Atheists who don't hate religion

[Leumas]

Just teach religions in history class the same way politics is taught.

Your post might be too much reading for a person busy writing pages on how unfairly religions are treated by the nasty atheists and thus is left with too little time to read why that is not the case.

 

[JaysonR]

Seriously though, I think that completely for different reasons.
It is tragic that we do not teach how different humans over diverse conditions have expressed their relationships with existence.
We readily include how humans have perceived, how humans have governed, how humans have invented, fought, built, bought, eaten, practiced medicine, provisioned, died, torchured, saved and how humans have dressed.

However, how humans expressed their relationship to existence is somehow taboo.
Yes. We can surely learn of great horrors and see images of Nazi crimes in history class, but dare mention how the Egyptian religions expressed the way the culture understood their relation to existence and we are invading some region not permitted.

I think that is sad.

 

[Leumas]

Seriously though, I think that completely for different reasons.
It is tragic that we do not teach how different humans over diverse conditions have expressed their relationships with existence.
We readily include how humans have perceived, how humans have governed, how humans have invented, fought, built, bought, eaten, practiced medicine, provisioned, died, torchured, saved and how humans have dressed.

However, how humans expressed their relationship to existence is somehow taboo.
Yes. We can surely learn of great horrors and see images of Nazi crimes in history class, but dare mention how the Egyptian religions expressed the way the culture understood their relation to existence and we are invading some region not permitted.

I think that is sad.

Exactly!!!

Good education of the "right things" might lead to too many sheep thinking too much…. I doubt that is something that will ever be favorable with the shepherds or the wolves.

 

[David Mo]

Yes it can, and I plea to folks to continue to struggle for that end in spite of all of what I wrote.
This is because without the struggle, there is a lack of counter-balance to at least keep things from spiraling entirely out of control.

(...)

History does indeed show us this; and then it shows it slip right out and lose its hold.

As such, we cannot remove the problem entirely from the species, but we can hope to temporarily make small progress by continuing to struggle.

Predictions for long time are speculative. We can hardly foresee some specific results for specific problems. History shows how some human behaviours and beliefs have vanished with the time. Some of them have disappeared under pressure of human actions, others by non intentional forces (economics, cultural or others). But we cannot predict the future of wide cultural tendencies.

On the other side, the human nature is a very vague concept. We have no other way to assert something about the human nature that checking out some human tendencies in History. But History is scarcely predictive.

Finally, the human brain remains a great unknown. We know only a bit about the possibility of change or modification of the brain functions and what of them are unchangeable variants. It seemed in the nineties that the neurosciences were able to quickly discover all the secrets of the brain functioning but now the expectations are significantly lower. There is a long way till deducing the human nature from the knowledge of the brain functions.

This is what the most important thing is that we atheist or agnostics have to agree in what are the useful means to empower our social presence and to protect our rights in societies that are predominantly religious (at least officially). It would be a mistake to try to adjust our strategy in view of an evanescent ghost as the human nature.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...

This is what the most important thing is that we atheist or agnostics have to agree in what are the useful means to empower our social presence and to protect our rights in societies that are predominantly religious (at least officially). It would be a mistake to try to adjust our strategy in view of an evanescent ghost as the human nature.

Well, my rights are always in practice a balancing acting versus other people's rights and I don't want to my rights to be dependent on that I am special; i.e. I am an atheist.
Human rights in a secular democracy is in effect a collective social construct, where no single individual or group have special rights, i.e. there are no religious rights, but nor are there any atheistic rights.
So how do we balance the individual's right to be religious with the collective idea that there are no special rights and rather all rights are universal?

 

[quadraginta]

Well, my rights are always in practice a balancing acting versus other people's rights and I don't want to my rights to be dependent on that I am special; i.e. I am an atheist.Human rights in a secular democracy is in effect a collective social construct, where no single individual or group have special rights, i.e. there are no religious rights, but nor are there any atheistic rights.
So how do we balance the individual's right to be religious with the collective idea that there are no special rights and rather all rights are universal?

Why should lack of belief in a deity be a "special right"?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why should lack of belief in a deity be a "special right"?

I read that as "I don't want to be classified as a special interest group based on my lack of belief."

 

[Mister Agenda]

Well that's great.

Now what are the secular reasons for:

1. Opposing gay marriage
2. Opposing choice in abortion
3. Opposing contraception
4. Genital mutilation
5. Opposing science education
6. Limiting the rights of women

.... let's start with those.

There are denominations with outstanding records in those areas. The Friends and the UCC come to mind, and Unitarian Universalists (if you count it as a religion). I don't see why I should oppose people who are on my side on every social issue. I saw an example of this recently on Patheos where a Christian appealed to his fellow Christians to accept gays, and became a topic on a blog about why he was wrong to be a Christian. It's kind of a given that atheists and Christians aren't going to agree about that, but it's concerning to me when we go after people doing good things (the author had a misimpression that the 'bad' Christians are a tiny minority that certainly needed someone to address it, but otherwise, we want MORE Christians like that, don't we?).

 

[Mister Agenda]

In that not ideologies promoting hatred and fear of other people. I'd be less concerned if liberalism gets to power, than if the neonazis get to power, for example.

So, yes, it's just another ideology. But no, not all ideologies are created equal.

Neither are all religions. Jains and Quakers come to mind as outliers. Are they to be painted with the same brush despite how far they are from the sorts of ideologies that come to mind when we think 'abuse of power'?

 

[pgwenthold]

There are denominations with outstanding records in those areas. The Friends and the UCC come to mind, and Unitarian Universalists .

Yes, if you can find them. However, I'm sure there is also an ELCA (Lutheran) church near you. Not a single one of these things is a problem for that denomination, either.

Human rights, fighting oppression and helping the less fortunate are what are important to them (I've even heard a sermon refer to viewing things "...from our position of privilege")

 

[Mister Agenda]

Ah, yes, the ordinary Joes who routinely tell me I'm going to spend eternity in agonizing pain? The ones who suggest that they'd help me "find out real quick that you're wrong about God"?

No, wait, those aren't stereotypes, they're my relatives. Sorry, my bad.

If you have a problem with religious people in general because your relgious relatives are douches, that would be classic stereotyping.

My relatives are Pentecostals, so I feel your pain, but I don't have a mad on for the Episcopelians because the UPC folks are so crazy I have trouble seeing how they can function in society.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I read that as "I don't want to be classified as a special interest group based on my lack of belief."

+1 Spot on

 

[Mister Agenda]

We had a drug czar back in the day who had a problem with moderate cannabis users. He said the people who smoke it in moderation and have normal, successful lives are a serious problem. He said they enable the stoners whose lives are going nowhere to think it's okay to toke. So it's really the fault of the 90% who toke responsible that the other 10% have problems.

It doesn't sound that unreasonable, but I'd like hard evidence that it's really the case. And that's how I feel about the claim that 'good religionists' enable 'bad religionists'. It's an inuitive claim, but where's the evidence?

Here's an alternate scenario: people sort themselves out in the long run into the religion or philosophy that best suits them based on their background, experiences, and temprament. By focusing our efforts against the most pernicious religions and ideologies, and our efforts for education on evaluating truth claims sensibly, we have the best chance of shifting the population away from dogmatism into non-dogmatic religions (the UCC doesn't even have a creed you have to say you believe) and philosophies. A shift fundamentslism into liberal religions could be a step towards shifting out of faith-based ideology entirely.

Or not. But my experience is that not distinguishing the very wrong from the less wrong isn't helpful in shaping the attitudes of a group. I focus on holding the worst 10% accountable and making sure the best 10% are rewarded, and the 80% in between generally behave based on what they see happening to the worst and the best.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If you have a problem with religious people in general because your relgious relatives are douches, that would be classic stereotyping.

Well, your strawman's on fire there.

My relatives are Pentecostals, so I feel your pain, but I don't have a mad on for the Episcopelians because the UPC folks are so crazy I have trouble seeing how they can function in society.

If they tolerate the crazy they're part of the problem.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

There are denominations with outstanding records in those areas. The Friends and the UCC come to mind, and Unitarian Universalists (if you count it as a religion). I don't see why I should oppose people who are on my side on every social issue. I saw an example of this recently on Patheos where a Christian appealed to his fellow Christians to accept gays, and became a topic on a blog about why he was wrong to be a Christian. It's kind of a given that atheists and Christians aren't going to agree about that, but it's concerning to me when we go after people doing good things (the author had a misimpression that the 'bad' Christians are a tiny minority that certainly needed someone to address it, but otherwise, we want MORE Christians like that, don't we?).

That wasn;t really my point though...my point was that it takes some belief in some 'other' and a supporting infrastructure to promote these beliefs and arguments and to have them enacted into law.

Yes some religions don't share some unpleasant beliefs with some other religions

As for Christians who don't share the beliefs of other Christians... fine, but where is the rationale behind it? If its one interpretation vs another then how do you decide? if its secular rational reasoning vs biblical interpretation then please stop pretending its 'one religious view vs another'

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

We had a drug czar back in the day who had a problem with moderate cannabis users. He said the people who smoke it in moderation and have normal, successful lives are a serious problem. He said they enable the stoners whose lives are going nowhere to think it's okay to toke. So it's really the fault of the 90% who toke responsible that the other 10% have problems.

It doesn't sound that unreasonable, but I'd like hard evidence that it's really the case. And that's how I feel about the claim that 'good religionists' enable 'bad religionists'. It's an inuitive claim, but where's the evidence?

Here's an alternate scenario: people sort themselves out in the long run into the religion or philosophy that best suits them based on their background, experiences, and temprament. By focusing our efforts against the most pernicious religions and ideologies, and our efforts for education on evaluating truth claims sensibly, we have the best chance of shifting the population away from dogmatism into non-dogmatic religions (the UCC doesn't even have a creed you have to say you believe) and philosophies. A shift fundamentslism into liberal religions could be a step towards shifting out of faith-based ideology entirely.

Or not. But my experience is that not distinguishing the very wrong from the less wrong isn't helpful in shaping the attitudes of a group. I focus on holding the worst 10% accountable and making sure the best 10% are rewarded, and the 80% in between generally behave based on what they see happening to the worst and the best.

I think there is a difference in there though and I'll try my best to work through it.

First off, whether smoking cannabis causes harm is an objective claim and we can investigate it. If smoking X amount causes no harm and smoking Y amount makes you disfunctional then we can (at least in theory) determine that.

Is religion the same? Does believing X irrational things but not Y cause no problems? How do we then determine X from Y I don't think its as simple as 'amount'. Or is it about methodology? Do we teach that the Bible is a source of truth but it depends how you interpret it? who then decides what is the right interpretation?

For me this is the problem about religion...it's not a question of how much..its a question of basic approach. If you say that the Bible has truth in it then one interpretation has as much credibility as another. If you insist that ancient books don't yield truth there is no problem.

To stretch your drug analogy its like saying 'Drugs are OK' because you don't have a problem with cannabis use....but that also means Heroin, crack and everything else are OK too.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Your post might be too much reading for a person busy writing pages on how unfairly religions are treated by the nasty atheists and thus is left with too little time to read why that is not the case.

I politely requested that you be more concise. Your post was highly repetitive, prejudiced, and made a lot of generalizations. Then you offhandedly dismissed my response.

We're probably never going to see eye-to-eye on this. We've each gone through very different experiences with the role religion and religious people have played in our lives. We clearly differ in our priorities, and our ideas on what should be done about the problems with religion. So I'm going to say, agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

There are denominations with outstanding records in those areas. The Friends and the UCC come to mind, and Unitarian Universalists (if you count it as a religion). I don't see why I should oppose people who are on my side on every social issue. I saw an example of this recently on Patheos where a Christian appealed to his fellow Christians to accept gays, and became a topic on a blog about why he was wrong to be a Christian. It's kind of a given that atheists and Christians aren't going to agree about that, but it's concerning to me when we go after people doing good things (the author had a misimpression that the 'bad' Christians are a tiny minority that certainly needed someone to address it, but otherwise, we want MORE Christians like that, don't we?).

Yes, that's one of the points I was trying to make.

Neither are all religions. Jains and Quakers come to mind as outliers. Are they to be painted with the same brush despite how far they are from the sorts of ideologies that come to mind when we think 'abuse of power'?

I would say no. Even Sam Harris uses the Jains as an example of a religion he feels has done some things right.

It doesn't sound that unreasonable, but I'd like hard evidence that it's really the case. And that's how I feel about the claim that 'good religionists' enable 'bad religionists'. It's an inuitive claim, but where's the evidence?

Based on everything I've read and the people I've spoken to, the bad religionists are just as much of a problem for good religionists as they are for atheists and skeptics.

Here's an alternate scenario: people sort themselves out in the long run into the religion or philosophy that best suits them based on their background, experiences, and temprament. By focusing our efforts against the most pernicious religions and ideologies, and our efforts for education on evaluating truth claims sensibly, we have the best chance of shifting the population away from dogmatism into non-dogmatic religions (the UCC doesn't even have a creed you have to say you believe) and philosophies. A shift fundamentslism into liberal religions could be a step towards shifting out of faith-based ideology entirely.

Which is why I said, one has to pick one's battles.

 

[JaysonR]

David Mo,

I have thought about how to show the perspective more articulately, and this is the best I can think of, so permit me some patience if you will.

Also, note that I am not trying to be coy, but earnest.

What would people report happening if we covertly and simultaneously electrocuted the global population's TPJ with 3 to 5 volts for roughly 3 seconds?

 

[David Mo]

Well, my rights are always in practice a balancing acting versus other people's rights and I don't want to my rights to be dependent on that I am special; i.e. I am an atheist.
Human rights in a secular democracy is in effect a collective social construct, where no single individual or group have special rights, i.e. there are no religious rights, but nor are there any atheistic rights.
So how do we balance the individual's right to be religious with the collective idea that there are no special rights and rather all rights are universal?

Atheists have the same rights as any minority. They are not rights against rights but rights against power abuses. This is very easy to see in the countries where the religion is official or dominant. But it is also a problem in more “liberal” countries, because the religions frequently have totalitarian inclinations and the rule of the majority often prevails over the minority rights.