as a group, particularly "roused" - hence moderate. Yes, we should be louder. Evangelical atheists lumping us all together makes that more difficult rather than less. It feeds the idea that "religious" means "votes conservative" and that politicians need to cater to that.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Juxapose: Hmmmm, it was kind of unclear to me who you and kmbboots were referring to. If you're in fact referring to a different population of atheists than those represented by the men that I had listed, then we are in fact talking about different people. (Which is perfectly ok ... just different)
 
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rollainm:
Oh...Achilles, I think the term you were looking for is "douchebaggy."

THAT'S IT!!!!!
 
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Threads:
quote:
Originally posted by brojack17:
quote:
Originally posted by Threads:
quote:
Originally posted by brojack17:
You did say something about the right to be upset (or too idignant) and I don't care what Bill Maher thinks.

No I didn't. I said "I think people should be able to handle being called stupid without getting too indignant."
See, I don't agree with you. I "should" be able to get mad if someone calls me stupid. Whether it be for religious reasons or not.
What does that have to do with constitutional rights? You're using "should" in a completely different manner than I was. Nothing in my comment implied that you shouldn't be able to get mad. I was just expressing my opinion that you shouldn't get mad.
So what right do you have to say what I "should" or should not do. That is none of your business. I don't have a problem with the movie. It is well within his right to make it. I may or may not chose to watch it, but for you to say I should not get mad when someone calls me stupid is pretty ridiculous.
 
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
It saddens me that evangelical atheists are choosing to marginalize and even make enemies of moderate and liberal religious people who are generally on their "side" about most matters of public policy. I'm not sure what they think they gain by it other than the opportunity to feel smug.

Please.

Teaching sound science in science class is about as much of a no-brainer of an issue as there is.

And there is precious little that moderate Christians have ever done to defend it.

Do you think that any anti-evolution bill would pass if moderate Christians told lawmakers "Hey, we are 70% of your constituancy, and this is really stupid"? Not a chance.

So if moderate Christians won't rouse themselves to take a stand on an issue where the facts are so clearly on one side, there is no hope of convincing them to take a desired stand on anything else.

You've got to be kidding me.

Kitzmiller v. Dover in and of itself has tons of examples of your "moderate christians" standing up against exactly what you describe -- the judge, several plantiffs, the expert witness for the plantiffs, the ordinary citizens of the conservative town who voted out practically the entire school board (and that's just what I can think of off hand). It wasn't limited to people of faith, but it was entirely populated by people who were reasonable and willing to take a stand.

If you're going to make blanket statements about 70% of the nation's population, you'd better have some solid research to back it up.
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brojack17:
That is none of your business.

What you do is generally none of my business but I wasn't talking specifically about you. I was making a generalization about a behavior that I don't think is particularly productive.

quote:
Originally posted by brojack17:
I may or may not chose to watch it, but for you to say I should not get mad when someone calls me stupid is pretty ridiculous.

I think there's a good case to be made that getting angry over something like that is unproductive. Getting angry creates stress and brings attention to the documentary. Ignoring it and remaining calm keeps you* in a better mood and lets the documentary shrivel up and die.

* impersonal "you"
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
If you're going to make blanket statements about 70% of the nation's population, you'd better have some solid research to back it up.

Only 12% of the population believes that out of evolution, creationism, and ID that only evolution should be taught in public schools.

A significant chunk of that 12% is atheists. I know that some moderate Christians are against the teaching of ID in public schools but most aren't. swbarnes' generalization holds.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Not to mention, there's a pretty long list of media going back decades, possibly centuries portraying the religious as stupid (or vice versa). So getting, angry ... not so useful.
 
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Threads:
quote:
Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
If you're going to make blanket statements about 70% of the nation's population, you'd better have some solid research to back it up.

Only 12% of the population believes that out of evolution, creationism, and ID that only evolution should be taught in public schools.

A significant chunk of that 12% is atheists. I know that some moderate Christians are against the teaching of ID in public schools but most aren't. swbarnes' generalization holds.

Because of one poll? A poll whose questions are not only incredibly vague, but seemingly (in my only slightly educated opinion) biased toward an impossible dichotomy between God and Science? (a dichotomy that Ken Miller rants about way better than I)

1. Looking at the numbers on table 2, the number of people who think human beings developed from earlier species is much higher when they are not forced to choose between God and science, like what it does in Table 5-6. If given only these choices:

Human beings evolved from earlier species.
Human beings were created directly by God.
Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them.
Not sure/Decline to answer

The question is *the same* as Table 2, the only difference are the references to God or a Designer. I happen to think 1 and 2 are both correct, and not mutually exclusive, so after stewwing over the question I'd probably be an outlier with "decline to answer". How many believers would choose God over science, if forced into making the choice in the first place?

But those tables make for too nice of a headline to worry about inherent bias in the questioning, I guess.

2. "Please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following statement: Darwin’s theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries"

*WHICH* theory? Natural Selection? Common Descent? Sexual Selection? The poll doesn't say. Just saying "Darwin's Theory of Evolution" is like saying "Plato's Theory of Philosophy". But mentioning only Darwin himself just raises red flags with the uneducated and those who only follow the politics of the situation. It doesn't seem to be analyzing the science at all.

[ August 22, 2008, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
 
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
quote:
1. Looking at the numbers on table 2, the number of people who think human beings developed from earlier species is much when they are not forced to choose between God and science, like what it does in Table 5-6. If given only these choices:

Human beings evolved from earlier species.
Human beings were created directly by God.
Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them.
Not sure/Decline to answer

The question is *the same* as Table 2, the only difference are the references to God or a Designer. I happen to think 1 and 2 are both correct, and not mutually exclusive, so after stewwing over the question I'd probably be an outlier with "decline to answer". How many believers would choose God over science, if forced into making the choice in the first place?

But those tables make for too nice of a headline to worry about inherent bias in the questioning, I guess.

I don't see how those answers force the dichotomy you're talking about. Answer one doesn't rule out God.
 
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
Mucus,
I'm not so much referring to anyone famous. Take this sort of metaphorically, but I'm talking about the people whose minds were changed by The God Delusion, rather than Richard Dawkins himself.

I think Dawkins et al. are representative of this group in their zeal, but not necessarily the manner in which they came to atheism.
 
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Juxtapose:
I don't see how those answers force the dichotomy you're talking about. Answer one doesn't rule out God.

And answer two doesn't rule out evolution, making the poll even more useless.

[ August 22, 2008, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
Sure it does. Evolution, even if assisted by God, would be an indirect method of creating a species.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
That's a reasonable way of looking at it. But so is sarcasticmuppet's. An ambiguous poll question is a bad poll question.
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
Muppit, the question I was referring to was clear. While I agree that some of the other questions were poorly worded I don't see how they would bias the answer to the one I was referring too. Do you have anything but anecdotal evidence to support your initial claim?
 
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
TABLE 1

DID HUMANS DEVELOP FROM EARLIER SPECIES?

"Do you think human beings developed from earlier species or not?"

Base: All Adults

June 2005
Yes, I think human beings developed from earlier species. 38%

No, I do not think human beings developed from earlier species. 54%

Not sure/Decline to answer 8%

TABLE 5

WHERE HUMANS COME FROM

"Which of the following do you believe about how human beings came to be?"

Base: All Adults

June 2005

Human beings evolved from earlier species. 22%

Human beings were created directly by God. 64%

Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them. 10%

Not sure/Decline to answer 4%

-----

It's the same answer. Yet the first one received quite a few more hits. It seems to indicate to me that more people actually ascribe to the theory of Evolution than say they don't. Only when the question forces them to choose option A "science" or Option B "God" does the answer skew. Table Six seems to me to indicate this as well. It also seems unclear: what If I thought the basic principles of Creation Science and ID (and how they differ from evolution) should be taught in a Civics class in context of teaching about the debate, the monkey trials of the 20s, and court decisions and legal processes in general? Would that not qualify as "all three"? Again, bad question.

Even though the poll questions directly asked about God, they didn't even get parameters of how many people were religious. So "A significant chunk of that 12% is atheists" is also anecdotal (well, a really bad extrapolation). The big indicators seem to be education level (well, duh) and political leanings. Religion was alternately left out of it and forced into it (via the questions). The more I look at it, the worse of a poll it seems.

[ August 22, 2008, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Muppit, the question I was referring to was clear. While I agree that some of the other questions were poorly worded I don't see how they would bias the answer to the one I was referring too. Do you have anything but anecdotal evidence to support your initial claim?
Actually, that question has a major weakness for the point you're trying to use it for: it doesn't use the word "science" at all. We have no idea what percentage of those people who want creationism taught in school want it taught as science or in some type of humanities class.
 
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
Yay, I made a good point!!! (I also did it in an edit, sorry Dags)
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
Even though the poll questions directly asked about God, they didn't even get parameters of how many people were religious. So "A significant chunk of that 12% is atheists" is also anecdotal (well, a really bad extrapolation).

It's not anecdotal. I was assuming the company polled a representative population of the country. That may not have been the case.

quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Actually, that question has a major weakness for the point you're trying to use it for: it doesn't use the word "science" at all. We have no idea what percentage of those people who want creationism taught in school want it taught as science or in some type of humanities class.

That's a good point.
 
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
Threads, it seems like the did (or want everyone to think they did, I don't know why but 1000 seems kinda small for a nationwide survey, but I hated my statistics class so I'm willing to defer on that one), but my point was they didn't survey for religious belief the way that they surveyed for education level, political leanings, or location (Which were shown to be the *actual* indicators in this study). If they *had* surveyed for religious beliefs, and found that it was mostly atheists who ascribe to the theory of Evolution, you'd have a point, but they *didn't*. You are extrapolating (one statistical term I actually remember) information that the survey doesn't actually show. Coincidence != Causality. You can't just assume that the 12% are all atheists unless the survey actually polled for religious beliefs.

Sorry it took so long to get back to this, I was at a wedding this weekend.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Occasional:
I am afraid that today's Atheist Evangelicals are slowly paving a way for Mao and Stalinist justifications.

Godwin's Constant?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
It can be the first step in such a program. It doesn't have to be, nor is it even likely.
I don't think it's likely either, nor is it always. What I do think, however, is that that sort of sneering ridicule, steps which hint at or suggest one group of people is just ridiculously stupid and thus should be dismissed, as so-called 'Evangelical Atheists' do (whatever that means), is a very ugly thing. And that sort of dismissiveness is a part of lots of very ugly things.

But then, so are lots of things. Strengthening the executive branch, well, concentrating more power in one man was also a part of Hitler's Nazi Germany. That hardly means moving to strengthen the executive branch, for example, will lead to Nazism.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Juxtapose:

I think Dawkins et al. are representative of this group in their zeal, but not necessarily the manner in which they came to atheism.

Dawkins doesn't strike me as much of a zealot. I read the God Delusion a long long time after I started identifying myself as an Athiest (though I have always been one), and at least to me, all the book did was broaden and clarify my understanding of the subject. There's nothing in it that screams "follow me, I will save you," quite the opposite. A basic point of the book is that cult of personality and the evolution of ideas in groups lead to collective delusions like, say God, and the book takes pains to demonstrate how and why this effect is negative.

Really, as a piece of purely scientific writing it's admirable and ambitious, whether you believe in God or not.
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
I suspect that most people who categorize Dawkins as a zealot have not actually read his works.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Originally posted by Occasional:
I am afraid that today's Atheist Evangelicals are slowly paving a way for Mao and Stalinist justifications.

Godwin's Constant?
So now contemporaries of Hitler must also invoke the spirit of Godwin, which for some reason invalidates any point being made?

Would it make you feel better if he said that Athiest Evangelicals were paving the way for a modern, diaspora? Or how about setting up a violent reaction akin to the Qing response in the Tai Ping rebellion?

Fascism is well documented, still relevant to our time, and easily understood. Pick any other event in history as a comparison to a contemporary event, and the odds you'll have to give a history lesson instead of making a point increase.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
The making fun of the vast majority of people by a small minority which has no political clout is not paving the way, slowly or otherwise, for anything. This movie sounds mean-spirited to me and I have no intention of seeing it, but the connection to fascism is just silly.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
The making fun of the vast majority of people by a small minority which has no political clout is not paving the way, slowly or otherwise, for anything.
I agree it's not 'paving the way'. That implies a certain long-term intention. However, that small minority won't remain small forever, will it? 'Evangelical Atheists' (again, whatever that is-I understand what is meant by the term, though) shouldn't be permitted to hide behind the 'we're just a tiny minority' excuse. Nor even the 'but what about the things they say!' excuse.

That minority is certainly growing in political clout, BTW. I'm not sure how anyone could seriously argue otherwise, in fact. Just consider: where would Dawkins and Maher have gotten thirty years ago?
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
I'm not excusing behavior, just stating that the "paving the way" stuff is fantasy.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Granted. However, as time passes using words like vast majority, small minority, and no political clout becomes less and less accurate.

There will come a time when Occasional's objection might not appear so crazy, even to you, should the same sorts of things still be said when atheists aren't such a tiny minority, or even become a majority.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Would it make you feel better if he said that Athiest Evangelicals were paving the way for a modern diaspora? Or how about setting up a violent reaction akin to the Qing response in the Tai Ping rebellion?
It would not have made me feel better. It would have still made me recall that he's an odious, smarmy, self-righteous prig who thinks he can get away with implying atheists are, deep down, murdering scumbags because he can get away with saying that as long as religion stays trendy.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I see many atheists making an unfounded leap. Just because all the mainstream religions have gotten many things wrong doesn't mean there isn't a soul aspect to existence, or that consciousness cannot, in at least some cases, continue after physical death. There has been some pretty good research done on the effect of intetion on random number generators, by P.E.A.R.S., and I've experienced a few things that absolutely cannot be explained by the average atheistic worldview. I guess what I'm saying is, on many isssues, the extremists are the idiots, and the moderates are the ones with the most sense. I don't think the "religion versus atheism" debate deviates significantly from this principle.


I sort of dooubt that America will ever be an atheist dictatorship, or anything like it. It's too easy to point to Stalin and Mao. Their behavior was well-recorded.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
It would have still made me recall that he's an odious, smarmy, self-righteous prig who thinks he can get away with implying atheists are, deep down, murdering scumbags because he can get away with saying that as long as religion stays trendy.
Some atheists routinely make the same sorts of implications, Tom, and are just as odious, smarmy, and self-righteous in doing so. And he hasn't 'gotten away with it', or did you miss the many objections?

Sometimes I think it would be nice if y'all atheists would 'police your own' as you so often demand we theists do. But we don't always get what we want.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Sometimes I think it would be nice if y'all atheists would 'police your own' as you so often demand we theists do.
We do. Feel free to slap Occasional the next time KoM ticks you off. [Wink]

But, y'know, this is the other reason there will never be an atheist dictatorship (i.e. a dictatorship grounded in and motivated by atheism): atheism isn't a unifying philosophy. It's the lack of belief in one specific type of unifying philosophy. Saying that atheists should police themselves is like saying that people who don't like to eat fish should police themselves. How would that work? What do people who don't like fish have in common, besides their dislike of fish? Who in the non-fish-eating community has the authority to say to other non-fish-eaters: "Hey, shape up. We don't want Rakeesh to think you're annoying?"
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
That's a matter of opinion. Which is of course what we can both say of each other on this matter. But anyway, I wasn't just speaking on Hatrack.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Neither was I. Tell me who, precisely, in the world at large, is entitled to tell atheists how they should behave.

You Mormons have to listen to your prophet. I don't have to listen to Dawkins. I can roll my eyes at Rand. I don't even have to stand anywhere in the same room as someone who thinks that Mao was a moral philosopher. And I can't tell KoM, "Hey, stop making us atheists look bad by, um, occasionally being rude while disbelieving in God."
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Just because all the mainstream religions have gotten many things wrong doesn't mean there isn't a soul aspect to existence, or that consciousness cannot, in at least some cases, continue after physical death.

Literally that's a true statement however I don't see anybody arguing that a soul doesn't exist "because" mainstream religions have gotten many things wrong. There are very strong arguments against the existence of the soul and consciousness after death.

quote:
Originally posted by steven:
There has been some pretty good research done on the effect of intetion on random number generators, by P.E.A.R.S.

A summary article on 380 studies related to RNG output and human intention found that the results could have conceivably been a result of publication bias (Link). At best this topic is ambiguous.

quote:
Originally posted by steven:
and I've experienced a few things that absolutely cannot be explained by the average atheistic worldview.

I hear claims like this all the time and for some reason they are never accompanied by physical evidence.
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
'Evangelical Atheists' (again, whatever that is-I understand what is meant by the term, though)

How would you define the term?
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:

Fascism is well documented, still relevant to our time, and easily understood. Pick any other event in history as a comparison to a contemporary event, and the odds you'll have to give a history lesson instead of making a point increase.

My point, if I am allowed to make points, was that merely attempting to establish guilt by association with fascists is intellectually lazy, and dishonest. The comment I quoted also carried zero support for itself, and characterized people like me, Athiests, as having motivations and beliefs that we do not have.

Now, I could have taken the easy route and said: look and Thomas Jefferson, a man who spent his life mocking Christian beliefs in his private letters, today he would be called an Athiest, and that somehow validates my opinion, and my liberty and freedom inclinations. But of course it doesn't, just as the fact that communism promotes atheism doesn't have anything to do with me either. I'm not a communist. I'm not a fascist. I'll never be one of those two things.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Tom,

quote:

You Mormons have to listen to your prophet. I don't have to listen to Dawkins. I can roll my eyes at Rand. I don't even have to stand anywhere in the same room as someone who thinks that Mao was a moral philosopher. And I can't tell KoM, "Hey, stop making us atheists look bad by, um, occasionally being rude while disbelieving in God."

Why can't you tell him that? No one said anything about people being compelled to listen. Phelps (not the cool Mike) isn't going to listen to anyone, yet theists are expected (rightly) to condemn his hate-spewing rhetoric. 'Policing your own' isn't always about being directly effective with one person, but sending a message to others. And if there isn't any unity among atheists, why does Dawkins have so many fans?

Also, *rolleyes* at your downplaying there too, of course.
 
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
And if there isn't any unity among atheists, why does Dawkins have so many fans?


Because we have one (count it, one) unifying feature: our atheism. Dawkins talks about atheism. He makes a lot of sense when he does so.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Because we have one (count it, one) unifying feature: our atheism. Dawkins talks about atheism. He makes a lot of sense when he does so.
That is one feature all atheists have in common, Javert. However, atheists are certainly just like other people: splitting into groups.

I can just as easily say that, by their own lights, some theists have just one (count it, one) unifying feature: their belief in God.
 
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
Because we have one (count it, one) unifying feature: our atheism. Dawkins talks about atheism. He makes a lot of sense when he does so.
That is one feature all atheists have in common, Javert. However, atheists are certainly just like other people: splitting into groups.

I can just as easily say that, by their own lights, some theists have just one (count it, one) unifying feature: their belief in God.

Sure. I can see that. Even understand it.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Sure. I can see that. Even understand it.
Which brings me back to the question I asked of Tom.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
And if there isn't any unity among atheists, why does Dawkins have so many fans?
You may as well ask why people universally respect Stephen Hawking. Is there unity among physicists? Dawkins has fans because he's eloquent, perceptive, and almost always correct.

quote:
I can just as easily say that, by their own lights, some theists have just one (count it, one) unifying feature: their belief in God.
Sure. Do you find yourself policing Hindus when they're rude? Do you say, "courtesy of our shared belief in some sort of deity, please stop making us believers look bad?"

Of course not. There is a small subset of "believers" into which any believer falls, and sometimes those subsets deign to police themselves.

Atheists, by and large, don't even have those subsets. Sure, you can join a couple clubs if you're so inclined, but atheists by their very nature aren't generally predisposed to be joiners.

So when you say to an atheist, "Hey, don't you feel responsible for the behavior of everyone else who doesn't believe in God," he's just going to look at you funny. Because, believe it or not, the vast majority of atheists do not define themselves by their lack of belief in something; they generally have other things they care about more. They're busy self-policing those other groups, like maybe forum posters or international chess players or pastry chefs.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
You may as well ask why people universally respect Stephen Hawking. Is there unity among physicists? Dawkins has fans because he's eloquent, perceptive, and almost always correct.
I'm afraid it goes a bit deeper than just liking his ideas, at least anecdotally in my experience. Not that it's like a like-minded club or anything, but it's also more than just 'hey, we like pepperoni pizza!'

quote:
Sure, you can join a couple clubs if you're so inclined, but atheists by their very nature aren't generally predisposed to be joiners.
Boy, do I disagree with that! I'm sure it's a flattering notion to you, but it's just not true. Or don't atheists join plenty of organizations?

quote:

So when you say to an atheist, "Hey, don't you feel responsible for the behavior of everyone else who doesn't believe in God," he's just going to look at you funny.

Well, OK. I never said anything about feeling responsibility for those other people. *shrug* Given that we're so clearly talking past one another, there isn't much point in continuing that discussion.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Well, OK. I never said anything about feeling responsibility for those other people.
What other motivations are there for self-policing?

quote:
I'm afraid it goes a bit deeper than just liking his ideas, at least anecdotally in my experience.
What experience do you have with being a fan of Richard Dawkins?

quote:
I'm sure it's a flattering notion to you, but it's just not true.
Why do you think this? There are more than a number of studies indicating that atheists are more likely to be iconoclasts, introverts, etc. Now, I don't think these things are necessarily inherent in atheism, but I think it's much easier in the current climate to be an atheist if you aren't as interested in belonging to a club as most people. It's very isolating, especially in suburban or rural communities; the social benefits of churchgoing are obvious and well-documented.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Everyone should just sit back and relax with a good old fashioned nun beauty contest
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7581039.stm
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
TABLE 1

DID HUMANS DEVELOP FROM EARLIER SPECIES?

"Do you think human beings developed from earlier species or not?"

Base: All Adults

June 2005
Yes, I think human beings developed from earlier species. 38%

No, I do not think human beings developed from earlier species. 54%

Not sure/Decline to answer 8%

TABLE 5

WHERE HUMANS COME FROM

"Which of the following do you believe about how human beings came to be?"

Base: All Adults

June 2005

Human beings evolved from earlier species. 22%

Human beings were created directly by God. 64%

Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them. 10%

Not sure/Decline to answer 4%

I've got to tell you, I find either number (54% or 64%) pretty scary. I really thought it was better than this.
 
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
Look at table 7, though. The numbers go up based on education level. Nearly half the people have a high school diploma or less worth of education. This makes complete sense to me -- most of my nitty-gritty Evolution knowledge came from my Bio 100 class at BYU, not high school. The more you learn, the more chances you have for Evolution to explained in a classroom setting, and the more likely you are to realize that it makes sense.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
Everyone should just sit back and relax with a good old fashioned nun beauty contest
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7581039.stm

Italy seems to come up with some hilariously weird combinations of Catholicism and liberal attitudes.
 
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
I don't believe that atheism can degenerate into a "dictatorship" by itself. For that to happen the same passions and righteousness that the faithful focus into their faith must have something to focus onto. In the case of Nazi-ism, it was "the State". In the case of Mao it was, well, Mao. In Godless Soviet Union it was "Communism" and the cause.

Could there be generated a state of Anti-Faith? Could there exist a movement of fanatical anti-fanaticism? It is then that fanatical state that must be destroyed, not the atheism it uses to justify its existence.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
Makes me think of the Vulcans.
 
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
I'm afraid it goes a bit deeper than just liking his ideas, at least anecdotally in my experience. Not that it's like a like-minded club or anything, but it's also more than just 'hey, we like pepperoni pizza!'

To the extant that I like Dawkins, it's primarily because he expresses good ideas in a clear manner. I don't much care for his news pundit appearances, or his TV showdowns with religious figures, some of which are on youtube.

Neither am I much of a joiner. I started shedding organized activities in high school. I didn't join any clubs in college.

Not that this proves anything, just that you can add me to the other side of your anecdote list. [Wave]
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2