Stupid Athiests!
Kevin D.
Since everyone else is all about their religion vs. atheism lately I figured I'd jump on the band wagon. And instead of making a title that an atheist might misread, misinterpret or mis-whatever and get insulted I figured to insult right out the door.
That's called being efficient.
So, what's Kevin D. got to say that will turn the world on its head and make believers out of the heathen masses? Not a darned thing.
Listen, I think we're all reasonable and intelligent people here. And we're passionate about what we believe. But, frankly, most of us don't know one another from Adam and things as deeply held as faith isn't something to be debated. That's to say, I've never head of a case where anyone was swayed either way by two people pounding at one another. Most of the time we root for our side and hiss at the other.
And I'm pointing at myself too here.
The best witnessing tool at our disposal is our life. We can speak a great game but if our life isn't something to be envied then what we say won't carry much weight with anyone. This goes for atheists and theists alike.
Let your life be your witness.
And that's the problem we have here at the D. World. We don't know one another beyond what words we read here. So, we let our rhetoric get out of control because we don't have the silent witness of our life to back us up. I mean, for example, Dean's said some stuff that, had I not known the guy, had I not been able to come to him on a personal level, I'd have written him off some time ago. But because we have that personal relationship, I've gone to his home, he's come to mine, I know that what I read may not be the whole story of what's going on.
I think we forget that. The words we read on the page is all we can know of most people here but we forget that it's a real thinking, breathing, feeling, flawed person writing them. And the five seconds or so we spend reading their words is nowhere near the totality of that individual or what may be going on behind the scenes that is coloring them. In most cases then we’re either unwilling or unable to say, “Hey, is everything okay?”
It's not something easy to do, believe me, but let's step back a moment and consider that we are not the possessors of all that can be known and, more than likely, we're probably wrong about a great deal we think we're right about.
I heard someone once say you can't get 75 years worth of experience until you've lived 75 years. I think we're often grasping beyond our experience because, well, we want to be right. It's only natural I suppose. No one certainly wants to be wrong! And when someone attacks that, especially some uppity dolt we've never met on a blog, we get defensive.
What I believe I know to be true is what I try to live and to attack what I believe I know to be true is to attack how I live. In many cases, we're not just attacking what someone believes about existence, we're also attacking how they live because the two cannot be separated. Remember that the next time you speak harshly of another's beliefs. You’re walking into their home and pronouncing judgment upon everything therein.
Speaking for myself here, I'm more open to the judgments of those I know in life, those I've shared a meal with, those I've invited into my real-life home, then "CrazyB0B452." And I'm more likely to return his words about my beliefs, no matter how innocently said, with vitriol because he doesn't know me and I don't know him.
So, what I'll endeavor to do in my life is establish those personal relationships. And I'll let my life speak for my beliefs. It's a challenge, we're an opinionated people, quick to insult and quick to be insulted, but I think it's a worthwhile goal.
Related Posts (on one page):
Exactly. So, more matter how strong the rhetoric of the Christian, if we can see that their life is a mess it's only logical to ask, "How has this benefitted you?"
And the same for the athiest. If it appears that athiesm leads to a life of base values, what does it benefit anyone?
It's fun you bash at eath other with words but, in the end, it's not serving anyone. The athiest is unmoved and the believer is unmoved.
It's vital to develop those personal relationships because those can break down the wall of words we surround ourselves with and cut to the heart.
I'd be more apt to trust the words of an athiest friend because I know, beyond simply disagreeing with my religious beliefs, I know he has a heart for me and geniunely wants what's best for me. And it goes the other way too. We'll drop that wall of words and let the words of our friends and family really impact our heart and we'll genuinely think on them because we care.
My grandparents are lifelong Christians, and built a solid family up from the Great Depression and World War Two into one Ph.D, two civil engineers, an IT manager, and a master homebuilder, all with spouses of equal abilities, eleven grandchildren of varying great talents, and a great-grandchild with a solid future ahead of her. They did so while being solid in their beliefs, respectful of differences, and providing a stellar example of success both emotionally and financially. If at the end of my life I prove to be 10% of the man my grandfather was and is, I'll count myself a success. I will never achieve the grace, dignity, and depth my grandmother possessed throughout her entire life.
Most atheists I've encountered, though, have either been older iconoclasts whose curmudgeonly denials of any possibility of God's existence make for interesting personalities, but little in the way of solid family life, or younger arrogant snot-noses who read some books "proving" the non-existence of God, dress it up with sarcastic commentary on Invisible Pink Unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters, pretensions to great intelligence, and all visibly display their secret fear that some all-knowing entity really exists and is watching them look at porn.
There are of course exceptions, and I make no claim to statistical truth here, just personal experience.
And this is why I stress personal relationships!
Your grandparents were deeply faithful and they sound like great people. Because of that you're more open to the faithful even though you yourself are not.
And because you've had negative interactions with athiests that colors your future interactions with them.
Arguning like we have on this blog may seem like great fun but no minds are getting changed. And no minds will be changed because those personal relationships are simply not there. So, in the final examination, you'd be just as productive trying to convince your dog that you're right about the nature of existance and the universe.
More, actually. The dog will at least be excited you're talking to him.
And, like Kev and Hoke said, it's worth remembering what our real jobs are.
Not just an empty conversion, but a rebirth in men. You get that part down, and most of the rest of it will eventually take care of itself.
Cause patience is a virtue, like all real virtues, better practiced than described. And because sometimes, unless our virtues are really being practiced, they aren't really worth describing either.
Well, I'm off to do some shopping.
I reckon I'll need some patience right about now.
Hope I'm up to it.
I need to respectfully express my extreme disagreement with your following words. I hope you will think about my argument, because, as you mentioned, opinions express themselves in actions, and I hope to see more of your writing on Dean's World.
Kevin said: "Arguing like we have on this blog may seem like great fun but no minds are getting changed.
First of all, most mind changing on the "big" issues is a drawn out process. Therefore, just because someone doesn't say "O.K. your right" doesn't necessarily meant that you haven't made a critical contribution to his mental future regarding the issue.
Secondly, the ratio of those only reading the discussion to those participating in it is quite
high, and we have known way to assess how silent readers are impacted by the dialog.
Thirdly, every discussion here is archived, and can and will be used in the future.
I too really hate to argue with you Kevin (the irony!), but I think you’re wrong when you claim that minds aren’t being changed by what goes on here. I know I have learned a ton here, and it has changed my views on many topics.
Now I suspect that if you consider just the iconoclasts at the extreme ends of any argument, well, they’re probably not being swayed much. But I suspect many folks in the middle get nudged a bit one way or the other all the time.
You're free to do so.
Therefore I can only draw conclusions based upon those that do comment. Anyone can say anything about those that read and do not comment but what they say is ultimately unimportant because they have no way to qualify their opinion.
And, based upon what I've observed of human nature, I have no reason to believe that what is happening in the comment threads isn't happening to those that don't comment. That is to say - people cheer for their side and that's it.
Listen, I'm not saying debate is bad. I'd never say that. However, a lot of time and energy is being spent and wasted doing that and that alone.
Again, I've never heard of anyone becoming and anthiest or believer because they watched a debate. I have heard that happening when they watch the actions of one group or the other.
And even if some does come to an intellectual decision about the issue it's often driven by the heart.
C.S. Lewis' conversion from athiest to Christian comes to mind. It was a heart change with the help of a close personal friend, J.R.R. Tolkien, that helped him make that move.
Take a moment and look at the comments on Rosemary's "Faith or Proof" thread. No attempts are being made to change hearts. Only minds. The mind does not go where the heart hasn't been first.
Besides, I've tried to send you e-mail, chat with you via Gmail in the past and I've not gotten a single reply from you. I've tried to establish personal communication with you to talk on these things but I can't.
I treasure my talks with Ron. I treasure my talks with Dean. I do because I've build relationships with them.
You, on the other hand, are a name on a post. Like a hundred others.
Why should I give your opinion more weight than those others?
I agree, but Kevin's point stands as well. The thing has to be done on all fronts: actions are best, but if unavailable (as they usually are online) then words have to suffice. In other words, I prefer practice but I'll take theory that I can try out myself if that fails.
naftalimi@gmail.com
please E-mail.
I don't chat well, because i can't type, and I don't
like writing on the fly.
And Ca.Josh, if your reading, I happen to have spent the first 20 years of my life in Encino Ca. Perhaps the best weather on earth there.
Try also to remember this the next time you speak harshly of another's non-beliefs.
Okay?
to attack what I believe I know to be true is to attack how I live. In many cases, we're not just attacking what someone believes about existence, we're also attacking how they live because the two cannot be separated.
The problem with this is that is blurs the line between reasoned discourse and personal attack. If attacking your spiritual beliefs is a personal attack, then how can attacking your political beliefs NOT be a personal attack?
The brightest line we can draw lies between ideas and people. My rule is: attack the ideas freely, but never the people. Even this line can be difficult can be difficult to see in some cases, but it's still a more reliable differentiator than the one you propose.
Lastly, I'd like to tut-tut John for his generalizations regarding atheists. The world is a very large place, and people come in many different flavors. His assignment of personality traits to atheists reveals the limitations of his experience, not the personalities of atheists. I know many Christians and I would never be so crude as to attempt to characterize their personalities. Yes, there are some really stupid and hypocritical Christians. There are some dangerous Christians. There are also some truly saintly Christians, some brilliant Christians, etc, etc.
De gustibus non est disputandem -- there's no arguing about taste. And the same thing applies to spiritual beliefs.
Why?
I don't think Keven meant that those things were out of bounds, but was merely pointing out that what we believe, both spiritual and political and other areas, is indeed integral to who we are, and sometimes with the best of intentions a disagreement about an idea can be seen as an attack on the self.
This seems like a wise thing to remember both when 'attacking' and when feeling 'attacked.' People make take what you say as being 'all about them' and what people say may in fact not be 'all about you.'
To not hold the same belief as another is itself a belief. But thanks for underlining the point.
Chris,
I think the line is mighty this to begin with. But yes, one can has reasoned discourse without it devolving into personal attacks but we must remain vigilant and sensative.
This is exactly why I stress the development of personal relationships. Especially when it comes to highly personal topics as religion and politics. That way, should one feel a line has been crossed they can examine their relations ship with the offending party and attempt to discern if, in fact, a line was inteneded to be crossed.
There is nothing more important to most people than their religion (or non-religion) and politics. So, when you choose to express your disagreement with either it must be done tactfully and with the right heart.
People hold the politics they hold because they believe it to be the moral thing to do. Same for religion. When you tell someone they are wrong about either you are, in some form, calling them immoral. Or, at least, morally ignorant.
No one votes for a candidate they believe to be immoral. No one worships a god they believe to be immoral. So to criticize either choice is to say they've made, untimately, an immoral choice.
I voted for Bush in 2004 because I believed he was the moral choice. For someone to then say I'm wrong, or attack his immorality, is to tell me, if they're right, that I in fact made an immoral choice. I may have not made that choice knowingly, but the effect is still the same because I cast that vote. So then it falls on me to either ignore what that critical person is saying, or looking within my own ability to judge character and see where I messed up. This can be a painful process.
So, when "CrazyB0B452" to says Bush is an idiot I must decide if that person has a valid argument or should I ignore him. If I have a personal relationship with "CrazyB0B452" I'm more likely to consider his statements than if I did not.
Man is an intellectual creature, yes. But he's also a feeling creature. And as the Political Correctness movement shows us, we'll go to great lengths to protect those feelings. Even to the point as to believe we're intellectually right to do so.
As I said, the mind doesn't go where the heart hasn't already been.
Call me a doubting Thomas if you like, but I am firmly convinced that there is no God outside of the one we have created for ourselves. This is either a very good thing or a very bad thing [probably a little of both).
What IS true? People ultimately choose to believe that which they need to believe in order to rationalize their existence in this universe. Humans are amazingly resilient and have created the greatest coping mechanism, scapegoat, and justification for all that life has thrown at us.
In the end, I choose to believe what I think is real based on my entire life's experience. My morality can be summed up thusly: I take each encounter with others and treat others the way I would want them to treat the ones I love. My Soldiers are my brothers, sisters, children, and parents. I will treat a stranger the way I would want someone to treat my real brother should he encounter him on the street. When I see a group of young teens at the mall or on the street corner, I instantly remember what I felt like when I was that age and hanging out at the mall, and I speak to them and act towards them the way I would have preferred to be treated when I was a teen.
That simple philosophy has guided me through a happy, fulfilling life thus far.
Bingo! And that's why humanity is doomed. We're Pleistocene hunter-gatherers dressed up in suits, playing with technological toys we don't understand, acting like rational people when we're really hot-headed brutes. And hot-headed brutes playing with nukes are bound to annihilate themselves eventually.
I have come to accept this inevitability. However, I will make every endeavor to behave in as rational a manner as I can, not because I believe that humanity can overcome its irrationality soon enough to save itself, but because I do not want to feel any responsibility for our eventual downfall.
No. This is not correct.
As I said under another entry: consider the difference between disbelief and non-belief; between lack of belief and belief of lack, if you will.
It is a common misconception, and a point of endless frustration, to assume that atheists "believe in" the non-existence of [insert name of deity here].
(Some do, certainly. To make the assumption in the general case is simplistic.)
While I don't agree with the idea that we are doomed to destroy ourselves, even if I did I would question whether such a decision would be based upon emotion rather then logic. I suspect that our empathy for one another, our feelings if you will has a much better chance of saving us then rational self-interest.
That's not always correct. We would would have to 'argue' that out though...
And indeed, the great majority of humanity thinks this way. But it only takes a tiny number of people who have no empathy to start the ball rolling. Consider: al-Qaeda, a group of at most a few thousand hate-filled zealots, attacked the USA on 9/11. That aroused such fury in Americans that they responded in a less than rational manner. This has now inflamed the Islamic world against us, which in turn will lead to new outrages, and the wheel keeps turning. So long as the technology of death remains static, we can survive this. But with each passing year, it becomes easier for the fringe to do more harm. How long will it take for a group of terrorists (of any stripe) to get their hands on a nuke? Ten years? Twenty? Fifty? Or create a superbug that can wipe out millions? A hundred+ years ago the confident song of British troops was:
"Whatever happens,
we have got
the Maxim gun
and they have not."
Nowadays, 'they have got' lots of AK-47s, which are a lot better than the Maxim gun (an early machine gun). I believe it was Einstein who wrote, "The atomic bomb has changed everything but our thinking". It took us about 50 years, but we have pretty much taken to heart the notion that nukes cannot be used. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of other countries.
...quick to insult and quick to be insulted...
Well, we could try slow to insult and slow to be insulted. That's behavior that people on the blog can see. Mrs. Wince knows a commenter (not here I think, although Paul Burgess might call his office) who has always impressed her by this particular good behavior online. She describes him as exemplary. And Kevin Baker (atheist, I believe) at The Smallest Minority is very good at not being insulted, whihc I find inspiring, although way too sarcastic, which is usually insulting.
I'm better at the former than the latter, but both could use work.
Yours,
Wince
Please explain how personal observations, noted as probably not being statistically representative, are "generalizations."
For all you wish it to be otherwise, I have yet to meet an atheist comparable even remotely in character to either of my grandparents. I have met people of faith of similar character to them.
When I meet an atheist capable of the same highly positive life they have had, I will revise my opinion. But I have seen no evidence for their existence.
Because they're utterly useless in this context unless they are meant to be generalizations. Suppose, for example, I were to regale you with the tale of a truly ugly Christian I once knew. This man was a hypocrite, greedy, lying, and vicious to boot -- a true scumbag. Suppose I were to retail his many sins in endless detail. And then I were to conclude with "Of course, this man may not be representative of all Christians, but he's one of the few Christians I knew well." Wouldn't you consider that a misleading presentation?
But I have seen no evidence for their existence.
Then you haven't accumulated much evidence. I know plenty of truly fine people, and I have noticed no correlation between excellence and religious belief, race, gender, or national origin. It's a big world out there, and excellent people come in many shapes, stripes, and colors. If you haven't discovered this for yourself, then you have not experienced much of the world.
You're commiting the same error you accuse John.
Because John has not drawn the same conclusions about athiests as you have you believe he has not done his research.
How do you know this? How much research on John have you done to say he himself has not done enough research?
And he wasn't trying to express some scientifically testable law. He was talking about his own experiences.
Could he not say of you that you've not met enough athiests if you don't draw the same conclusions about them he does?
It cuts both ways my friend. You know nothing about John and his experiences to draw any kind of conclusions of your own about what he's done, who he's met, or where here has been.
And you can only get that knowledge by getting to know the man first.
Again, it comes to personal relationships and you don't have one with him so you're in no position to speak on what of the world he's experienced.
Statistically, I've likely travelled more and met more people than you. I'm a USAF vet, child of a USAF vet and a RAF vet, and have family spread out across the U.S. and the world that I have repeatedly visited and met many people. I read voraciously and at fairly high speed, so I'm quite often throughout the net reading and posting in various communities. So your gross generalization and rebuttal are false on their face. Try again, maybe you'll find another answer.
The other thing I have noticed of atheists I've encountered is their childish defensiveness. They simply have to browbeat people.
All you have to do to improve my view is introduce me to one atheist who can compare, not even all the way, just demonstrably as able, to my grandparents' example. Rationally, such a life is superior, not mainly for the individuals involved, but to their contributions to society and posterity, through their families, friends, and others they influence. Regardless of the truth of their beliefs, for atheism to be a rational choice, it has to have the same rational, functional outcomes for humanity.
Because at the end of it all, my grandparents aren't any spectacular success story, they're just folks who did what they saw was right, and it worked, not just for them, but for many. The same holds for many other good examples of the faithful I have met.
I think it may come down to a difference in motivations, the difference between self-reliance and the importance of others, vs self-importance and the reliance on others.
In my view, your response to Chris-an apparently new, eloquent, bright, and valuable contributer- at 1:32 is spot on.
Chris,
In my view, your response to his response was more of a defense than an argument.
The only substantive argument I noticed in my, admittedly, quick reading of your response was that his data sample was limited.
John, himself, said the same.
Limited evidence, has never stopped any thinking man from advancing an hypothesis. Nothing wrong
with that as long as the thinker properly qualifies his view, as John, indeed, has. That's Scientific method 101.
You assert that your empirical sample includes
data that he has said his lacks. (Though you do move the goal posts somewhat when you define the data as "fine people", while he prior defined it as
people of similar character to his grandparents.)
Given that his evidence is empirical for him,
and your evidence is not empirical for him. You are demanding him to accept on belief-there goes that word again-the existence of a phenomenon that he has not reliably observed. Now you sound like a 'Bible thumper'(tm).
When one of us isn't truly interested in the other's thoughts .... well, it can get ugly unless at least one person keeps his passion and reason under control. The last times I had a good conversation on faith, it was generally me asking an evangelical Christian about his faith. He knew I was fairly set in my way, but reassured I really was interested in his thoughts. Among other things, I admired the strength he seemed to draw from his faith, and I was curious about his thoughts. Although I didn't quite phrase it that way.
In my last ... other ... conversation with faith, I spoke to a very dear friend, a young woman who recently became born again. She's still a friend, though I think she moves with a more evangelical circle. She seemed fairly intent on trying to proselytize me, and I found myself in the slightly awkward position of gently parrying her attempts at conversion but not riposting, as I didn't want to hurt her or our friendship.
But with complete strangers, I'm less than polite if they attempt one of these "witness" conversations. I find "witnessing" to be condescending, disrespectful, and just plain rude, especially when a stranger attempts it -- and I treat the "witness" accordingly.
OK ... so what's my point? If somebody challenges me to prove this or that on matters of faith, I'm more likely to give him a reading list than to go full-bore into a religious discussion. I truly believe that, especially in early stages, an exploration of faith is a solo journey in which a person questions his or own assumptions. If I think a person is truly interested in the topic, and he asks me, I might discuss my own choice of faith -- atheism -- with him.
But that's rare. For the most part, I'm content to tend my own garden ... and I expect those around me to do the same.
--|PW|--
The moral worthiness of each individual is a purely individual trait. Each person must be judged individually. Declarations that atheists are morally inferior are ignorant, repugnant, and deserving of unmitigated condemnation.
If John wishes to make a specific claim along these lines:
"Fred X is morally inferior to my grandparents."
"Joe Y is morally inferior to my grandparents."
"Tom Z is morally inferior to my grandparents."
Then he is welcome to do so, and I have no objection to make. Of course, in so doing he places himself in violation of Christ's dictum, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" -- but then again, John may not place much weight on Christian principles and if so, he's welcome to that.
But when John generalizes from individuals to groups, he is committing an act of prejudice no different from any racist act.
We have many wonderful words with which to describe
many wonderful concepts. Two of which being 'act', as in action, and 'view' or 'think' or 'opine' or 'understand' ...
The Newspeak editorial board is not hiring.
I know, i know, you just needed to conclude your comment with a little poetic flair.
Intellectual precision be damned!
Gee, I thought this was blindingly obvious.
One thing describes two set of beliefs which are actually supposed - by both sides - to have a moral effect. The other describes different gene pools which it's very reasonable to suppose are independant of moral effect.
Some atheists claim that atheism gives a more accurate picture of the universe and avoids arbitrary limitations on human behavior. That is a claim that atheism is morally superior to Christianity. If the teachings of atheism are effective, than, as a group, according to the moral standards they believe in, atheists are morally superior to Christians, because they embrace a more accurate picture of the universe and don't try to arbitrarily limit on human behavior.
Christians, of which I am one, make moral claims as well.
What you are arguing is that religious teachings don't change human behavior. There's an awful lot of history to deny that.
For one thing, more actual atheists really do try to avoid placing arbitrary limitations on human behavior in ways than Christians do. And more actual Christians really do stand out in the cold and collect money in pots which they then use to provide clothing, drink, food and medicine to people in need than atheists do.
You advised me, repeatedly, not to make weak arguments. This argument of yours isn't just a spaghetti argument, it's a cooked vermicelli argument.
Yours,
Wince
I disagree with you on the claims of moral superiority by atheists. Part of the problem here is that atheists as a group are just as fissiparous as Christians. Yes, there are plenty of rabid atheists who decry Christians as inferior beings. And there are plenty of rabid Christians who decry atheists as inferior beings. But there are also plenty of atheists (I among them) who do not make assumptions about the moral worth of a person based on their religious affiliation -- and likewise for Christians.
We seem to be dancing around the central issue here: can you judge a person's moral worth from their religious affiliation? I think not. What do you think?
I don't believe this is true. I believe you make an effort to avoid making assumptions about the moral worth of a particular person based on their religious affiliation and so do some Christians. I commend you and they for it. I believe you and they fail in your efforts. I know I fail.
We seem to be dancing around the central issue here: can you judge a person's moral worth from their religious affiliation? I think not. What do you think?
It's an indicator, Chris, but not a definitive one. For example, Communists are more likely to be murderous thugs or to excuse murderous thuggery. And Communism has many of the characteristics of a religion, including denying other religions. It's logical fallacy to assume that an individual has the common characteristics of any group of which that individual is a member. But it's also a useful heuristic. It's called categorization, and if it wasn't so useful we wouldn't do it so much.
Yours,
Wince
I have enormous respect for my father, who was also an atheist, but I'm not going to be so obtuse as to declare "I've never met a Christian who was as righteous as my father." Because I have met a lot of Christians and I know that's not true.
So you've met a Christian that was more righteous than your father. Great. You've made the exact same statement John did but only in reverse but you chided him for it.
One must assume that there was a point in your life where you did not, correct?
John is at that point. And, frankly, it's very possible his grandparents' standard is harder to reach then your father's.
But you really don't see it, do you? You're doing the exact same thing John is but it's okay for you to do so. Everyone here sees it but you.
If you're blind to something this simple, does it occur to you that you might be blind to other more important things?
I don't know you and I don't expect you to listen to my words but, please, do yourself a favor and stop for a moment and consider that, maybe, just maybe, you might be wrong about this.
Take a moment, let the passion subside, and look at what's being said here with clear eyes.
No, John's statement was denigratory towards a group he disagrees with. Mine is complimentary towards a group I disagree with.
One must assume that there was a point in your life where you did not, correct?
John is at that point.
Indeed so. And I reached that point sometime during my teens. Ergo, John could only make his statement if he has not seen much of the world -- which was my point in the first place.
Everyone here sees it but you.
Well, gee, if everybody knows that I'm an idiot, then perhaps I should just leave. Do you want me here or not? I'll not stay where I am unwelcome.
And, frankly, it's very possible his grandparents' standard is harder to reach then your father's.
It is equally probable that the reverse is the case.
If you're blind to something this simple, does it occur to you that you might be blind to other more important things?
If you presume the first clause, then the second clause logically follows. Of course, we can posit any subjunctive clause we want:
"Kevin, if you are an orphan-raping litterbug, then does it occur to you that you might have some moral deficiencies?"
I don't know you and I don't expect you to listen to my words but, please, do yourself a favor and stop for a moment and consider that, maybe, just maybe, you might be wrong about this.
How patronizing. If you have a rational case to make, make it. Spare me this tripe.
Take a moment, let the passion subside, and look at what's being said here with clear eyes
You know, I wasn't really at all feeling any anger or irritation until you posted this supercilious nonsense. Please, stick to the logic.
But let me soften the acidity of my comments with some confession. I know perfectly well that I infuriate people. I've been doing it for decades. It used to bother me that people would become so upset at what I regarded as nothing more than truth forcefully stated. I came to recognize that my wordings were tainted with unnecessary personal slurs, and so over the years I have tightened up my wordings with great care, so as to preserve the logical forcefulness while eliminating personal insults. The result is a rhetorical style that is difficult for most people to handle. It's sort of a rhetorical inverse of a neutron bomb: it devastates arguments without touching people. Read my stuff carefully -- it slices, dices, and trashes arguments while carefully avoiding any collateral damage to individuals.
Unfortunately, few people share my careful distinction between ideas and people. Most minds muddle the person with the idea. So if I demolish their argument, they think I'm attacking them. They think I'm angry, mean-spirited, ugly, vicious, etc.
Many years ago I described this phenomenon to some people who were hurt by my logical ferocity. I pictured myself as a Tyrannosaurus Rex stalking the Temple of Reason. I am a predator, a bloodthirsty killer inside the Temple of Reason. I step outside, and I turn into a completely different person -- easygoing, friendly, and almost impossible to anger.
I don't want to impose; If I'm too rough for you guys, I'll doff my hat and say "Vaya con dios, my friends!" If you see this blog as an easygoing place for people to agree with each other, then I certainly don't belong here. I will chide some (but not all) of you chaps for limp-wristed disputation. Martin is an example of the most impotent: all fight, spit, and fury and he can't lay a glove on me, because his logic is just too weak -- he can't even parse English clearly. I don't want to waste my time with wimps like Martin. Some of you -- Kevin, Tom, and Dave stand out in this regard -- have shown a lot of talent. I can sharpen your wits with some serious disputation, if you're up for it, and I figure that you guys can give me a real run for my money. But only if you really want to learn, as I do.
So, whaddya say? Do you want to really engage with somebody who can make you sharper? Do you want to deal and be dealt rhetorical nuclear megatonnage -- in an amiable context -- or swap twitter?
Burp.
Anyone claiming to be a rationalist either has to concede that point, or be exposed as not a rationalist, but just another devotee of the blind faith they claim to decry.
Provide evidence of atheists succeeding in the mid to long term as I've demonstrated otherwise unremarkable Christians have. I have more examples I've known, but my grandparents stand out as excellent examples of my point. Show that atheism, in and of itself, is a more successful strategy for an individual, a family, a society. By the fundamental claimed tenet of atheism, rationality, such evidence must be provided or the point is conceded.
But the entire approach is flawed. If you want to do this empirically, then use statistical evidence, not anecdotal evidence. Sure, you can come up with a few dozen successful Christians you personally know -- *I* can come up with a few dozen successful Christians I personally know. The problem is that an anecdotal approach like this is utterly pointless. If you want to be empirical, then you must do it properly, not with a lot of hand-waving. You have to define "successful life". You have to specify quantitative criteria that are objectively measurable. Then you have to apply those criteria to a large set of people, making sure that you differentiate between active Christians, passive Christians, Christians in name only, passive atheists, agnostics, and active atheists, etc. Then you analyze your results.
Such an experiment seems to me to be impossible to carry out rigorously. Given enough money, I could probably devise a rough proxy for it, but I doubt it would stand up to harsh criticism.
Now let's turn to the question of whether atheism can provide a successful strategy for a society. We don't have much in the way of historical evidence because there has never been a truly atheistic society. Some point to the Soviet Union and Communist China, but in fact these regimes never succeeded in making much of a dent on religion. Note how quickly Russian Orthodox Christianity re-appeared after the fall of the Soviet Union. And the Communist Chinese were less concerned with religion per se than with organized religion. There are millions of Chinese Christians, and it is projected that by 2050 China will have more Christians than any other nation on earth. And China is still Communist.
But now let's look at the problem from the inverse side. Let's examine some of the most deeply religious cultures of the 20th century. Right up at the top would have to be Afghanistan under the Taliban. Religion permeated every aspect of life under the Taliban. Not what you would call a successful society, is it? The same thing goes for Iran and Saudi Arabia, but to a lesser degree. In the third rank fall most of the other Islamic states, bar Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, and possibly Lebanon. You can see a pretty clear pattern here: the more religious a country is, the less successful it is.
Ah, but these are Islamic nations, you protest, and Islam is (according to some) a barbarous religion. Very well, let's confine ourselves to Christian nations. The most intensely Christian nations in Europe are (I'm guessing off the top of my head) Spain, Ireland, and Italy. Possibly Poland. All of these societies are reasonably successful, but compared with the less Christian nations of Europe, they don't look so good. The less Christian nations of Germany, France, UK, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway are all, in my opinion, enjoying greater success than Italy, Ireland, or Spain (although Ireland is in the midst of a rapid transformation. There are hints that it is becoming more secular even as its economy is roaring.)
Of course, we can't carry out this analysis without considering the USA, which is definitely a strongly Christian nation. The USA is definitely a one-of-a-kind nation in that its population is Christian but its government is secular. Moreover, the USA has been blessed with a number of special advantages. It is impossible to find a society similar enough to the USA to provide us with any basis for comparison on this question -- there are just too many other variables to consider.
So now let's turn from the empirical to the theoretical. What are the overall benefits and costs of religious belief in a culture? The most important benefit is the strong bonding created by shared religious belief. This was the reason why, for millennia, governments imposed a single religion upon their populations. This bonding has certainly been weakened by the broad adoption of religious tolerance in most Christian nations (a tolerance, I will note, made necessary by the horrors of religious conflicts in the 17th century). Nevertheless, some residual bonding value exists among people who consider themselves Christian.
But there are other sources of bonding, and in fact in America that bonding is provided by citizenship. If you ask Americans where their identity lies, most will call themselves Americans before they call themselves Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, etc. Drive down the streets of any American town and you will see more flags than crosses. Hence, the bonding value of religion is not of primary utility to America.
What other benefits are there? You might argue that Christianity imposes stronger moral strictures than atheism, but I reject that claim. If you want to claim that you are a more ethical person than I am, well, I suppose my most sarcastic response would be to claim that my penis is larger than yours. Absent a side-by-side comparison, neither of our claims have any substance whatsoever.
Getting back to adult discussion, let us turn now to the costs of religious belief upon a modern society. The basic problem here is that religious belief is profoundly conservative and therefore is intrinsically handicapped in coping with the change introduced by progress. Let's face it, the Bible was written by and for a completely different culture. Some aspects of the Bible (such as its approval of slavery) are patently inappropriate to modern times. Thus, Christians are always playing catch-up with reality, and they can be very slow to catch up. I cite as primary evidence the absurd belief in creationism, which was pretty much blasted to shreds 150 years ago, and yet even today, a large number of American Christians still cling to this patently ridiculous belief. Now, if this were merely an idle superstition, like avoiding stepping on a crack for fear of maternal spinal injuries, I'd be happy to indulge people in it. But this obsolete superstition is significantly hampering our society's ability to come to terms with policy issues that rely upon biological science. How can we possibly manage the biosphere without understanding evolution? How can we cope with the biology of health care if our citizens don't understand biology?
A similar example is provided by the whole stem cell brouhaha. Here we have a perfect example of ignorant religious belief hampering technological progress that could already be saving lives were it not for the idiocy of some religious believers. What's even more ironic is that their obstructive tactics will only serve to delay such progress and transfer it overseas. The Chinese, no fools they, have noted the American stupidity in this regard and have started pouring big money into stem cell research. They are building what will likely be the world's top research facilities in this area, and it is likely that within a few decades Americans will be paying billions of dollars in licensing fees to China for life-saving medications.
Lastly, I was shocked, shocked to read this statement:
By the fundamental claimed tenet of atheism, rationality, such evidence must be provided or the point is conceded.
I won't even bother to address it, other than to advise you to look up "Occam's Razor".
The characteristics I described for the younger group are arrogant, self-important, with pretensions to intellectualism. I'd advise you to stop gazing so longingly at your mirror, Narcissus.
You lie. Here, let me show you the quote that you ignored:
I can point to about a dozen of my friends and family who fit that description.
Sheesh!
Let's see if that ever happens again! (And it would be nice if it does, really)
This is pure thought-crime advocacy.(in the moral sense, not the legal.)
I ain't making either claim. But that isn't because is ain't fair. If I had reason to believe either claim, and I thought it beneficial to state it out loud--I would.
And Chris, you are welcome and appreciated here, by me and, I assume, some others. Some of the others-again, I assume-would be happy if you left. I think the same could be said about me and most other contributers. Thats the thing about diverse communities such as this one.
I state this for the record so that you don't ever have to play this "I"m here for you, if you want me; and if you had any sense you would, of course, want me; and if you don't I will walk away a rejected prophet from yet another community too lowly to appreciate my greatness
and the good I wanted to do and could have done for them."
If you do leave-I hope you stay-I want you to bear
in mind that this community was here a long, long, time before you showed up, is doing just fine, and is in for some big time growth (more on that to come).
You want to teach here, great! Do it. But don't ever expect some informal appointment. Say your peice, stick around to defend it if you want, and mabye someone will agree with you. Or mabye all of us will. Or mabye none of us will. That's how it goes.
Indeed you did not. Nor did I accuse you of doing so. The second person pronoun was used in its indefinite meaning. The meaning would just have well have been expressed in this form:
"If one really believes it fair and reasonable to assert that atheists are morally inferior to Christians, than how could one contest the claim that blacks are morally inferior to whites?"
...a form that I am in the process of moving to, but I still occasionally use the more common indefinite second person pronoun form, which was the source of this misunderstanding.
While you were commenting, I made a massive edit to my preceding comment.
I am going to read yours now.
Why don't you respond to the point i made in my comment before the edit, Viz, "I ain't making either claim. But that isn't because is ain't fair. If I had reason to believe either claim, and I thought it beneficial to state it out loud--I would."
In all fairness, I have to lay out how i took your comment for you to understand what I"m saying.
You said:
"If you really believe it fair and reasonable to assert that atheists are morally inferior to Christians, than how could you contest the claim that blacks are morally inferior to whites?"
So I thought the following:
Since there is no way, logically, you, inevitably, get from "assert[ing] that atheists are morally inferior to Christians to not being able to "contest the claim that blacks are morally inferior to whites", I was certain that you were not trying to make a logical argument. Rather, I thought you were making the squishy 'moral(istic)' claim that it's is equally 'immoral(istic)' to assert that atheists are morally.. as it is to assert that blacks are morally... Ergo, i took you argument to go, if you will do the one, how can you contest the doing of the other.
If, on the other hand, you had logical inevitability in mind, would you mind explaining explaining your assertion?
AC logically equivalent to BW
I am instead arguing a weaker connection between AC and BW. The basis of that connection lies in the assignment of personality traits to individuals based solely upon their membership in a group. This is the fundamental point I want to make, so I'm going to put it in bold:
In the absence of empirical confirmation, assigning personality traits to individuals based solely upon their membership in a group is incorrect.
Yes, if you actually go out there and carry out a proper statistical study and establish your confidence bounds, then you can make a statement arising from that empirical study. But John has not done that. He has not stated the size of his statistical sample, he has not declared the basis under which he determined the spiritual category of his subjects, he has not declared the basis under which he evaluated their moral worth, he has not presented his results in quantitative form, and he has not provided confidence intervals. Nor has he presented any useful information regarding the moral worth of his grandparents. He asserts that they are highly moral people. But he does not provide us with any objective basis for how he arrived at this statement, nor does he provide us with confidence intervals. John has made an informal observation that has no, none, zero probative value. It's no different from claiming that the 1962 Yankees were better than the 1949 Red Sox. It's an opinion, nothing more. John is entitled to his opinion. But his opinion carries zero weight as evidence.
To summarize: the core concept I am arguing is that the assignment of personality traits to individuals based on their membership in a group is, in the absence of empirical evidence, incorrect.
In fact, you've done nothing but that.
Here are some examples for you:
Bruce B.
Kristen B.
R. Crawford
N. Crawford
There, satisfied?
Sheesh!
I gave details as to what I thought was, not in a moral or spiritual, but a practical sense superior about my grandparents life and that in my experience I had encountered no atheists with anywhere near the potential to succeed that well. You challenged me on that, and in response have been asked multiple times to simply provide an example of one, the only reason being to persuade me that such honestly exist. Instead, you have done everything but, either deliberately or foolishly. You are apparently unable or unwilling to provide context, actual information at least as much as I provided concerning my grandparents.
Based on the evidence, I do not believe you have any reliable information to disprove my experiences. You have proven to be an unreliable source, more interested in ranting and carrying on than honestly providing information. So, while nothing has been changed in my opinion concerning those who firmly believe that there is no God of any kind whatsoever, you have given me more than enough to form an opinion of you.
Absolutely false. You have made no honest attempt whatsoever to answer it.
I've been jumping through hoops,
Mainly as a diversion from the point.
writing long posts,
OVerwhelming verbosity is no substitute for reason, of which you have been lacking.
trying to answer your question, and nothing I write satisfies me.
I bet it doesn't. . . it doesn't satisfy me either, as you have NOT been trying to answer the question, you've been trying to justify yourself.
So tell me EXACTLY what you really want.
Would that be for the third, fourth, or fifth time? How many times must I repeat it before I can expect literacy to suddenly become one of your talents?
You're an idiot educated beyond his means. Here's a summary of the conversation, so you can follow just how stupid you've been.
Me: I'm agnostic, but in my experience Christians seem to do better in life, whereas in my experience atheists tend to be kinda childish.
You: Waah! That's not true!
Me: Okay, for "in my experience" to not be true, you'll have to change those experiences. I'm willing to know of a non-childish atheist. Show me one.
You: Waah! Religion is bad. I so smart! Look how many words I can write!
Me: If you want to change my mind, based on my experiences, you'll have to show me something new.
You: *flings poo*
Me: Thought so, you have nothing new.
Why don't you come back in about ten years, Chris, when your maturity, experience, and wisdom may possibly have caught up with your vocabulary. Maybe then you can show me a worthy atheist.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.