Senate Atheism 4.0 - Now Discussing: Religiosity and intelligence

No, I already compared atheism to being anti-racsim. Are you suggesting that anti-racists should not infringe upon the rights of racists? Should the actions of an anti-gay movement not also be discouraged?

Theism and dogma are a force that promote intolerance and hate among people for no good reason. Whether certain beliefs are the cause of the excuse, they have the power to drive good people to do terrible acts. And it's not as though anti-theism is aiming to destroy religion in its entirety... we simply want it removed from society. Tax exemptions should not be granted for non-charitable church programs, politicians should not have to pretend to be christian in order to be elected, and other such practices should be discouraged within a society.

 

No, "anti-racists" shouldn't infringe on the rights of racists. No private citizen has any business infringing on the rights of anyone else. Racists have the exact same rights that you or anyone else have. Just because you don't like someone or their views doesn't mean that you can infringe their rights.

The government is only justified in infringing someone's rights in limited circumstances (such as performing a search after a warrant is issued demonstrating probable cause). Private citizens are never justified in doing so.

Kimball Kinnison

EDIT: And you completely missed where wannasee was talking about antitheists, not atheists. He rather clearly differentiated between the two.

Atheists are those who do not have a belief in deity. Antitheists are people who are directly opposed to theists. Antitheists would be a subset of atheists, but they are not the same thing.

 

So you support atheistic views?

No, I knew exactly what he was going for. He was comparing anti-theistm with being anti-gay or anti-black. In other words, he is still under the impression that anti-theism is a biased perspective directed at restricting the freedoms and rights of people. I was merely correcting him in stating anti-theism is more properly comparable to being anti-racist and being tolerant to homosexuality. In other words, he got the exact opposite impression of what anti-theism is when comparing it to racism and homosexuality.

I, as an anti-theist, am against the biased practices of theists who actively fight to restrict the rights of women to their own bodies and who commit hate crimes against gay people for no good reason. As LostOnHoth stated, a large proportion of people who oppose gay marriage and subjugate women are driven in some way by their theistic beliefs. In denouncing a book that says homosexuality is an abomination, fewer people would have reason to be against gay marriage. I would just as easily have been against Nazism in WWII for promoting the same intolerance against homosexuality.

I'm not against people who want to believe in a god; I'm against those who actively seek to impose their beliefs upon others. Beyond that, I couldn't care less whether people wish to be religious in the privacy of their own homes. Just so long as it's kept within the bounds of their homes or churches.

 

When you're interested in hearing my position, rather than trying to foist yours on me, let me know. I'm not interested in dealing with your straw men.

 

As with many things, it's a matter of degree.

There's nothing wrong with being actively anti-alcohol/tobacco/marijuana, with trying to convince people that these things are bad for them. Nor with supporting laws to protect non-users from the negative effects of those substances. But trying to enact laws to remove their choice to use these substances would be crossing the line.

Likewise, I would say there's nothing wrong with trying to convince people of the problems with religion, or trying to keep religion out of our legal system/government - protecting the non-religious from having religious rules/notions forced on them. But actually outlawing religion/religious belief would be unconscionable.

 

That's a false dichotomy. I support atheists' right to hold whatever views they desire, even when I disagree with those views. It's not different than I expect atheists to support anyone else's right to believe whatever they want.

That's what makes this a free society. People are free to believe or not as they wish.

Again, you are using a false dichotomy. A person can be racist without trying to restrict the rights of people of a different race. (For example, someone could think blacks are inferior without advocating that their rights should be restricted. You can see that in the attitude that some people express of "He can't help it, because he's black/gay/whatever." The attitude is racist, but it's not calling for anyone's rights to be limited.)

The problem here is that your arguments are full of the same sort of generalizations about theists that you would condemn if directed at other groups (like gays or racial minorities). Not all theists oppose homosexuality nor believe it is an abomination. Not all theists think same-sex marriage should be illegal. Case and point: Proposition 8 in California lost 52.24-47.76%. Unless you are claiming that 47.74% of the California electorate are atheists (in which case, you need to provide evidence to back that claim up), that means that a significant number of theists voted in favor of same-sex marriage.

And yet, you have argued in favor of actively imposing your beliefs on others.

Even in this statement, you have expressed the desire to restrict the rights of religious people, specifically the right to free speech. If an organization like Occupy Wall Street is allowed to express their political views in public, then why shouldn't a religious person similarly be allowed to express their views in public? Restricting the

 

When you can demonstrate the existence of the invisible space wizard who cares who has sex with whom as clearly as anyone can demonstrate the income disparity and economic instability in the U.S., then comparing religion to the Occupy movement will be apt.

You're creating a straw man just like wannasee, here. No one is talking about restricting people's rights to believe whatever they want, no one here ever has despite how many times theists have tried to put those words in our mouths; but that doesn't give them the right not to be questioned or offended, and enforcing it on others via government legislation requires something more than "for the Bible tells me so," by the Constitution and judicial precedent.

 

I would agree with all of this wholeheartedly.

The simple fact of it is that we live in a free society, where everyone has certain rights to freedom of speech and freedom of belief. As with any freedom, there is the potential that other people will choose to exercise their freedom in ways that you won't like, just like you will say and do things that other people won't like.

That's the price of a free society. If you want atheists to be able to their views about religion in the public sphere, then you need to accept that religious people are able to express their views on religion in public as well. To restrict their rights is to restrict your own.

The same argument that says that you should be able to silence someone you disagree with can be used to justify any number of other methods of disenfranchising them. Moreover, the same methods you would use against those you dislike can later be turned around to disenfranchise you, because someone else doesn't like your beliefs.

If you really want to have freedom for yourself, you have to accept and tolerate it from everyone else.

Kimball Kinnison

 

The term is antitheist (all the theists). It's not anti-just-the-theists-who-actively-fight-to-restrict-the-rights-of-women-to-their-own-bodies-and-who-commit-hate-crimes-against-gay-people-for-no-good-reason.

The reason I compared antitheists to anti-gay fools is because both theism and gayness can be practiced without causing harm to anyone, so neither of them is really anyone's business.

And since you don't care what religious people do in the privacy of their own homes, I would say that, strictly speaking, you are not antitheist.

Perhaps you feel that i am inferring something i shouldn't, but that does not a strawman make. Anyway, i read the wikipedia article on antitheism, and I am using that word as it was defined there.

If you have a better definition, please share it with the rest of the class.

agree.

 

I'm sorry, but Yuthura's comments did advocate restricting the rights of religious people. I quote:

Consider if a theist said "I couldn't care less whether people wish to be atheist in the privacy of their own homes. Just so long as it's kept within the bounds of their homes." Wouldn't you interpreting that as a call to restrict the rights of atheists in the public sphere?

If Occupy Wall Street (or the Tea Party) has the right to speak out, even when people vehemently disagree with their message, then so do religious people. If you think that OWS's right free speech should be respected, then you are a hypocrite if you don't also respect the right of others to free speech.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Just to be clear, there's a difference between "only allowing atheists to express their views" and "taking religion off the table so that everyone is on the same page". The vast majority of anti-theistic agendas are aimed at the latter (though, I'll admit, occasionally some zealots swing into the realm of the former).

For example, it's one thing for individual legislators to arrive at a stance based on a line of scripture, but they have no business citing that scripture in an assembly debate over the pros and cons of a given piece of legislation.

Likewise, it's fine if individual public school students want to form a prayer group, but there's no reason they should be allowed to meet for free at school while taxpayers are funding the building's operation and the adult supervision of the students.

Etc etc.

 

It's got nothing to do with theists at all. I'm against theism. That makes me an antitheist the same way that being actively involved in theism makes one a theist. If you prefer, replace "antitheist" with "opponent of theism" when I've used it.

When you say "you are saying," and then proceed to say something that I am not at all saying, and then proceed to argue against that thing I am not saying as though it is a thing I have said, you have created a strawman.

The Wikipedia article defines antitheism as "active opposition to theism." Not "active opposition to theists." So when you define it as being opposed to theists, you are not using the word as defined there, nor as I define it.

At any rate, I would agree with what JKH says. As you have also stated your agreement, there's nothing for us to argue about.

 

Wow. Thank you! I've been busy with my classes, and just got the chance to read this now.

I was hoping for a breakthrough like this in this thread, but wasn't really expecting it to happen anymore. This proves my point: that if you hope and keep going at it, despite the odds being against you, it may still come true. I guess somehow I finally got through to you (as well as LostOnHoth, and hopefully others here) and now I think you finally understand what I've been trying to say all along. There's no reason to apologize to me, I'm just glad you finally understand what I've been posting here. Please don't call me enlightened, I'm far from perfect... and of course you've offered me valuable insight throughout this thread, and shown me how to better defend and communicate my beliefs. If I may ask, what did I post that finally got through to you? Anyways, I'm very grateful.

Also, I want to clarify three things you mention in your post. First, my beliefs are always with me, I don't compartmentalize God to one hour on Sunday. It's just a simple and quiet devotion, that's open to change and reason and new evidence, and it's full of respect for everyone and a responsibility to nurture the well-being of all others. And I really do believe that it's best for both to keep church and state separated. Second, I do believe that many parts of the Bible are inspired by God, as you see I regularly quote my favorite verses in discussions. But you're right that I don't believe it's all morally accura

 

Ghost, very well said.

Is it possible you might be a deist?

That is the closest to my own belief. It's essentially a belief in a cosmic creator or "force"( ) but not one who is in constant observance and a meddler in our daily lives. Also, no miracles allowed.

I've always felt closer to "God" when I'm in the outdoors or studying the discoveries made of our universe.

 

I label myself as antitheist in the same sense that Christopher Hitchens does in that not only do I not believe there is no such thing as God or Gods, but that I am positively delighted that there is no such evidence to support the claim that God exists. There are many people out there, who despite not believing in a divine being, would love the idea that there was one. Maybe as some sort of celestial comfort blanket perhaps?

Equating antitheism to being anti-gay or anti-black is just arrant nonsense. People cannot help being gay or black. You can help being religious.

 

So you're saying it is not genetic then?

 

Has anyone claimed religious belief is genetic?

 

As you all know, I have been following the on-going evolution of the prediction made by my roommate's Bible teacher about the end of the world. I follow a yahoo group and one person has posted some interesting and disturbing stuff from another website which points up the reason why we should have a very strong division between church and state.

I don't remember how to post links. I could put the majority of the post here by cutting and pasting, but it would be rather lengthy unless I broke it into smaller components. While I don't completely agree with the assertions put forth by the website, it is quite compelling.

Here's a Bible verse that says the Bible says that believers are to remain separate from the politics of this world (II Corinthians 6:15-7:1).

The website is called "Fanatic for Jesus."

I'm going to post a sample of what the newsletter says. It's public domain, I think.
In a recent article titled Hitler's Masquerade as a Christian, there are many parallels in the strategy used by Hitler and the political right-wing leaders of present day. We learned that the Roman Catholic Church, although they say they were placed in a difficult position, befriended Hitler and were notorious Nazi-sympathizers. His political message to the German people was that he wanted to preserve and defend those basic principles on which Germany was built. He regarded Christianity as the foundation for national morality. Does this message sound familiar to what is being stated today by the politically motivated Christian Right? Are we waiting for another dictator to come forward, foolishly supported by the Sheeple?
Defining Terms
Before I answer that question, let's learn where today's Christian Right comes from?

Christian Reconstructionist leaders of the 20th Century, such as Dr. Jerry Falwell (Baptist), Dr. D. James Kennedy (Presbyterian), Pat Robertson (Charismatic), and Francis Schaeffer (Presbyterian), brought Bible believers together in a movement that formed the Christian Right. Each leader, being from a different realm of Christianity, were essentially fundamentalist Bible-believers. They supported socially conservative policies, and created several politically oriented groups to become more vocal, thus influencing the laws in the U.S. They also rejected liberal Modernist theology, which was beginning to spread through the churches. The Religious Right is made up of a broader spectrum of citizens, which includes Christians, Muslims and Orthodox Jews.[1]

To the revolutionary, it was a way to convince faithful believers to get involved in social change using political channels in order to reach a political goal. Over time, the Religious Right movement successfully caught on.

Christians Represented in Government
As time progressed, many of the Christian Right leaders found positions in the government. Many presented in the following video are members of the Council for National Policy (CNP), the conservative version of the globalist agency Council on Foreign Relations. Some of their surface beliefs are biblical, but many of their views are based upon Reconstructionist/Dominion theology, which is not the traditional interpretation of the Bible.

And it kinda gets worse than this.

Could someone let me know how to proceed?

Thanks!

 

Has anyone claimed religious belief is genetic?

The argument gets made that sharing religious belief with your insider social group promotes inclusive fitness, or something like that.

 

I think someone a while back did make the argument that since humans come up with religious belief that we might be genetically predisposed to religious belief. Personally I think a more rational explanation is that the human brain is trained to see patterns whether they exist or not and that our religious beliefs are just an outgrowth from that only taken the wrong way through the lens of a past culture.

 

I would hazard a guess that most people in the world can't help but be religious.
But on this forum, most probably can.

 

Religion came up in the Arena due to a Tim Tebow discussion... and I'm getting Pascal's Wager from two different people who don't know what Pascal's Wager is. I want to vomit. That is all.

 

Yeah, for as faulty as the wager is, it's really stuck around a long time. (Had to go check out the Arena just to see what happened)

 

Including about 40% of scientists:

Tyson on science and faith

 

I actually read about this in a book, The End of Christianity, where the author made a point that most religious people don't have a problem when science contradicts their religion. He also showed stats very similar to this 40% figure, indicating that with roughly half of US scientists being religious, atheism still isn't the predominant belief within science. So even the best minds within the US can accept seemingly opposite perspectives without significant conflict.

Clearly people can accept both, but I'm uncertain as to whether such people can actually believe ALL of the bible without having to throw out all the evidence science has to offer. I think it comes down to people only accepting certain pieces of the bible. Surly a dendrochronologist or a geologist won't accept the story of a 6000 year-old Earth, but may still believe Jesus was god... which is ultimately the critical point of christianity. I think the stats in regard to young-Earth creationists among scientists is somewhere around 5%. Considering as the US population is about 70-80% christian (with about 50% of those being young-earth creationists), they make up a remarkably small proportion of the scientific community.

Either way, I still think the bible and science are fundamentally in conflict with one another... but that doesn't mean a person can't conform both their dogmatic beliefs and their scientific understanding to fit with one another. Once evolution became so abundantly clear that the story of genesis could no longer stand, you got the ID movement... people accepting the science behind an old Earth and then stacking 'god did it' on top. Or in accepting evolution, many christians will choose to believe that evolution was still guided through a supreme creator.