quote:Of course, religion itself has so much good and done so much good and is expressed in so many other little ways
War has also done much that is good. It has also (just like religion) done much that is really terrible.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:More specifically, a self-proclaimed humanist who hated on religious people precisely for their religious beliefs is lying about something.
I'm not aware of any self-proclaimed humanists that have expressed hate for religious people in general, but there are probably a number who hate religious belief.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say and you are misunderstanding. Whether or not it is deliberate I couldn't say.
--
quote:I'm not aware of any self-proclaimed humanists that have expressed hate for religious people in general, but there are probably a number who hate religious belief.
I was referring to the women referenced in the opening post. We don't know if she proclaims herself a humanist, however.
As for hating religious belief, that's back to the beginning. Lame for anyone who calls themselves a humanist. It is too complex to be so maligned.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
edit: Also, since I am apparently misunderstanding you, could you specify what you mean by this:
quote:Because you are loving an illusion. You can't separate religion from humanity without a massive retcon of human history.
And thinking about it, I mean that for war as well. War is hell and bad and to be avoided, but clearly aggression and possessiveness and territorial marking and the dehumanization of each other is part of us as well, and I think a true humanist would try to understand the individuals.
as it relates to being a humanist and hating religion or hating war?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But we aren't denying that religion was, and is, a fundamental part of people's lives, anymore than we're denying that war was and is a fundamental part of humanity. So there isn't any sort of illusion.
Instead there's a hope, at least on this humanistic atheist's part, to weed out the negative effects of certain human traits while not condemning the actual traits themselves. Aggression leads to war. That's bad. Let's try to stop wars without stopping aggression (just watch Serenity to see how bad an idea that is ) Likewise, I dislike religion, while not disliking the spiritual characteristics humans posses. And, given the various ways that humanity has come up with to deal with the spiritual, I think I can safely say that theistic religions are not a fundamental trait of humanity.
Edit: this was in response to the following statement by Kate. Clearly, I need to type quicker.
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Because you are loving an illusion. You can't separate religion from humanity without a massive retcon of human history.
And thinking about it, I mean that for war as well. War is hell and bad and to be avoided, but clearly aggression and possessiveness and territorial marking and the dehumanization of each other is part of us as well, and I think a true humanist would try to understand the individuals.
Of course, religion itself has so much good and done so much good and is expressed in so many other little ways that if anyone did try to say that religion is as bad as war then I'd question their education.
---
More specifically, a self-proclaimed humanist who hated on religious people precisely for their religious beliefs is lying about something.
quote:Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationality.[1][2] It is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems and is incorporated into several religious schools of thought. Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, Humanism rejects the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.[3]
and here's a link to the Humanist Manifesto from the American Humanist Association:
quote:Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity...
I acknowledge that while these are broadly accepted definitions of humanism, they aren't necessarily universal definitions. But that can lead down a long discussion of what exactly "humanism" is.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Likewise, I dislike religion, while not disliking the spiritual characteristics humans posses. And, given the various ways that humanity has come up with to deal with the spiritual, I think I can safely say that theistic religions are not a fundamental trait of humanity.
How are you defining religons then? It looks like you are only referring to theistic organizations. Are those the only things included in your distaste, then?
Is it possible that your dislike has more to do with the power and behavior characteristic of organzations than with the spiritual tendencies and needs and experiences that lead to their formation?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd pretty emphatically reject that Humanism is necessarily Materialistic or Secular.
I asked because kat at least seemed to be treating it as "loving humanity", which is not a correct definition.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I was giving more credit to humanism than it deserved - it was nice to think that a charitable attitude towards humanity was included.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: After hanging on solely at Hatrack for a long, long, time, I finally ventured out to the blogosphere. And it was pretty eye-opening. I'd heard that people weren't civil the way they are here; I had no idea that incivility was lauded in the majority of webish-spots.
Before I joined Hatrack and Ornery, I had not seriously posted on a web forum in over half a year. Awhile ago I joined perspectives.com (basically a large political forum). My initial goal was to expose myself to other opinions and refine my own. Instead, it ended up destroying my free time and making me unhappy. The ignorance and hate of some of the posts was aggravating, yet I was addicted to posting there and didn't stop. I eventually just went "cold turkey". Ornery is much better (though, admittedly, I like Hatrack more).
If you ever have any doubt that Hatrack is civil, just visit perspectives.com and read the political and religious forums.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: It's not like brojack is wrong, necessarily. It feels like the majority of atheists I encounter on the web are of the rant-and-rave variety.
I would guess that this is because those atheists probably feel more motivated to post. I could make an atheism themed blog but it would probably be extremely boring.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I am quite convinced that a God, at least one of the Judeo-Christian type, does not exist. I'm also pretty sure that it's better to have your epistemological underpinnings straight than not, and thus people shouldn't believe in things that don't really exist. I'm not trying to be offense here, although I realize that this stance could be taken as quite offensive. Sorry!
I'm much more okay with religions that are more philosophical in nature, like Buddhism, Taoism, or atheistic Hinduism (not the cultural versions, but the ones developed from original texts). I haven't yet figured out my stance on polytheism - still thinking about it.
To answer the second part of the question, like most atheists, new or old, I'm horrified by a lot of what organized religion has accomplished (mass killing), and find other parts of it good (charitable works).
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:it was nice to think that a charitable attitude towards humanity was included.
You don't see a charitable attitude toward humanity in the definitions posted above? I thought the "aspire to the greater good of humanity" seemed pretty pro-humanity.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just feel people should be allowed to believe what they want to without being judged for it.
So you're okay with religious extremism and suicide bombers? Do beliefs only become an issue with you when the people holding those beliefs act upon them(in a negative manner)? Isn't that a bit like trying to put a band aid on a gun shot wound? If suicide bombing is a problem shouldn't we try to remedy it by getting to the root of it? Doesn't that necessitate judging someone's beliefs?
What if our president believed that the future of our country depended on obliterating Mexico? Would you say that he should be allowed to have this belief without being judged for it?
How can you help people with false beliefs if you just ignore them? Or even more fundamentally, how can the truth or falsity of a belief even be determined without conversation between individuals. Can't we judge peoples' beliefs and still have civil dialogue between each other? Are you really advocating the fact that everyone should be free to believe whatever the heck they feel like believing regardless of the validity of that belief and how that belief affects their behavior.
quote:She stated, "there is no afterlife"; she made this statement without any evidence.
also, I found this statement ironic.
No. It is not right to force ones belief on another or to take aggression on one group because they do not believe the same as you.
I am trying to have a civil dialogue. I did get offended when I was told some of these new atheists thought I was sub-human. That hate speak sounds a lot like Hitler and Osama bin Laden. I made that connection. In all fairness, it also sounds like the group of people that protest at soldiers funerals because they think God is taking revenge on America.
I know the comment about the afterlife was kinda funny.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I know the comment about the afterlife was kinda funny.
I think Strider was referring to the irony that the comment "there is an afterlife" is made much more often and without evidence. And not just the existence of an afterlife, but specific claims about that afterlife.
Of course, Strider can correct me if I'm wrong.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jhai, I'm not offended. I think you're quite wrong, but that isn't offensive to me.
You sound very sure that a negative has been proven. I think you're mistaken about that as well. That doesn't matter, but if it leads to dislike or look down on people, that's bad for everyone.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I agree there is extremests in any religious (or non-religious) group. I just mean, why has Atheism taken on this trate only recently.
If you mean trait, then what do you mean by "recently"?
quote: Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.
quote: The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
quote: The priests of the different religious sects ... dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live.
Guess who wrote those words. They certainly were not written by KoM Here's a hint there were written about 200 years ago by a guy that many of you may know.
Now compare:
quote: That sect(i.e. the Jews) had presented for the object of their worship, a being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.
quote: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
Now guess which one was written satirically and which one was serious, also which one was written recently.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I know the comment about the afterlife was kinda funny.
I think Strider was referring to the irony that the comment "there is an afterlife" is made much more often and without evidence. And not just the existence of an afterlife, but specific claims about that afterlife.
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Jhai, I'm not offended. I think you're quite wrong, but that isn't offensive to me.
You sound very sure that a negative has been proven. I think you're mistaken about that as well. That doesn't matter, but if it leads to dislike or look down on people, that's bad for everyone.
I'm not claiming that a negative has been proven (altho on rereading, it appears that I am). I believe the existence of God is as likely as fairies existing at the bottom of the garden, to misquote Douglas Adams. Obviously, this subject is outside the scope of this thread, but I agree in a large part with Dawkins, if you've read The God Delusion.
And I don't dislike people who are religious, I think they're wrong, and hope they'll change their minds.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aw, that's too bad. Do you want them to change for themselves or for you? If it's doing them good and makes them happy but you want them to change so your life is easier, then I don't think that's cool.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is not a question of hate. It is about whether we are to sit silently, smile, and nod, when people say things that are patently absurd, and then (what's worse) use the power of the state to enforce it. Religious people have become used to having their beliefs respected (or at a minimum, having lip service paid to such respect) because that is the nature of the compromise that is freedom of conscience: All religious people agree not to attack each others' beliefs. But that compromise was evolved when all people were religious, and some variety of Christian at that. It is one thing for Protestant and Catholic, to take but one example, to agree-to-disagree and say "All right, we respect each other". It doesn't take too much effort to stretch that into a similar truce with Moslems, Hindus, and whatnot. And this has become so ingrained that people feel extremely weird about it if someone breaks this unwritten rule, even though any number of religious communities do in fact believe that all the others will suffer eternal pain.
But this truce has never been extended to atheists - largely, I admit, because until recently we were so rare as to be invisible. So when we are now numerous enough that we can do a bit of firing back, the theists have to sit up and take notice; and because they are so used to their cozy little truce, honesty feels like hatred.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I agree there is extremests in any religious (or non-religious) group. I just mean, why has Atheism taken on this trate only recently.
If you mean trait, then what do you mean by "recently"?
I'm 32. I have not seen nor heard about atheists hating believers before the past year. Also, the name for the unofficial group is "New Atheists". That would make me think that these developments are recent.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Aw, that's too bad. Do you want them to change for themselves or for you? If it's doing them good and makes them happy but you want them to change so your life is easier, then I don't think that's cool.
Even if religion does some people good and makes them happy, I don't think it does humanity good in the long run. And, generally, I think it's more important to consider what is true or not than to just go with whatever makes you happy.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Aw, that's too bad. Do you want them to change for themselves or for you? If it's doing them good and makes them happy but you want them to change so your life is easier, then I don't think that's cool.
What if someone told you they believed that fairies lived in their garden. That fact makes them very happy, and perhaps they are more likely to care about the environment so that that the fairies can live better.
This belief in fairies makes them happy and does them good. Would you want to disabuse them of their belief?
Maybe you don't. I would. Not to take away something that makes them happy and does good by them. But to show them that there's plenty of real things that can make one happy, and believing in imaginary ones isn't necessary. (I'm using 'real' to mean "things for which there are evidence and are independently verifiable.")
Now, would I force them to stop believing? No. And if after the first time we discussed it they wanted me to not mention it anymore, I would honor that person's wishes. Of course, if they continually brought it up, I would argue my point of view. And if they wanted to force others to believe in it as well...well, I'd have something to say about that and would argue my own side.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, I'm not making anyone change their views. I'm just saying the views are wrong. Just like you would say my view on the existence of a deity is wrong. *shrug* If someone could come up with a good argument against the problem of evil, I'd be all ears.
I'm also not generally in the habit of destroying personal happiness - I just offer arguments about things. If someone believes those arguments, and is then unhappy, I don't think I'm exactly the one to blame. The universe is, maybe. It's not like I'm ruining a kid's Christmas by telling him Santa doesn't exist - if you're able to understand the philosophical back-and-forth on the existence of God, you should be able to handle the truth, whatever that may be.
I don't think I need to defend what is great about the humanistic or atheist belief system. A lot of people have done that, far better than I could within this thread. If you're interested in learning about it, not scoring debate points, I could point you towards some of those resources. Some have been linked to here already.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I'm 32. I have not seen nor heard about atheists hating believers before the past year. Also, the name for the unofficial group is "New Atheists". That would make me think that these developments are recent.
A) As someone pointed out before, the issue isn't exactly hate, so much as pity B) As someone also pointed out, "New Atheists" is not a term that the group created for itself. While some atheists may have taken the term upon themselves (as some blacks have taken "back" the term nigger and use it among themselves), there is no consensus what the term means or who belongs to the group. C) So you're 32...and.... So is your logic that if you had not learned about Israel until today, the whole Middle Eastern mess would be a recent development as well?
To take the most prominent example, Richard Dawkins has been writing many books on the theme of evolution and has been defending it (and in the process criticizing Christians) for over 30 years. The text may be repackaged in an easier to access form, but the real change is media attention.
It is not that some atheists have taken on this "trait" recently. It is that the media both pro and con has been publicizing it more recently after a certain period of relative silence.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, my aunt goes to church on Sunday by watching a preacher on tv. I don't know much about it, but she's mentioned it a few times. It gives her an outlet, makes her feel better, inspires her to serve where she can, and it doesn't require that she go to a local church which she doesn't want to do because of a horrible experience a few years ago where my uncle left her for the organist.
She, in turn, believes that Mormons are not Christians, all Mormon men are chauvinist, and that the Church is just barely better than a cult.
But she loves me, and my religion makes me very happy, and she respects that, and I do the same for her. I like it that way. My opinions on televengelists don't matter. I'd have to be selfish indeed to want to take that away from her.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Javert, I agree with you. That is how the world should work. You don't have to agree with me to live next to me and for us to get along.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brojack, Google "The Atheist Experience". It's a public access show out of Austin, TX that would probably be deemed "new atheism" by many people.
Last month they celebrated their 10th year on the air.
(It's a good show, btw, and a lot of their episodes are on Google Video. And since I'm not affiliated with them in any way, I don't feel too bad about shamelessly plugging them, hehe.)
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: As someone pointed out before, the issue isn't exactly hate, so much as pity
The issue is that pity and hate aren't very far from one another, and neither are exactly positive emotions.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is not that some atheists have taken on this "trait" recently. It is that the media both pro and con has been publicizing it more recently after a certain period of relative silence.
I don't think that's accurate. Dawkins himself has said that it is only since 9/11 that he's felt that it was imperative to challenge religious belief qua religious belief. There definitely has been a change in evangelical atheism in the past decade.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Mucus, A) It sounds like hate when someone who is clearly human is thought of as sub-human B) Whether they coined the phrase or not. They are not protesting it and it seems they have accepted it. What else do I call them in this thread where I am talking about how atheists are being so much more aggressive towards believers. C) I'm 32. For 31 years I heard nothing about this. Why now. Which was my original question.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The issue is that pity and hate aren't very far from one another, and neither are exactly positive emotions.
I'm not sure that pity is exactly the right word, or it may just be that there are connotations to the word pity that make it hard to use it precisely.
I think the sentiment of the evangelical atheist is probably similar to that of the evangelical Christian - he thinks that he holds unique knowledge, the sharing of which is important. He hopes if he shares that knowledge in the right way that the people he shares it with will come around to his point of view and that their lives (or the lives of others) will be improved.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:They are not protesting it and it seems they have accepted it.
This is not true. I've seen on multiple occasions where one of the more prominent "new atheists" has expressed his displeasure with the term, but he still acknowledges it because he recognizes that by using it people are referring to him or his ilk.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: You know, my aunt goes to church on Sunday by watching a preacher on tv. I don't know much about it, but she's mentioned it a few times. It gives her an outlet, makes her feel better, inspires her to serve where she can, and it doesn't require that she go to a local church which she doesn't want to do because of a horrible experience a few years ago where my uncle left her for the organist.
She, in turn, believes that Mormons are not Christians, all Mormon men are chauvinist, and that the Church is just barely better than a cult.
But she loves me, and my religion makes me very happy, and she respects that, and I do the same for her. I like it that way. My opinions on televengelists don't matter. I'd have to be selfish indeed to want to take that away from her.
I was much happier before knowing the details about some of the suffering in the world, and how easily I could significantly help those in need. Didn't have to give up any of my wants, plus I didn't have to think about those without. Does that make it wrong, or selfish that others brought these facts to my attention, and then convincingly argued that I have a duty to help those in need?
Not exactly analogous, but I don't think it needs to be. Arguing for the truth isn't selfish - it's about giving them something, so that they can more rationally decide what's best for them. Sure, the truth sometimes hurts, but surely happy ignorance isn't a goal we should be shooting for? And, as a note, your aunt could probably get most of those things in a secular manner.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On page 1 TomDavidson said pity can lead to dehumanizing. I misread this. My mistake. Still, don't pity me. I don't pity those who believe other than I do.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't pity those who believe other than I do.
You don't think there is something good that they are missing out on? Does your church do any sort of evangelical outreach or missionary work?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes they do. I do not. I know I am not following the direction of the bible by not reaching out to others, but I don't feel comfortable doing that. I didn't like working in sales for the same reason. If someone wants to ask me about my beliefs, then I am happy to share.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
I want to commend you for the way you've been responding to this thread. You've been very positive, I think.
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I don't pity those who believe other than I do.
You don't think there is something good that they are missing out on? Does your church do any sort of evangelical outreach or missionary work?
How are you defining pity, MattP?
When I was a missionary, I certainly didn't feel inspired out of pity. Mostly, I felt inspired by a sense of duty to God and love for my fellow human beings.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott R: I dunno. I pity people that have severe mental diseases (say schizophrenia) and I think they should get help, or at the least be given the ability to live better. I can't think of a reason why that would necessarily transcend to hate. I don't really see why pity is a negative emotion in this case either.
MrSquickly: There's a difference between "having" the trait (being aggressively atheist) and "publicizing" the trait. Dawkins was referring to the later. It is not so much that his beliefs changed, but he felt there was a greater need to have them heard.
Thats essentially the sentiment towards his "Out" campaign, not to make new atheists as much allow older atheists to come out, get organised, and be heard.
brojack: A) Sub-human? Explain. B) I doubt they have actively accepted it. I'm not even sure if most of the "New Atheists" are even aware of, or have expressed knowledge of this supposed label. C) I have no idea as to why you may be ignorant in one area or another. It would be hard for me to even guess without looking at how you were educated and what books you read/news you access.
All I can say is that I can easily point at many people from Douglas Adams, Isaac Asimov, Dan Dennett, and Richard Dawkins that have been writing much the same sentiments for decades before now, let alone *one year.*
Heck, at this date, even The God Delusion has been out for more than a year.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: On page 1 TomDavidson said pity can lead to dehumanizing. I misread this. My mistake. Still, don't pity me. I don't pity those who believe other than I do.
Ah, I think that makes more sense. "Can lead to" is a big difference from "is leading to" and is yet another jump to "always leads to". Thats probably the root of the confusion on that one.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dawkins himself has said that it is only since 9/11 that he's felt that it was imperative to challenge religious belief qua religious belief.
The trouble with "New Atheism" is that its method of fighting back against religious belief is to create a faith that looks and functions just like religious belief, except which builds itself upon unprovable human assumptions rather than unprovable religious revelation. I don't think there's anything really "New" about it though - the Communists felt pretty much the same way when they had their movement decades ago. I think always has been a sort of split between passive atheism and active atheism.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) Likewise, I dislike religion, while not disliking the spiritual characteristics humans posses. And, given the various ways that humanity has come up with to deal with the spiritual, I think I can safely say that theistic religions are not a fundamental trait of humanity.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Here's a hint there were written about 200 years ago by a guy that many of you may know.
