Religious moderates cause religious extremists

[Tricky]

Re: Re: Religious moderates cause religious extremists

I consider myself a reasonably skeptical (and reasonably rational) person. I'd like to point out that I am a skeptic because of my religious beliefs and religious upbringing. Not despite -- because.
Could I have turned out a skeptic without being religious? Certainly. I am by no means saying religion is the only route to healthy skepticism, simply that it is a route.

That's very interesting. What about religion turned you to skepticism? I became a skeptic even with religious upbringing, but I like to think I would have gotten here without religion. I think religion just provides a fertile field of things to be skeptical about, but there are plenty of others.

But let's lay that aside for another time, and get to your main point. You seem to be arguing that (a) god doesn't exist, so (b) belief in god is irrational and thus (c) leads to, causes, or supports other irrational beliefs and actions (such as the beliefs and actions of religious extremists) . I don't agree that belief in god is irrational, but let's suppose for the moment it is. I contend that, even if belief in god is irrational, the existence of religious moderates and liberals is desirable and beneficial to the cause of rationality.

Just for the record, I'm only pondering it. I was intersted by the talks and wanted to throw the question open to the forum.

But yes, I believe that all the definitions of God that I have heard so far are irrational. They all require faith. To me, belief without evidence is irrational. I do not deny that I am also irrational about some things.

And I agree that the presence of moderates and liberals make religious people more interesting and approachable, but it doesn't make their religious beliefs more rational, just less hostile, which I agree is a GOOD thing.

Why? Because I believe that a diverse population, with many bridges between groups, is more conducive to reasoned discussion (and the eventual triumph of rationality) than a sharply polarized population.

I am not suggesting that we would be better off if we all believed the same things. We would all have different moral and political beliefs, regardless of the source of those beliefs. After all, most of the world's population is sharply polarized to dislike murder. Does that make them irrational?

Let's suppose (a) you're right that belief in god is irrational, and (b) you manage to convince a large number of religious liberals of that, and convert them to atheism (or agnosticism). You have now created a much more polarized situation, one in which I think you will find it harder rather than easier to resolve differences with those on "the other side".

I don't believe that is true. In fact, it is the early indoctrination into religion that causes the US (and some other places) to be so strongly polarized towards religion. Would early indoctrination towards skepticism make them more unapproachable? Many countries (like England and some Scandanavian countries) do not have as much indoctrination towards religion. I do not observe that their populations are more polarized in their beliefs than in the US.

Taking just one issue, prayer in schools, I think an opposition coalition made up of atheists and of religious liberals is much stronger than one of equivalent size made up solely of atheists. (Religious conservatives would probably prefer to face the latter type of opposition. It would make it easier for them to believe, and to convince others, that it is only "godless atheists" who oppose prayer in school and other coerced religious activity.)

That is only true because of the demonization of atheists. If they were more numerous, I believe they would not be so ostracized. So it makes more sense for the goals of skepticism to "convert" more people to skepticism.

If it is only atheists who oppose such activity (which would be the effect of your converting religious moderates and liberals to atheism), then it is easier for religious conservatives to dismiss the opposition as these people don't believe in god so they want to deny everyone else the right to worship god. They would be incorrect in ascribing that motive to atheists -- but without common ground to be able to communicate with each other, they are not likely to get to know atheists well enough to learn and accept that they have misread your motivation.

I still disagree. It is easy for religious conservatives to dismiss the opposition only because the opposition is so small. If they were worried about offending large segments of the population by insulting atheists, they wouldn't do so for fear of the backlash. As it stands in the US, there is only a very tiny backlash when religious conservatives slander atheists. Why don't religious moderates speak out in anger more often when this tactic is used? A few (like yourself) do, but it is almost inaudible against the white noise of religious conservatism. Read that link to my family argument and you will realize that we are inundated with religious spam. Where is the skeptical spam?

You might be interested to learn that after I had this "family argument in which I included a large number of people, I got a lot of very positive reaction from family members who were skeptical or atheist, but kept it secret. They still didn't "out themselves" to the family (I wonder why?) but they did to me. It was very rewarding to know that I had touched some people. Of course, I pissed off quite a few too. That's the chance you take in America if you go against the stream.

The existence of people like me who are sincerely religious, but who do not think coerced prayer is godly, is not necessarily a harder problem for them to deal with than atheistic opposition, but it is an additional problem. I think the more diverse the opposition is to anything, the harder it becomes to dismiss that opposition.

It is exactly people like you that I want to reach. That is the point of the topic. You are not dismissive of atheism, but you do not accept it. You can be convinced by good arguments. Were that there were more like you. Frankly, I'm just as embarrassed by annoying skeptics as you probably are by fundamentalists. But how can we get more people into the middle ground if we don't open up the discussion in the middle ground. We cannot reach thoughtful people like yourself if we take a hands-off attitude towards the irrational beliefs of "nice people".

Another advantage to diversity is that it is harder to characterize the opposition as a monolithic enemy (and to hate that enemy uniformly). In feeling themselves in opposition to godless atheists, they may then feel a certain kinship with us godful non-atheists (who at least have belief in god in common) and thus be able to listen to what we are saying better and perhaps begin to get a glimmer of what we are trying to communicate. (Or, conversely, in feeling themselves in opposition to us false religionists, they may come to feel more able to talk with you atheists, who are merely lacking correct belief rather than holding false ones, and thus their antagonism to us may help them be less antagonistic to you.)

Again, I attribute this to the religious indoctrination by the religious people in this country. Some people are able to overcome the indoctrination completely, some only partially. Wouldn't you agree that the default position for a person totally unexposed to religion would be atheism (and here by atheism I mean not accepting a god, even if it means not even thinking much about it, i.e. "not theism".)

I realize that my beliefs are counter to history and to culture, so that makes them somewhat rare in the marketplace of beliefs, but I don't believe that is becuse there is something inherently wrong with them. On the contrary. Atheists like myself (and apparently a few of my relatives) pop up even in strongly Christian families. We don't have any Muslims or Buddhists popping up, at least not to my knowledge.

In other words, it doesn't bother me at all to live in world where there are people who see things differently than I do. In fact, I rather like it and think it is desirable (even though, of course, I am right and they are wrong ). I would much rather have a world in which it was encouraged for there to be many different perspectives, many different ways of looking at the same thing, than a world where there was pressure for everyone to hold the same right view.

As I have said, I think diversity would exist even without competing religious beliefs. (I have plenty of political arguments in which God is never mentioned.) Heck, we'd probably still have wars and all that stuff too. We just wouldn't be able to use God as an excuse. We'd have to stick to "Truth, Justice, and the American Way".

 

[Tricky]

I agree with this statement. Christian groups (I can't speak for other faith groups) have a tendency to stay within their own church realms and so their resulting views are quite narrow and then some (but not all) turn into @$$h0les. One of the best things that ever happened to me was meeting a dear person a few years ago who gave me Bentley (the other whippet). She and I hit it off right away and she "shared" her atheism with me. For me it was a revelation (no pun intended) that there were many who just did "get" Christianity. After that I knew I could just relax and let people come to their own conclusions without me mucking things up.

See what I mean?! If more "nice Christians" had contact with "nice atheists", there would be a lot more understanding. This is my whole point about maybe trying harder not to keep silent about our beliefs.

I think Penn may be entrenched in his ideas of atheism to the max. I don't know him so I don't know about that, really.

I'm not sure that this is not just part of Penn's act. Even before I knew he was an atheist, I realized that his "character" was rude and outspoken. But yes, I agree he can be off-putting for some. So can Randi, a characteristic about which I have criticized him in the past.

I guess this is why I'm conflicted about this. I realize that extremists are necessary in order to move the "middle ground". Wasn't Martin Luther King and extremist at the time? Look where the middle ground on racism has moved to (and many people at the time considered him an @$$hole). But I personally don't want to be considered an @$$hole, so I grapple with how much and how loudly I should state my beliefs.

There's nothing like a couple of skepchick pics to derail a thread!

You're just jealous because I haven't posted any sexy pictures of you. Well, I never saw you in fishnet hose, so this will have to do.

(For the record, MLynn is a gorgeous and wonderful person. The picture is not flattering, but I'd shave my head for her too!)

 

[IllegalArgument]

There's nothing like a couple of skepchick pics to derail a thread!

Quote by Tricky:
"I agree with you. That is why I am grappling with how to present my views in a non-extremist way. It is my observation that few American Christians have much experience with avowed atheists, so they all get lumped with the extremists. Obviously, many Christians who have visited these boards have discovered that atheists, like theists, come in all flavors."

I agree with this statement. Christian groups (I can't speak for other faith groups) have a tendency to stay within their own church realms and so their resulting views are quite narrow and then some (but not all) turn into @$$h0les. One of the best things that ever happened to me was meeting a dear person a few years ago who gave me Bentley (the other whippet). She and I hit it off right away and she "shared" her atheism with me. For me it was a revelation (no pun intended) that there were many who just did "get" Christianity. After that I knew I could just relax and let people come to their own conclusions without me mucking things up.

I think Penn may be entrenched in his ideas of atheism to the max. I don't know him so I don't know about that, really.

Great comment MLynn, my point is that a non-religous frame of mind does not preclude a extremist mentality.

It's like saying moderate democrats cause left wing terrorist groups.

People who are absolutely convinced they are right, who disregard any contrary evidence, who demonize the opposition. Now, those kind of people scare me.

I would like to see what would happen Penn got into a discussion with someone who understood to weakness of the libertarian policies. Would Penn shortly start calling the man a "socialist" like to did, I believe it was a enivormentist that appeared on B!llsh!t. Penn screamed out during the Q&A that this person was "socialist-blah-blah-blah", I can't remember exactly what Penn said but it wasn't nice, maybe the man is off his rocker, but the conviction with which of Penn said it was off-puting.

 

[duppyraces]

See what I mean?! If more "nice Christians" had contact with "nice atheists", there would be a lot more understanding. This is my whole point about maybe trying harder not to keep silent about our beliefs.

First off, I would like to personally apologize to US for causing the momentary derailing this thread. I am guilty of exactly the sort of thing he has spoken of in the past, but I was feeling a little....devilish yesterday. Ah, it was there. Anyway, back to serious things.

Tricky, your comment hits the nail on the head. It's simple, but true.

 

[Tricky]

Tricky, your comment hits the nail on the head. It's simple, but true.

Thank you Duppy. I wonder though if it is too simple. Sure, everybody likes "nice atheists" and "nice theists", but really, those aren't the ones who set the agenda. They are the ones who live in the sanitized middle ground where everyone is nice and nobody hates anybody, but it is the extremists who determine where those middle grounds are.

Madeline Murray O'Hare was possibly the most hated person of the late twentieth century because of her radical atheism. She was almost certainly murdered for her views. I cringed to see her rants, even as I agreed with the substance of them. But she made "moderate" atheists come out of the woodwork and say things that would it would not have been possible to say before she broke that ground.

I grew up in the 1960's in Alabama, and even though I was far more liberal than my contemporaries (not much of a feat), I thought Martin Luther King was a wild-eyed radical who was going too far and alienating too many people. He was an extremist who could only draw negative attention to a cause I believe in, I thought. I was wrong. He changed the world.

So are Penn Jillette and James Randi like that? Are they lightning rods that take the heat while everyone else safely watches? Do we need more lightning rods? Should I be one?

I guess we need both. We need the Penns and the Randis to draw attention, then we need the Duppys and the Trickys to show that Penn and Randi are extremists, but lots of atheists aren't. Who would listen to us though without those lightning rods? And who among us has the strength to stand up tall against the storm and face the lightning?

 

[Fun2BFree]

Well I have another thread going that is an offshoot of this topic and references Sam Harris as well -that thread is about attending other people's religious ceremonies....and GM took the same view expressed here that intolerance of religious ideas is the same as all intolerance....and I don't think any rational person can make that argument....we do not tolerate racism, or sexism or bigotry because we find that tolerating them is to tacitly approve of them and the consequences of those things is damaging to other human beings....so the question is whether or not religious thinking--respect for the whole idea of faith is damaging, neutral or positive for other human beings...people get comfort from faith so clearly there is good there...people are motivated to do good things...so that is good....but some are also motivated to do bad things...the argument from Harris and Jillette and Dawkins is a logically consistent one....the problem is not extreme irrationality --it is the tolerarnce and tacit approval of irrationality period....it is the lack of rationality---all faith is by definition IRRATIONAL....if you have some other definition for faith that is not irrational then we need to come up with a different word for this discussion....we are not talking about the same thing--this discussion is about faith the accepting something as true without evidence, because it rattles inside your head nicely, because it is what your parents or most of the people you know believe.. or because it is traditional...those are not reasons to accept religion or communism or atheism....

---so is the pleasant acceptance of such irrationality in anyway making the world a worse place than it could be?

In the 60's there were those who argued for the go slow approaches of Booker T...and those Malcolm X types who wanted to confront... I have yet to hear Dawkins or Jillette or Harris argue anything at all about using the force of government to bring about the change they desire....what they are asking is whether or not people of reason should be intolerant of irrationality in all its forms-overtly harmful like racism or just plain silly like woo-woo, superstitions, or something that fall between those two---RELIGION....it is not wholly harmful, nor is it innocously silly....if people want to knock on wood and throw salt over their shoulder should we care? If someone tells a racist joke or makes a racial slur should we object? If our circle of friends ask us to embrace and celebrate with them their irrational traditional ceremonies of supernatural worship should we happily clap and sing with them? Would it make the world any better if we did things differently? If irrationality were treated (SOCIALLY not politically)now the same as racism was in the 60's and 70's would we be better off? Would it make it worse? I don't think we know.

There is a very unfair and unfortunate assumption about religious belief that is that it "could not hurt anyone," That it is at worst a neutral thing....hence you get the religious types puzzled that anyone would be offended by forcing God into the pledge or making their kids hear a prayer at graduation....how does one fight for true freedom...freedom to be irrational or not-when the playing field is not even...when irrationality gets a free pass---the rules of social intercourse from the outset say that religious ideas are off limits? YOu are not allowed to challenge the irrationality of them as that offends people's deeply held beliefs....such a position clearly sows the field for any irrational belief-socialism, racism, totalitarianism, theism..

if you start by saying that it is okay to derive truth from your own internal faith-then you are defining truth in a subjective way, not subject to reason.

THE REASONED RESPONSE IS NOT THAT FAITH IS OKAY--it clearly is not okay---faith--the unsubstantiated in belief in the truth of one's owns beliefs is the root of any number of undesirable consequenes....the reasoned response is HOW can we have more reason in the world? As Randi has shown -challenging people's irrrational beliefs rarely makes them surrender them...they dig in their heels...they have a NEED to believe....But the world is most certainly more full of reason now than say 1000 years ago...how did this happen? and how can it become more full of reason....Dawkins and Jillette propose a battle head on---evidence suggests this may be a losing strategy...what about an indirect approach...a withdrawl from support, not a confrontation....I for one give no money to any religous charity, attend no religous services, support no religious causes...in my own house there is no respect for religion,....I confess- I do indeed have contempt for it....not for the people who continue to support it but for RELIGION itself...but i don't go around on sunday yelling at people going into church that they are fools. The only time I challenge someone's faith is when they disrespect my lack of it. When they imply that theirs is the true and correct position and mine is wrong. Those who just dismiss Jillette and Dawkins out of hand have done so in a knee jerk reaction borne of social reinforcement and indoctrination---quick dismissals cannot by their nature be truly reasoned.

 

[Nova Land]

Re: Re: Re: Religious moderates cause religious extremists

What about religion turned you to skepticism?

There's a thread I've had in mind, and have been intending to start (for a couple of years now) dealing with that. Rather than derail this thread, which I think poses a more intriguing and important question, I'd like to just respond briefly (so you don't feel I'm trying to ignore or avoid your question) and then talk about it more in a different thread (which I'll get around to doing any month now...)

I am interested in understanding the universe we live in, because this allows me to make better choices in my life. To me, science is useful for understanding the physical reality we live in and religion is useful for understanding the spiritual reality we live in. Religion is not very useful for understanding how gravity works or how life evolved, and science is not very useful for understanding why it is wrong to enslave other people or drop atom bombs on them.

Intrinsic to the religion in which I was raised is a belief that one does not find truth by selecting a leader to tell you what is true, by referring to an infallible handbook, or by making up comforting notions out of thin air to explain what you don't understand. One learns by seeking, by observing, by questioning -- by experiment and experience. My religious upbringing encouraged me to question. It encouraged me to think for myself (but to be respectful of the experiences and insights of others, and to try to learn what I could from these.) It encouraged me to weigh evidence, and not to be swayed by clever rhetoric or by the number of people holding a view. It encouraged me to listen especially to people who had direct experience of a subject (rather than to people who were simply constructing fanciful notions out of air), but to realize that even the wisest can be mistaken and even the most foolish can sometimes be right, so not to blindly accept (or reject) what anyone said but to be open to spotting errors in what people I respected said and to spotting wisdom in what people I disagreed with said.

I used the phrase "religion in which I was raised", so I think I should clarify another point. There is a distinction between religious education and religous indoctrination, and in my religion there is a strong desire to avoid the latter. The distinction is not always as carefully observed as it should be, but I was fortunate enough to receive the former. I was taught about the beliefs, customs, famous people, etc., of various religions (including my own), and was told various entertaining stories (historical tales about the underground railroad and about heroic people of many lands, Jewish folk tales, stories about the Hodja, and even a few stories out of the bible), but I was not expected or required to subscribe to any particular set of beliefs. Children were permitted to attend meeting for worship (to the extent one might desire to do so, providing one was able to do so non-disruptively) but we were not required to do so. [color=f7f7f7](Sadly, some meetings now do compel. or at least strongly coerce, young people to sit in on meetings for worship now, something I strongly disagree with. But let's save that for another thread.)[/color]
Sorry. That's longer than I meant to spend on that. Back to the topic.

NOTE: I'm going to leave the parts of my post that you quoted in bold and color your quoted comments blue, to try to make the exchange easier to follow, and then I'll respond to your comments in unbolded text

... I believe that a diverse population, with many bridges between groups, is more conducive to reasoned discussion (and the eventual triumph of rationality) than a sharply polarized population.

I am not suggesting that we would be better off if we all believed the same things. We would all have different moral and political beliefs, regardless of the source of those beliefs. After all, most of the world's population is sharply polarized to dislike murder. Does that make them irrational?

Actually, I'd say that, far from being polarized about murder, there is a remarkably broad consensus that murder is not a good thing. You can put together a roomful of people who disagree on gay rights, gun control, and whether Bush stole the 2000 and/or 2004 elections, and they will still likely be able to nod their heads and run out of things to say about murder fairly quickly.

Not about what to do with murderers, however. That's a separate question, one on which there is not a broad consensus yet. That's the kind of issue where I think more bridges would be useful.

Abortion is an even better example. While there will be gay, feminist, anti-death penalty, and anti-war folks at the giant Pro-Life rally in DC for the anniversary of Roe V Wade, from conversations I've had and articles I've read they are generally outcasts (sometimes grudgingly welcomed and put on display so the movement can claim it is diverse, at least for that one day). I doubt, for example, there will be a single prominent gay featured as a speaker. (If Mary Cheney is invited to speak, I will concede I was wrong.)

Let's suppose (a) you're right that belief in god is irrational, and (b) you manage to convince a large number of religious liberals of that, and convert them to atheism (or agnosticism). You have now created a much more polarized situation, one in which I think you will find it harder rather than easier to resolve differences with those on "the other side".

I don't believe that is true. In fact, it is the early indoctrination into religion that causes the US (and some other places) to be so strongly polarized towards religion.

"Polarized towards"? As above, it seems clear to me we're meaning something entirely different in our use of the word polarized here.

Would early indoctrination towards skepticism make them more unapproachable?

I just want to say that I oppose skeptical indoctrination as much as I oppose religious indoctrination. (Indeed, I would call "skeptical indoctrination" an oxymoron. If you indoctrinate someone to be a skeptic, they are not really a skeptic. You can indoctrinate them to be hostile to beliefs you think are wrong, and they may then be in agreement with the skeptical position on those issues, but that's blind agreement with the skeptical position, not skepticism.)

Taking just one issue, prayer in schools, I think an opposition coalition made up of atheists and of religious liberals is much stronger than one of equivalent size made up solely of atheists. (Religious conservatives would probably prefer to face the latter type of opposition. It would make it easier for them to believe, and to convince others, that it is only "godless atheists" who oppose prayer in school and other coerced religious activity.)

That is only true because of the demonization of atheists. If they were more numerous, I believe they would not be so ostracized.

Not sure that numbers alone matter. Liberals are more numerous than atheists, and they get demonized something fierce as well.

Gays get demonized quite a bit, but less so in recent years because more gays are out of the closet and more people know (or are aware they know) gays in their circle of friends and acquaintances. I think it's not so much that you need to convert more people to atheism, it's that you need to bring the ones who are atheists more into the light.

Part of that is for atheists such as yourself to do, by "coming out" to friends, family, co-workers, and showing them that you lack horns and cloven hooves. Part of that is for non-atheists such as myself to do (or help with), by helping to spread public awareness of noteworthy atheists throughout history, contributions atheists have made to society, etc., by opposing negative stereotyping of atheists in pop culture and requesting/supporting positive portrayals.

Here, too, I think you are better off having non-atheists who can support you in this effort than by converting us. If both atheists and non-atheists say that atheists have a long and rich history worth knowing and celebrating, or it will probably reach people sooner than if only atheists say it. (Easier to dismiss the latter as Oh, they're just blowing their own horns. What a bunch of egotistical, self-centered jerks! Makes me glad I'm not one of them!)

So it makes more sense for the goals of skepticism to "convert" more people to skepticism.

Here I agree with you whole-heartedly! I would love to see more effort put into "converting" people to skepticism!

Which, of course, is not the same as converting them to atheism. I picked with a few ghost-believing atheists this past fall, and I was thinking how great it would be if they could be exposed more to skepticism. It didn't work out to get the apple crew to Kitty's for dinner this past season, but I am hopeful about getting the crew there this coming season. [The delay is giving Kitty more time to lay in a stock of conversion tools and prepare the basement conversion chamber.]

If many, or even most, of the people we convert to skepticism also choose to be atheists, I have no problem with that. But I think the key is promoting skepticism, and letting atheism (or non-atheism) follow as it will.

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Religious moderates cause religious extremists

...snip... Actually, I'd say that, far from being polarized about murder, there is a remarkably broad consensus that murder is not a good thing. You can put together a roomful of people who disagree on gay rights, gun control, and whether Bush stole the 2000 and/or 2004 elections, and they will still likely be able to nod their heads and run out of things to say about murder fairly quickly.

...snip...

I know it’s not a major part of your argument but I want to sneak a comment in here regarding murder. I don't think you can claim there is a " remarkably broad consensus that murder is not a good thing". If there appears to be such a consensus I would say it is because the term murder has not been defined for the group discussing it. For instance some people consider all wilful killings murders, others don't consider state executions (or at least by their state) to be murder, some people consider killing in self-defence not to be murder. So whilst most people may say "murder is not good" what they actually mean by that may differ greatly.

 

[Nova Land]

I know it’s not a major part of your argument but I want to sneak a comment in here regarding murder. I don't think you can claim there is a " remarkably broad consensus that murder is not a good thing". If there appears to be such a consensus I would say it is because the term murder has not been defined for the group discussing it. For instance some people consider all wilful killings murders, others don't consider state executions (or at least by their state) to be murder, some people consider killing in self-defence not to be murder. So whilst most people may say "murder is not good" what they actually mean by that may differ greatly.

Agreed. Similar thoughts occurred to me in writing the post. I decided for the sake of brevity to go with a slightly over-simplified statement. (There were about 15 to 20 paragraphs I'd written trying to develop the thought about contentious vs less-contentious issues, but which I decided were better off omitted.)

While it is possible to get a group of people to realize they are not actually as in agreement on "murder = bad" as they might think (by raising questions such as "Is abortion murder?" "Is meat murder?" "Is war murder?" "Is capital punishment murder?" etc.) still and all there is a sentiment concerning willful killings that most people would largely agree with (even if it might be difficult to come up with a quibble-proof way of wording the sentiment.)

In contrast, there are certain issues (such as abortion) where it's much harder to find a sentiment that a group of people all feel reasonably comfortable with (unless the group pre-selects to be people of like mind).

My test for consensus is not whether people all say they agree with some wording of a statement if you put it to a vote or poll. It's whether, if one person expresses what they feel is a pretty good summary of the issue, others feel a need to put in two or more cents-worth of additional comment.

If people feel comfortable enough that no one feels any real urge to add to or correct what the person said, that's consensus. If, on the other hand, someone summarizes the matter and what's said inspires an urge in others to chime in to add to or correct what was said (even if they suppress the urge because the discussion has already gone on 5 hours and they're sick of it), that's not consensus.

Unless you've got someone who just likes to argue for the sake of arguing, "Is murder bad?" as a discussion topic is generally going to be yawns within a pretty short time. In contrast, there are issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and a lot of church-state issues, where that is very decidedly not true. Those are the issues where I feel it is especially good to encourage the people one is largely in agreement with to put forth a diversity of messages rather than trying to get people to unite behind one common message.

 

[The GM]

Just wanted to point out a quote, mostly for the irony. While people here are debating on whether moderate behavior causes extreme behavior, Jerry Fallwell had this little ditty to say about the 'cause' of the WTC attacks. In some way in mirrors what people here have said.

Pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this (attack) happen.' "

You know what, he was wrong too. You know who is responsible for extreme behavior? Those who engage in it.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

THE REASONED RESPONSE IS NOT THAT FAITH IS OKAY--it clearly is not okay---

Fine. I'm not reasonable for thinking that people of faith are O.K. and not mentally ill. Boo F-in' Hoo.

I guess poisoning the well doesn't seem like a great way to try and attract the 85% majority of the U.S. to skepticism and that makes me unreasonable.

 

[SezMe]

[minor derail]

Madeline Murray O'Hare was possibly the most hated person of the late twentieth century because of her radical atheism. She was almost certainly murdered for her views.

It is my understanding that the O'Hair murder case had been put to bed and that religion - or lack thereof - had nothing to do with it. IIRC, it was a case of revenge and money.

[/minor derail]

 

[The GM]

In this thread, http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=51611 Fun2B said:

I don't want to waste a single moment more of my life sitting in a church or temple listening to this mumbo jumbo...my spouse feels we "should" go.

I have not said anything about if she or the kids go. (though I would prefer they not-except for the kids I think it would be good to be bored out of their skulls to further drive them as far away from religions as possible)

And here you say:

--this discussion is about faith the accepting something as true without evidence, because it rattles inside your head nicely, because it is what your parents or most of the people you know believe.. or because it is traditional...those are not reasons to accept religion or communism or atheism....

Nice turn about. In thread one you insist that the kids should believe as you do, without any evidence, on your say so. In fact, you hope that they suffer a negative experience as to further push them into your way of thinking. Then in this thread you say it’s wrong for people to believe in something just because their parents do or because of a family tradition. I’ll leave out what I personally think about a parent who wishes their child uncomfortable or negative life experiences.
Yeah, nice piece of well reasoned logic going on there. Well done. *clap, clap clap*

 

[Tricky]

[minor derail]
It is my understanding that the O'Hair murder case had been put to bed and that religion - or lack thereof - had nothing to do with it. IIRC, it was a case of revenge and money.
[/minor derail]

A legitimate point, and I cannot recall all the particulars. I do seem to recall that she disappeared for a long time and no particular effort was made to find her. Most assumed she had "fled the country", probably for some evil reason.

Perhaps the lack of interest in her disappearance had nothing to do with her views or the fact that many were glad that she was gone.

Perhaps.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

First off, I would like to personally apologize to US for causing the momentary derailing this thread.

I must have missed this comment while I was saving your, Renata and MLynn's photos to my hard drive...

Please don't take my previously voiced objections to the objectification of Skepchicks as an aversion to flirting and the posting of photos. I just object to threads that seem to always degenerate into "Ooooh Baby" crap instead of comments that appreciate Skepchick wit and intelligence rather than just their cleveage.

As an example, I cite Eos. She makes me walk funny so I don't chafe when I see her, but her most valuable contribution to this forum is her tanacious and knowledgable deconstruction of the claims by AltMed advocates. No matter how sexy I find her, that doesn't trump how good she is at dispelling AltMed nonsense...

...but I'm starting to digress...

 

[Fun2BFree]

In this thread, http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=51611 Fun2B said:


In thread one you insist that the kids should believe as you do, without any evidence, on your say so. In fact, you hope that they suffer a negative experience as to further push them into your way of thinking. Then in this thread you say it’s wrong for people to believe in something just because their parents do or because of a family tradition. I’ll leave out what I personally think about a parent who wishes their child uncomfortable or negative life experiences.
Yeah, nice piece of well reasoned logic going on there. Well done. *clap, clap clap*

Nice try--but totally and completely false, misleading and ridiculous..

where do I say anything that you say I say?..that is complete and total BS...nowhere do I insist that my kids believe as I do...show me a quote where I INSIST this....
nor do I ever desire that they believe anything without evidence--show me a quote where I argue for this.
I have been consistent and rational and fair you have been consistently full of it on both threads now...

 

[The GM]

I have been consistent and rational and fair you have been consistently full of it on both threads now...

Oh, Fun2B, you are my Iccuis, my lifegazer, my Riddick and Radrook, my 1inC, my Moby Dick. I just can't resist. (Give it up already, GM!) Nay, sir, I can not, because to paraphrase your words, I can not tolerate your hypocricy, your bigotry, your hatred of the religious because I find that tolerating them is to tacitly approve of them and the consequences of those things is damaging to other human beings....

Lemme get some evidence, and I'll be back to answer your accusations. K? Hold on, I'll be with you in a few.

 

[Fun2BFree]

oh and on that cheap and completely stupid idea about how I am somehow abusing my children...how is that consistent with your attack on me? I want them to have the EVIDENCE of their OWN EXPERIENCE (which I predict will be negative--there is the chance they will be converted isn't there? and yet I don't worry about that because I am not forcing anything here) so once again I sense irrational hatred of me that is unsubstantiated by even the slightest attention the facts...if you have something useful to contribute and can refrain from making things up, misconstruing and misrepresenting what is posted, please feel free to add it...you have not yet done so...

 

[Fun2BFree]

Oh, Fun2B, you are my Iccuis, my lifegazer, my Riddick and Radrook, my 1inC, my Moby Dick. I just can't resist. (Give it up already, GM!) Nay, sir, I can not, because to paraphrase your words, I can not tolerate your hypocricy, your bigotry, your hatred of the religious because I find that tolerating them is to tacitly approve of them and the consequences of those things is damaging to other human beings....

Lemme get some evidence, and I'll be back to answer your accusations. K? Hold on, I'll be with you in a few.

more name calling--evidence suggests such things are generally resorted to whenever arguments are weak---try some less ego driven behavior addressing others than just you and me...

 

[The GM]

As to not derail this thread with the spanking I’m about to deliver to Fun2B, I’m going to tie it back into the above discussion. Only instead, I’ll phrase it this way, does moderate atheism lead to extreme atheism and the negative consequences that can arise from extremist behavior. As the example, I’ll pick a random (ok, not so random) atheist who has posted in this thread. Fun2B. Now some of ya’ll are about to think that I’m picking on the poor lad. That’s not precisely true. I am pointing out behaviors that happen on both sides of the argument when a person becomes ‘extreme’. I am trying to show that such behaviors are harmful, no matter the belief system of the perpetrator.

Fun2B said:

Nice try--but totally and completely false, misleading and ridiculous..

where do I say anything that you say I say?..that is complete and total BS...nowhere do I insist that my kids believe as I do...show me a quote where I INSIST this....

Well, no one likes to be called a liar. And perhaps Fun2B doesn’t even realize his behavior is harmful to others. Perhaps he’ll learn something here. My evidence that supports the assertion that Fun2B wants and needs his kids to believe as he does without any sort of thought towards the matter is thus:

--all faith is by definition IRRATIONAL.... There is a very unfair and unfortunate assumption about religious belief that is that it "could not hurt anyone,"….. such a position clearly sows the field for any irrational belief-socialism, racism, totalitarianism, theism.. THE REASONED RESPONSE IS NOT THAT FAITH IS OKAY--it clearly is not okay---I for one give no money to any religous charity, attend no religous services, support no religious causes...in my own house there is no respect for religion,....I confess- I do indeed have contempt for it.... (emphasis added)

And still my favorite quote by Fun2B:

I have not said anything about if she or the kids go. (though I would prefer they not-except for the kids I think it would be good to be bored out of their skulls to further drive them as far away from religions as possible)

So we have an atheist parent who has decided to show obvious contempt in his own home, in front of his own children concerning a belief structure that by his own words is ‘heinous’. Ok, fine. But then he ups the ante by wishing his children negative life experiences so that they might never be tempted to become religious. In fact, his extreme disapproval will certainly assure that they never seek truth for themselves. If they were to try, the most likely response would be one of contempt and mockery, not one of support and discussion. How is this any less harmful than religious isolationists who raise their children to ‘believe’ without any other alternative? I propose it’s not, and the behavior is just as extreme and just as harmful.

Fun2B adds:

I have been consistent and rational and fair you have been consistently full of it on both threads now...

That would be nice if you could wrap it all up into a nice little bundle like that. Unfortunately for you, the evidence says the reverse is true.

Would you like to whine further? I’ll happily pick apart your illogical diatribes and unfounded assertions as they become available.