Weak/Strong Atheism/Agnosticism

[drkitten]

I did say "rarely" but you're equivocating now. You chose the anaolgy of shelfish because it represented an innocuous personal choice that should be none of my business, you can't turn around now and say it's harmful.

Actually, no. Joobz didn't choose the analogy, I did -- and I explicitly stated that shellfish can be quite harmful. ("Shellfish can be extremely dangerous if not properly handled, and I've seen some cities where the local Board of Heath was, um, insufficiently attentive to licensing and inspection issues.") You don't even need to drag allergies into it; I've seen some reports attributing something like 25,000 deaths per year to contaminateed or improperly handled shellfish. That's something like 100 times the number of deaths from bee stings, which we also recognize as dangerous.

Of course, on a global scale, 25,000 deaths per year are relatively small.

But that's (partly) my point. How many deaths per year can be attributed, for example, to "mainstream" Christianity such as Catholicism or Methodism?

Can you really defend the statement that "filling the minds of small children with images of eternal fiery torment inflicted on them by an allegedly loving god for their petty sins" is more injurious to them than feeding them shellfish?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I didn't initiate the analogy. I was simply pointing out that your statement wasn't true. As for the validity of the analogy, it's completely fair. Religion doesn't need to be inherently damaging as you claim. If a religious person proscribes to a faith that is, then that is another matter. You're equivocating all faiths as harmful.

I certainly didn't start with shellfish analogy, you did. As for me "equivocating all faiths as harmful" I wonder where I did that? I am against harmful religions. It’s not my fault that all religions tend to fit that description. If there actually exists a fact-based religion that is beneficial to its adherents and the rest of the world which encourages, rather than demonizes, doubt and science I’d be more than happy to take a look at it. However, I’m not going to bet money on it arising anytime soon.

So who decides what "complex set of beliefs" a child should be exposed to? How do you decide when this is occuring and what are the ways in which to enact punishments for violations? Will there be a handbook on child indoctrinations? I'm completely against this line of reasoning becuase it has no practical application and violates personal responsible and freedom.

It isn't easy to implement but we should try, and should argue about it all the time. Schools should teach verifiable facts about the universe, not ugly myths about angry gods. Schools should teach history, not political ideologies. I admit it's difficult to seperate the curriculums of, say, Soviet Russia, from a modern American school with a fine and clear line. I'd speculate (and I'm not an expert on the matter) that when you teach children to demonize or reject entire groups of people (Capitalist Pigs) or sets of ideologies (Filthy Liberals), the curriculum has deviated from education into indoctrination.

I agree with you on this. I have no problem with examinations. the question is when do we descide something isn't a person's fault but the fault of what ever his/her fixation is. However, we are continually adding, worst case senarios here what went wrong. What about the times when positive changes occured in a persons life from a specific influence?

I have yet to see any evidence that religion is clearly beneficial in any specific person's case. Yes, a lot of people enjoy religion, but that's a matter of taste. What other people chose to do with their free time is only my business when it impinges on others.

Let's say that the Manson link is real. Do we halt all white album printings? What about the number of people who have enjoyed listening to the music and it helped them relax?

If it's a real link, then reporting on and promoting that fact seems reasonable. Taking away people's right to listen to it isn't. Just because I disagree with something vehemently doesn't mean I'm for using all nescessary means to abolish it. I think football is stupid, and I'll gladly tell you why, but I'm not about pressure my congressman to pass a bill banning it.

Catholic-crusade link is undeniable. But what about people who've worked with the poor, who helped get over drug/alcohol addiction, who use their faith as simply a means to bring comfort to themselves. Does the one outweigh the other?

I see no evidence that one must be Catholic to help needy people. I do see evidence that religious people who try to help needy people often inflict terrible harm with their misguided religious views, such as demonizing birth control, or turning the native nomadic peoples of the Midwest into agrarian communities through coercive means, destroying their cultures.

I'd rather take the situations on a case-by-case basis. When bad things are done, punish those who did them.

Unfortunately, the bad ideas that caused the harm are often given a free pass in society because they're religious, and polite people seem to have an aversion to calling a spade a spade when that spade is a god.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Actually, no. Joobz didn't choose the analogy, I did -- and I explicitly stated that shellfish can be quite harmful. ("Shellfish can be extremely dangerous if not properly handled, and I've seen some cities where the local Board of Heath was, um, insufficiently attentive to licensing and inspection issues.") You don't even need to drag allergies into it; I've seen some reports attributing something like 25,000 deaths per year to contaminateed or improperly handled shellfish. That's something like 100 times the number of deaths from bee stings, which we also recognize as dangerous.

Of course, on a global scale, 25,000 deaths per year are relatively small.

But that's (partly) my point. How many deaths per year can be attributed, for example, to "mainstream" Christianity such as Catholicism or Methodism?

Can you really defend the statement that "filling the minds of small children with images of eternal fiery torment inflicted on them by an allegedly loving god for their petty sins" is more injurious to them than feeding them shellfish?

Oh, I see. Sorry to both. I lost track of who originated that analogy, but I was sure it wasn't me.

Yes, telling children they will burn in hell for all eternity in agonizing unending torment for crimes as petty as coveting a Radio Flyer wagon owned by another child is worse than feeding them shellfish. It's a grotesque form of pyschological torture meant to instill in children an abiding fear that will cow them into falling in line with their religious instruction.

 

[drkitten]

Yes, telling children they will burn in hell for all eternity in agonizing unending torment for crimes as petty as coveting a Radio Flyer wagon owned by another child is worse than feeding them shellfish. It's a grotesque form of pyschological torture meant to instill in children an abiding fear that will cow them into falling in line with their religious instruction.

I'm sorry, I missed the part where "instilling abiding fear" is worse than potentially killing them (or causing permanent injury such as liver dysfunction).

Could you go over that step in a bit more detail, please?

 

[Jekyll]

I think I failed to be clear. I don't have a problem promoting atheism, and I will not turn down a debate with a believer (it's fun! and I usually know more about their religion than they do...). What I find irritating is atheists arguing *for* "strong atheism" (I know, there is an excellent thread here on it), when the concept is theistic at heart (as drkitten has explained so well).

I'm not sure about this. I don't just "not believe in god". I've considered most of the common definitions of god and found many of them to be internally inconsistent, at odds with the universe as it appears, or so woolly and ill defined that having a god appears to be no different from not having a god.

Combining this with a cultural model for where belief in god could come from and I definitely hold a belief that there is not a god. I'm not neutral towards the concept in the way suggested by privatives. My stance would not exist in the absence of theism but is without doubt formed in response to it.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm sorry, I missed the part where "instilling abiding fear" is worse than potentially killing them (or causing permanent injury such as liver dysfunction).

Could you go over that step in a bit more detail, please?

You do realize that it's an irrelevant comparison anyway, don't you? How are you comparing dietary allergies and force feeding to ideological indoctrination? For one thing, the latter's effects are more difficult to quantify.

 

[drkitten]

For one thing, the latter's effects are more difficult to quantify.

... and yet you seemed to have no problem doing so upthread.

if the shellfish analogy was irrelevant, then the point to indicate that was when it was raised, not after you tried to argue against it and got your head handed to you in a sack.

But I also think that the shellfish analogy is quite relevant. I don't have any problem with someone eating shellfish. I don't even have a problem with parents serving shellfish to their children, despite the demonstrable risks involved. And I certainly don't have a problem with someone accepting money for providing shellfish to people (and families) who want shellfish to eat, even if I don't accept that shellfish is worth eating and if I can think of much better ways for those famlies to spend their money.

You seem to feel that anyone who participates in religious services is being "duped and conned out of their fortunes, their liberty, and their reason." This sure sounds to me like you have a way of quantifying and comparing the benefit that people get from their religion, and the harm. You've even suggested that giving religious instruction is "child abuse," which of course is criminal behavior. I'm sure that you wouldn't be making criminal accusations without some way of documenting and quantifying the actual harm done.....

 

[ImaginalDisc]

drkitten,

One is an assault on the body, and the other an assault on the mind. The worst thing that happens when you forcefeed someone something they are allergic to is that they die. The worst thing that happens when you indoctrinate a child is that they kill other people. Millions of people die from veneral diseases all over the world in part because of religious obstruction to safe sex education and concom disemination. That's pretty clearly more harmful than force feeding people shrimp.

 

[drkitten]

drkitten,

One is an assault on the body, and the other an assault on the mind. The worst thing that happens when you forcefeed someone something they are allergic to is that they die. The worst thing that happens when you indoctrinate a child is that they kill other people.

And the relative likelihood of those two outcomes is..... ?

I would argue that the worst case outcome of feeding someone shrimp is not simply that they die. A worse case scenario is that they fail to starve to death and then later in life invent an anti-matter bomb that not only renders this planet lifeless, but also all other planets in the universe as the high-speed wave of radiation expands from the blast site. (I think I saw that outcome on a bad Japanese animation film the other month. The only survivor was a psychic teenage girl with blue hair.)

I'd then also argue that my worst case scenario is so far-fetched that we can probably discount it; there's a reason it was in the bargain bin at the local video shop, and that it was so badly overdubbed. (Gotta love those cheap Australian accents....) Telling me that religion can do something is meaningless unless you can also point to how strong the connection is -- whether or not it's likely that it will.

You're unwilling to do this analysis. Here's a relevant quote:

I see no evidence that one must be Catholic to help needy people. I do see evidence that religious people who try to help needy people often inflict terrible harm with their misguided religious views, ...

There's nothing in this statement (except prejudice) that is contrary to the idea that religion is the single most beneficial social force in the history of humanity. In particular, if Catholics are substantially more likely to help needy people, then the benefit that millions of Catholic social workers have done may well outweigh the benefit that you and Richard Dawkins, alone among millions of selfish and sociopathic atheists have given -- and outweigh the harm as well.

If you're going to say that because "I see no evidence that one must be Catholic to help needy people,." I will respond that there is equally no evidence that one "must be Catholic" to "inflict terrible harm with their misguided [...] views." Atheists can hurt people, too.

If you're going to suggest that "I do see evidence that religious people who try to help needy people often inflict terrible harm," then I can equally point out that there's just as much evidence that irreligous people often do, too. (Lenin is/was a classic example.)

In either case, the question is not whether the harm exists, but whether the benefit balances or exceeds the harm.

You're not addressing that question. You're unwilling to address that question.

 

[joobz]

It isn't easy to implement but we should try, and should argue about it all the time. Schools should teach verifiable facts about the universe, not ugly myths about angry gods. Schools should teach history, not political ideologies. I admit it's difficult to seperate the curriculums of, say, Soviet Russia, from a modern American school with a fine and clear line. I'd speculate (and I'm not an expert on the matter) that when you teach children to demonize or reject entire groups of people (Capitalist Pigs) or sets of ideologies (Filthy Liberals), the curriculum has deviated from education into indoctrination.

Is everything taught in school verifiable fact? Are literature courses and philosphy courses deemed verifiable? And what do we teach children if we tell them that everything they are learning is unquestionable since it is verifiable fact?

In any event, you are now talking about school education. I'm talking about parental teaching their children, which is a seperate issue. How can you state which teachings are harmful and those that aren't? To tell the child about the tooth fairy, would that be considered harmful? How do you police what goes on in the home?

I have yet to see any evidence that religion is clearly beneficial in any specific person's case. Yes, a lot of people enjoy religion, but that's a matter of taste. What other people chose to do with their free time is only my business when it impinges on others.

If someone enjoys something, is that not a benefit?

If it's a real link, then reporting on and promoting that fact seems reasonable. Taking away people's right to listen to it isn't. Just because I disagree with something vehemently doesn't mean I'm for using all nescessary means to abolish it. I think football is stupid, and I'll gladly tell you why, but I'm not about pressure my congressman to pass a bill banning it.

I agree.

I see no evidence that one must be Catholic to help needy people.

Your selecting your dataset here. Doing good isn't the exclusive domain of catholics. One doesn't NEED to be catholic to help the needy, but some people are driven to do so because of their catholic faith. And it brings them comfort to do so as well.

I do see evidence that religious people who try to help needy people often inflict terrible harm with their misguided religious views, such as demonizing birth control, or turning the native nomadic peoples of the Midwest into agrarian communities through coercive means, destroying their cultures.

But I see no evidence that one NEEDs to be religious to commit those atrocities.

Unfortunately, the bad ideas that caused the harm are often given a free pass in society because they're religious, and polite people seem to have an aversion to calling a spade a spade when that spade is a god.

this may be the case in some settings. But that is a political issue and why I agree with the seperation of church and state.

 

[joobz]

If you're going to say that because "I see no evidence that one must be Catholic to help needy people,." I will respond that there is equally no evidence that one "must be Catholic" to "inflict terrible harm with their misguided [...] views." Atheists can hurt people, too.

Ahh, poop. You beat me to that point.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I shall not rush to ID's defense, but more sort of mosey towards it.

The failure, as I see it, of the shellfish analogy is in the fact that most parents do not believe it is morally necessary for a child to like shellfish. Many parents would probably abstain from giving shellfish again to a child who said they thought it tasted like ass. For many, however, religion is something that must be believed, and if the child doesn't, it must be remedied.

Were it a regular practice to try to force children to grow up to be lifelong lovers of shellfish, I'd find it far worse.

If, on the other hand, parents more often treated their religion like shellfish--offering it to a child and letting them make up their own mind about whether it was their gig--I'd find it far better.

 

[joobz]

I shall not rush to ID's defense, but more sort of mosey towards it.

The failure, as I see it, of the shellfish analogy is in the fact that most parents do not believe it is morally necessary for a child to like shellfish. Many parents would probably abstain from giving shellfish again to a child who said they thought it tasted like ass. For many, however, religion is something that must be believed, and if the child doesn't, it must be remedied.

Were it a regular practice to try to force children to grow up to be lifelong lovers of shellfish, I'd find it far worse.

If, on the other hand, parents more often treated their religion like shellfish--offering it to a child and letting them make up their own mind about whether it was their gig--I'd find it far better.

You don't know my parents.
I hate mushrooms. Not the flavor, but the texture.
And regardless of that fact, they would cook with them.
It wasn't that they were evil about it, but genuinely didn't understand how I could not like them. It was their belief that I'd grow to like them.

Nope.

 

[The Atheist]

Actually, no. Joobz didn't choose the analogy, I did -- and I explicitly stated that shellfish can be quite harmful. ("Shellfish can be extremely dangerous if not properly handled, and I've seen some cities where the local Board of Heath was, um, insufficiently attentive to licensing and inspection issues.") You don't even need to drag allergies into it; I've seen some reports attributing something like 25,000 deaths per year to contaminateed or improperly handled shellfish. That's something like 100 times the number of deaths from bee stings, which we also recognize as dangerous.

Of course, on a global scale, 25,000 deaths per year are relatively small.

But that's (partly) my point. How many deaths per year can be attributed, for example, to "mainstream" Christianity such as Catholicism or Methodism?

Can you really defend the statement that "filling the minds of small children with images of eternal fiery torment inflicted on them by an allegedly loving god for their petty sins" is more injurious to them than feeding them shellfish?

I fail to see why you think this is a good analogy.

If you're going down this absurd path, then I'm going to lay all of the deaths in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon at the Abrahamic god's door. Many of those who have died in those countries have neither eaten of shellfish or killed in the name of their god. Religion kills and is no respecter of whether the dead are believers or unbelievers.

A huge number of the people who die from shellfish poisoning do so because they are unable to get medical treatment, have insufficient access to clean water and have probably eaten unsafe items due to malnutrition/hunger.

Utter baloney. Sorry, but if that's your best shot, I suggest swapping the "philosopher" for "BS Artist"

Next....

 

[Checkmite]

drkitten,

One is an assault on the body, and the other an assault on the mind. The worst thing that happens when you forcefeed someone something they are allergic to is that they die. The worst thing that happens when you indoctrinate a child is that they kill other people. Millions of people die from veneral diseases all over the world in part because of religious obstruction to safe sex education and concom disemination. That's pretty clearly more harmful than force feeding people shrimp.

The same religion which obstructs safe-sex education and condom dissemination also commands abstinence. I think it's a bit of a stretch to insist that these people are dying because of their 'strict obedience' to their religion, when in fact they aren't obeying their religion at all. I think the real truth of the matter is, people are going to have sex whether or not their religion tells them not to, AND whether or not condoms are available.

 

[Mercutio]

I'm not sure about this. I don't just "not believe in god". I've considered most of the common definitions of god and found many of them to be internally inconsistent, at odds with the universe as it appears, or so woolly and ill defined that having a god appears to be no different from not having a god.

Combining this with a cultural model for where belief in god could come from and I definitely hold a belief that there is not a god. I'm not neutral towards the concept in the way suggested by privatives. My stance would not exist in the absence of theism but is without doubt formed in response to it.

The blue bit, if I understand drkitten properly, is more or less the definition of a privative. For any number of gods, you have looked at the evidence and said "absolutely not!" But each of those decisions is framed by the theist's definition of that god. You are not rejecting entities you have yourself invented. Your stance requires theirs.

Your red bit is, I would argue, more of a personal thing. For me, the "I see no evidence to convince me of a god" which might sound "neutral" to you, is the same "no" as yours. I am simply accustomed to thinking of null hypotheses, burdens of proof, and the like. I cannot conceive of someone who has less belief in a god than I do, and yet I cannot conceive of that as being an extreme position. It is just zero on the scale(s)...frankly, it is a "hey, it's your scale, why do you insist on measuring me?" I don't care about their scale. On a scale of 1-10, how blue is the concept of time? Which is greater, three or cement? Sorry, I am not going to rate myself "EXTREME ZERO!!!!" just because 1-10 don't apply. Let theists use their scale. I have better things to do.

 

[Dogdoctor]

What this all sounds like is people saying they have the same degree of certainty that there is no god as a religious fundamentalist has that there is a god.

 

[The Atheist]

Sorry, I am not going to rate myself "EXTREME ZERO!!!!" just because 1-10 don't apply. Let theists use their scale. I have better things to do.

That's a good approach.

I don't really mind what degree of atheism people choose, or if indeed there is a difference, it only becomes an issue when they berate me for my kind.

 

[Dogdoctor]

I guess I have no problems with people holding strong beliefs about religion or lack there of but have problems with people who are divisive about their beliefs. The way I see things is that we must cohabitate the same planet with lots of different types of people. Those who wish to exclude others based on their religious beliefs or lack of only slow down progress. There are more important issues to be concerned with.

 

[The Atheist]

...snip... There are more important issues to be concerned with.

Couldn't agree more, but do you think the churches which actually do charity work mightn't be a whole lot more effective if they didn't kneel around saying how cool their god-bloke was?