There was an atheist sign among the holiday displays at the Illinois capitol — and it was stolen! How strange — I guess the Ten Commandments are only a set of rough guidelines that Christians can throw out when confronted with uppity atheists. They’ve got the ethics of convenience, I guess.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Thou shalt not steal–ish
Thou shalt not kill — ish
The loopholes being, of course, open to interpretation. The divine Word of God is to be literally accepted as fact, but is still open to interpretation. Convenient…
This is a surprise? ‘Christian morality’ has always been ‘I can do whatever I want because I believe in Jesus and no one who has Jesus in his heart can do wrong.’ Very convenient moral system.
Unfortunately there are some atheists who do steal. This does not make it acceptable behaviour for theists though.
They have a system of morality that lets them excuse immoral actions, and yet they accuse atheists of being immoral.
I guess it could be worse. They could have a moral system that lets them throw the blame for their immoral actions onto others, particularly atheists. Maybe some groups do that already.
And then they likely claim that’s what “liberals” do, liberals being whoever they define.
Damn, Atheists… making good Xtians commit a sin.
“It had to take an effort (to remove it),” Gaylor said. “Atheists never engage in vandalism. We don’t go around stealing the Baby Jesus. They don’t follow their own commandments.”
As Reginald said, this is untrue and the very fact that a person of reason would say such a thing is midly disturbing.
I don’t think it’s a minor point or pedantism to say that such statements are a disservice to the speaker and the subject.
“I guess it could be worse. They could have a moral system that lets them throw the blame for their immoral actions onto others,”
Demons, Satan, Original Sin… They got that part covered.
Yes, very secure.
Yeah, anything to silence anyone who dares says “the Emperor is naked!”.
Best “Overheard in New York” line:
Suit to friend: I’m an evolution science guy. If you want to believe in that nonsense then you gotta admit your god is an underachiever with a good publicist.
–45th b/w 6th & 7th
Remember that Xians have an out. They can break a commandment and have Jebus forgive them.
I think it’s time atheists started doing a Ten Commandments challenge – “fuck you, christians, follow your own damn rules or go home”.
No more “I struggle with sin every day”, “We can’t be perfect and that’s why we need jebus”, NO! You follow your rules, or you can’t call yourself a christian anymore.
Any christian, especially prominent ones, caught breaking a single rule will be publicly outed and shamed.
Fundamentalist Christians seem more like fundamentalist Muslims every day.
Well, yes, but the greatest commandment is
Therefore anything you do in the name of loving God is permissible.
Or so it could be argued. It’s pretty much impossible to ever prove to a believer that something he does is wrong.
Those bastards!
@Tualha:
Fundamentalists are fundamentalists regardless of their respective religion. That’s probably why they are called fundamentalists in the first place.
Anyone have a bingo card to play along with the comments to the story?
“This sign is Anti-Christian. Ifit were Anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim it would never have been allowed in the first place.”
“Atheists have morals? Interesting. When you take God out of the picture there is no clear sense of right and wrong. It all comes down to what a person ‘feels’ on an individual basis and that can vary widely from person to person. Maybe whoever ‘stole’ it feels in their own mind they didn’t actually ‘steal’ it. Maybe they just ‘borrowed’ it. I think this is funny, personally. If somebody has stole a nativity scene it would not have even made the news.”
“This country’s foundation is based on Christian principles, as is supposedly most of the population. While I agree that most people claim to be Christian and do not strive to live a truly Christian life – I think it is either ignorance or arrogance to deny the existence of a God or ‘Supreme Being’ that created the universe and life here on Earth.
As far as atheists using one of the ten commandments – talk about hypocrisy! If you deny the existence of God, then there are no such thing as ten commandments is there? After all, he’s the author of those words.
I wonder if these atheists are willing to work the Christian holidays as regular work days – after all, with no God, those should be, to them, just another day….”
#6 – I believe that you mean “pedantry” rather than “pedantism”. A small point, but one I felt I had to clear up ;)
Doesn’t the Decalogue say something about graven images? Seems they forgot that part as well….
Yay for the golden rule! “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you,do ye even so to them…”
“I guess it could be worse. They could have a moral system that lets them throw the blame for their immoral actions onto others,”
Demons, Satan, Original Sin… They got that part covered.”
And the Jewish peoples. Let’s not forget blaming them….
The comments after the article are interesting. There’s this justification, for instance:
Ah, so that’s it. Otherwise, it would look like stealing. How wonderful that they have God grounding their morals. As one of the other Christian commenters says,
Right. That was prevented.
“Thou shalt not steal; an empty feat / when ’tis so lucrative to cheat. . .”
There’s really a problem with Christian ethics when the First Amendment and the Third Commandment get all tangled up.
Obviously, these idiots are worth laughing at for the inherent hypocrisy.
Oh, and this stupidity about “no clear sense of right and wrong,” these people know that modern social contract theory does not invoke god, right? No? Oh, well that explains a few things.
That’ll teach us wherefrom the fount of all ethics flow! Take that, atheists scudding through life without an ethical rudder!
Christians, or gnomes?
1. Steal signs2
2. ???
3. Profit!
I really hope people get a real clue about how the oppressed Christians are so tolerant.
All of the rules are in context to their own people only.
You’re allowed to kill and steal from heathens – anyone who isn’t god’s chosen.
Love thy neighbour doesn’t mean physical neighbour, it means only others that are also the chosen of god.
You’re allowed to kill and rape everyone else – in fact god often commands it.
Maybe FFRF forgot to give Blago a little tip for his campaign fund, so he took it down. Wait, that can’t be right. Blago’s never in Springfield, so he’s got an alibi.
I am interested in knowing more about “ish”, and I would like to receive your newsletter.
Woot! Slashdot memes invade Pharyni- Phiriny- Pharynag- um, this site!
In Soviet Russia, atheist signs steal you!
If thay’d had a Beowulf cluster of signs, they’d be unstealable!
If thay’d had a Beowulf cluster
You’re making me hot, QD. *fans self*
*facepalm*
What’s the last line of the sign again???
*finalJeopardyThemePlaysInBackground*
Oh, that’s right:
When will “Teh True Christians”TM realize they’re just making our point?
*epicfacepalm*
Ah, but does it run linux?
Yes. And I have, many times in favour of taking the days off at some other convenient time.
However, having said that, what that Christian is getting at in a not-very-veiled way is “would an atheist give up the holiday and work an EXTRA day since with no God, those should be, to them, just another day…” Grammar aside, I don’t feel I should have to work extra just because I don’t believe in fairies.
Ah, but does it run linux?
Yes. Welcome your new Ubutnu overlord signs!
You’re making me hot, QD. *fans self*
Yes, I have that effect when I talk tech.
You’re a dirty, dirty little iPod, aren’t you? Yes, you are! Lots of gangsta rap and death metal stuffed into you, isn’t there? Are those your ear buds, or are you happy to see me.
“I wonder if these atheists are willing to work the Christian holidays as regular work days – after all, with no God, those should be, to them, just another day….””
I work on Christmas every year that I can.
2.5x pay is sweet.
By the way, saw this, thought it was hilarious:
My favorite part is when Gretchen the batshit looney she is, complains that “It’s mocking the xtain holiday!” and the two guys are “Nuh UHH! I think it’s making fun of atheists!”
LMAO Gretchen got it right, keep throwing that crap into the capital.
Anyone in WA state want to try and put some Spaghetti Monster cheer in there?
Sorry BillO is in there to. . so be warned.
This shouldn’t surprise anyone who has ever been to central Illinois.
Elwood Blues: “Illinois Nazis.”
Jake: I hate “Illinois Nazis.”
No.
There fixed that for you.
“It had to take an effort (to remove it),” Gaylor said. “Atheists never engage in vandalism. We don’t go around stealing the Baby Jesus. They don’t follow their own commandments.”
Um… I’m as “a-” an atheist as you’ll find, but … wtf? “Atheists never engage in vandalism”? And while it may seem likely, it’s a bit silly to simply assume that stole the sign is a religious person.
Right, because putting up a NATIVITY SCENE is not in any way a dis to Jews or Muslims. Assholes.
I guess the only parts of the bible that are literal are the verses concerning homosexuality.
Of course the Nativity Scene in offensive to Non-Xians. The message couldn’t be any clearer.
By displaying the birth of Baby Jebus it is obviously saying that if you don’t bow down and worship Baby Jebus, you’ll burn in hell for all eternity.
Now, I don’t know about you, but I find that a lot more offensive than saying that your faerie tales are just faerie tales.
This shouldn’t surprise anyone who has ever been to central Illinois.
Hey! I’m from…. oh, wait, I see your point.
“I guess the Ten Commandments are only a set of rough guidelines that Christians can throw out when confronted with uppity atheists. They’ve got the ethics of convenience, I guess.”
Can we stop pretending that there was a vast conspiracy of the religious to steal this sign? Stealing the sign was wrong, and the person(or persons) who did it deserves to be found and ridiculed for their outlandish ridiculousness and hypocrisy. But it’s not like Opus Dei and the Southern Baptist Conference got together and decided to stick it to those damn atheists. Can’t you condemn the actor and the underlying cause for his actions (an unhealthy and destructive religious ferver) without condemning the concept of religion and faith?
I mean, I guess you can, but that would be less fun for you and you wouldn’t get to smugly poke a stick in the eye of the concept of religion and those who you think are foolish enough to believe in it. Let’s see; belittling the beliefs of others and agressively evangelizing your beliefs? Congratulations, you guys are well on your way to being a religion of your own. Welcome to the club.
#36
Oh come on. If we’re going to do this, let’s try to do it proper: we need some Discordianist, Church of Subgenius-ist and Cthulhuist propaganda hung up also. And I don’t see why Wiccans, Scientologists, Buddhists, Hebrews, Islamics, Taoists, Hindus, Satanists, etcetera shouldn’t join in on the fun too.
Ubutnu [sic]
Oops. :-) (blushes)
Ah, Ubutnu, Ubuntu… like it matters!
s/Gentoo/MacOSX
There. Even better. BSD forever!!!
The problem with xians isn’t that they are more moral than anyone else, having a written guideline that most couldn’t recite in full if they had to.
At best they are equal and equivalent to nonbelievers and apathetics. In notable cases, the fundies and other cults, they are demonstrably far worse. “By their fruits, you shall know them.” Well OK, according to their own standards laid out in The Book, they are just plain old evil people. The god babbling and jesus-as-a-cannonball schtick is merely camoflague.
But it’s not like Opus Dei
I dunno… I never trusted that penguin.
Naked Bunny, you are a fine one to say a comment makes you hot. Every time I see your name my semi-latent masochism comes out and I palpitate.
We should not be surprised that religious people pick and choose which rules to follow. That’s what got them started in the first place.
If everyone followed their “holy” books to the letter, they would be stoning their own children to death when they speak up to them, love slavery, kill the relatives of someone who commits a crime but let the criminal go free, …
Picking and choosing is a fundamental tenant of every religion.
It is very normal then that “thy shalt not steal” is not to be taken literally, isn’t it?
Hey! Where’s my tee-shirt?
#18 steve,
Concerning the decalouge and graven images.
Some thoughts.
Father: No one has seen or can see. In this case the prohibition makes sense to avoid idol worship.
Son: “child has been born, son has been given”, by default Jesus would then have an image, thus a nativity of baby jesus would be loopholed out of the graven images clause.
Spirit: perhaps by default no image is needed or really desired seeing that the word for spirit is most commonly related to wind in greek and hebrew
#45 The Common Man,
Ouch…. it would be less fun.
Here’s a deal:
I’ll let the Xian fucktards haul down all public expressions of atheism they can find, as long as I can do the same with all public expressions of X-Inanity…which would of course include churches, crosses, and 10-Commandment plaques…
Deal?
it’s a good thing they didn’t see the Shrine of the Invisible Pink Unicorn PBUHPFA. If they has stolen that they would never again have a matching pair of socks.
I can’t believe it took 45 posts until we got an “atheism is a religion” comment from someone. Thanks for enlightening us, Common Man. We’ve never heard that one before.
A sign!!! Oh no, not another sign!!!
Really unimaginative and ineffective PR and advertising. Xmas is a holiday, it is time to have fun.
There are far more fitting ways to do this.
1. A tree of knowledge, ornaments are books and scientific themes, microscopes, etc..
2. A Flying Spaghetti monster made out of many light strings, multicolored.
3. A nativity scene with cartoon, mythological, and sci-fi characters.
4. A nativity scene illustrating the birth of older gods. The Greek ones came from the Titans, the Nordic ones came from wherever, some of the Native American ones came out of the ground etc..
5. Whatever one’s imagination can dream up.
But it’s not like Opus Dei and the Southern Baptist Conference got together and decided to stick it to those damn atheists. – The Common Man
How do you know they didn’t?
Of course not, this is silly. Opus Dei and the Southern Baptists really, truly, homicidally hate each other. They would never get together unless it was some sort of mass mutual massacre of each other.
For 400 years, they killed each other by the millions. The slaughter finally wound down in Northern Ireland a whole 8 years ago. The Catholics claim to be the one true church. The fundies claim the RCC is the church of satan.
Fundies are all the same. The difference between the xian and moslem fundies is more where they are located. Here in the west, we no longer allow sects to field armies with heavy weapons, fighter planes, and tanks to argue points of dogma.
Originally, in the european Arctic, the ‘Christmas’ (solstice/yule) tree was a privilege only of the Druidic hetman to have. In it were hung the carcasses one of every ‘species’ of critter within the hetman’s realm, including people.
Good Times!
Ha! Check out the post form Optimus Prime. After ranting about how church/state separation sickens him and we are hypocrites and all that crap he posts-
KEEP YOUR SIGNS OFF GOVERNMENT TAX PAID GROUNDS!!!
Classic!
They have not committed any sin nor broken any commandment. You need to keep them in context. All the commandments contain the contextually provided caveat of “from another Christian”. For example, “Thou shall not steal from another Christian (or Jew)”. After all Yhwh commanded genocide, rape, slavery, sex slavery of virgins, and passively permitted incest (Lot and his daughters, well the resultant offspring were punished but not their mothers).
I would prefer a standard nativity scene but replace the baby Jesus with Horus. After all, Jesus’ birth story is stolen from the birth story of Horus. Well, technically it is an amalgam of Moses and Horus but Moses’ birth story is an adaptation of Horus’ birth story.
In Judaism, the Messiah is the return of Moses.
When you remember that “Thou shalt not kill” meant “thou shalt not kill other israelites” it makes perfect sense.
They are not taking something from fellow xtians therefore it is not stealing.
Sorted.
Ah yes… southern Illinois. I was working in Bloomington some years back. At lunch, my southern Illinois colleagues (4 or 5, I can’t really remember) and I went to lunch. At the table, they said some kind of prayer before the meal, and I quietly sat, minding my own business, being respectful and all…
One of them noticed that I was not participating in their ritual and asked something like “Do you not say grace in Canada?” to which I replied “I’m sure plenty of Canadians do, but it’s not my way.” They pressed with “where do you go to church on Sunday?” and I responded with “I don’t, I am an atheist.”
An outside observer at that moment would think I had just eviscerated a kitten on the table.
Sure ended that conversation quickly. I wish I had a camera for the looks on their faces. Sort of “deer in the headlights” meets “child find dead body”. I still chuckle about it.
I love how some will strip words of any kind of meaning to get to the result they want. Is a religion just about decrying some beliefs and propagating others? If that’s the case, there’s no belief that wouldn’t be a religion. A belief in “liberty and justice for all” would be a religion. A belief that people shouldn’t wear fur or engage in animal testing would be a religion.
You don’t say whether you’re religious, but I suspect you are.
You’re right, more of a religious conspiracy against atheists would be if a bunch of religions got together and tried to do things like pass religious defamation laws or something. Thanks for the clarification. This is just random Christians completely ignoring their commandments on a regular basis, completely independently of each other. Somehow, though, I don’t think it really helps the image of Christians that they’re doing it freely, without any orders from higher-ups.
#54 woody.
wouldn’t they then gloat over being persecuted, thus giving them more zeal to be xians?
nero behaved like that and it didn’t work.
agressively evangelizing your beliefs
Funny how merely having the nerve to talk about atheism outside our own circles turns into “aggressive evangelism”.
“It had to take an effort (to remove it),” Gaylor said. “Atheists never engage in vandalism. We don’t go around stealing the Baby Jesus. They don’t follow their own commandments.”
I think, though very poorly worded, what they are referring too is the threats and letters that were received from churches and other religious groups over the Washington sign originally, and then it’s theft, and now a second one. And she is saying that the Atheist Groups do not send these threats and messages regarding nativity scenes. It’s still a broad generalization and most likely false, but less ignorant of a statement if it was meant this way.
At least, I hope this is what was meant. If not… just wow.
Dibs on Athena!
Signs I would like to see on buses, etc. would contain a simple quote from Aristotle:
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.”
#45: You forgot your “No true Scotsman” fallacy.
I thought you might enjoy this:
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/12/17/edge/
Apologies if you’ve already seen it. :)
Sorry BillO is in there to. . so be warned.
An emoticon for Bill O’Reilly
Most surely would not be a smiley.
A boot to the head?
A face twisted and red?
An image sure not to beguile me.
Those crazy Christians. They’re like raccoons. Taking every little shiny object they see.
I don’t see anything in the comment to warrant you making that accusation. But, yes, I came to the same conclusion you did (“…the actor and the underlying cause for his actions (an unhealthy and destructive religious ferver)…”) since nothing else was vandalized.
I didn’t see any evangelizing, either. Just pointing out the hypocrisy. If you consider that steering people away from religion, well, you probably should examine religious standards a bit better.
But even better, I enjoyed that you lumped all of the replies in this thread together into a big group of meanies, while at the same time whining that we shouldn’t lump all crisschins together. Gotta love it.
Sorry that your house isn’t clean, but that’s not my problem, you know? I’d probably have a bit more respect if I saw all of the area churches collectively decrying the crime – and for that matter, all religious crimes. Making lame excuses is simply pathetic.
No it isn’t. Just googling “Jewish messiah” gives a bazillion sources showing it isn’t that; it’s some unknown guy that will come and make everything cool,(along with another bazillion sources about Jews for Jebus).
Raven @57:
I like this idea. I say we bring back the real reason for the season. Happy Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, everyone!
Sorry Matt Heath I spoke too loosely. I shall not do so again.
The Messiah is suppossed to be “A Prophet Like Unto Moses”:
“a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear….And the Lord said to me: I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him” (Deuteronomy 18:15,18-19).
The birth story of Jesus was made to resemble the birth story of Moses.
As a lifelong non-believer, I approve heartily of the inclusion of an atheist solstice celebration in the capital. However, I think the wording of the sign (while accurate) is unnecessarily provocative. The point of holiday displays is not to make a political statement or to tell other people they’re wrong for what they believe. The intent should be to celebrate something that you believe. Signs like this one give religious people a reason to think atheists are angry, mean people. Why couldn’t we have a sign that just celebrates the solstice and the opportunity for everyone to spread love and cheer, no matter what their motivation may be (religious or otherwise)?
Sure, fine. I’ll take Venus/Aphrodite. IIRC, Athena was born full size from the head of Zeus. Aphrodite was born from the sea riding on a scallop shell according to a famous Italian painting. It might work to just stick up a copy of the painting with a diorama of a blow up doll on a giant clam shell along with an explanation of how sacred all this is to Followers of the Olympians.
Lessee now. Holidays (Christian ones and run-of-the mill federal ones) I’ve worked:
–Christmas.
–New Year’s Day (and Eve).
–MLK Day.
–Presidents’ Day.
–Easter Day (and that Palm day whatever).
–Memorial Day.
–Independence Day.
–Labor Day.
–Columbus Day.
–Veterans’ Day.
–Thanksgiving.
Sometimes for double-time pay. Sometimes on salary. Sometimes as an unpaid intern / apprentice. Sometimes a holiday does feel like just another day.
The Common Man in #45: Can we stop pretending that there was a vast conspiracy of the religious to steal this sign?
Merely half-vast.
@Ron #82: *snicker*
I think the sign states what the FFRF members believe. Sorry Illinois Native, but it’s just too bad that they think it offends.
Sure if the religious leaders and followers wouldn’t keep making it so fucking hard to not.
The birth story of Jesus was made to resemble the birth story of Moses.
There are two cononical ones, of course. Luke’s (the classic manger scene and all that, now with Magi!) doesn’t make much of an effort to refer to Moses. Matthew’s is the one that leans on Exodus 1 & 2. The main parallel is King Herrod’s purge, recalling the Pharaoh’s decree in Exodus 1, which precipitates Joseph and Mary’s flight to Egypt and return to the Galilee. Any flight in, out, or around Egypt is going to bring Moses to mind at least. But all that’s pretty thin, really. There’s an unmistakable attempt in Matthew to link Jesus with Moses, sure, but the messianic proof-texts, as it were, (like Isaiah 7:14), the ones that both Luke and Matthew rely on, aren’t in Exodus, and they aren’t about Moses. The key thing about the messiah was that he had to be of the house of David, and born in Bethlehem. Thus the involved geneaologies both authors construct, and the contrivances they employ to have the birth scene in Bethlehem.
“from Aristotle:
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.”
I always like this one from Polybius, 203-120 BCE;
“Since the masses of the people are inconstant, full of unrully demands, passionate and reckless of consequences, they must be filled with fears to keep them in order. The ancients did well, therefore, to invent the gods, and the belief in punishment after death”.
Opiate of the masses indeed…….
canonical
Can’t you condemn the actor and the underlying cause for his actions (an unhealthy and destructive religious ferver) without condemning the concept of religion and faith?
Why should I, when religious leaders routinely tell me that I’m less moral than they are because I don’t follow their religion? They’re the ones claiming moral superiority, so why shouldn’t I judge their actions based on their claims?
@82
The Common Man in #45: Can we stop pretending that there was a vast conspiracy of the religious to steal this sign?
Merely half-vast.
***
The conspiracy is half-empty-vast if you don’t include fundamentalist Muslims. Let’s get some cartoons worked into here and that should get everyone on the case, yelling at each other and making the whole world just like a stereotypical Christmas family gathering.
I didn’t realize the FFRF put up a sign in the WI capitol (seems obvious in retrospect)…I’ll have to get a picture sitting in its lap or something.
had the opposite here in philadelphia
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/36217524.html
A baby jesus statue was stolen from a nativity at 5th and market. This is actually an interesting issue, cause it was on Independence Mall, in front of the new Consitution center and technically on state or federal land. There are all kinds of displays that go up there all year, the Phalon Gong (sp?) are there and anti-war people mostly. There was actually a Humanist globe there too, it hasn’t been disturbed yet. There are tons of church’s all over the neighborhood, why they didn’t put the nativity at one of them is beyond me. Several people have written the Independence Mall people asking them to remove the nativity.
@#17:Posted by: AnthonyK | December 17, 2008 10:24 AM
‘#6 – I believe that you mean “pedantry” rather than “pedantism”. A small point, but one I felt I had to clear up.’
Talk about ironical!
Now c’mon, PZ… there’s no proof that this sign was stolen by a Christian. I’d agree that a Christian who took offense was the most LIKELY person to have stolen it, but it could have been a nonreligious person who stole it too.
This sort of bickering is absolutely useless to everyone. Let’s pick on specific Christian sects and leaders for the things they HAVE done and not for the actions of a single person who possibly was a Christian. That’s not fair, nor is it right. If an atheist were being accused of stealing a Christian display, the whole community would be up in arms about how atheism shouldn’t be judged by the actions of a single miscreant.
Yeah. Who would think that many christians were intolerant hypocrites?
If an atheist were being accused of stealing a Christian display, the whole community would be up in arms about how atheism shouldn’t be judged by the actions of a single miscreant.
Which would be equivalent only if atheists had a list of proper behavior — sort of a list of commandments — that we claimed to follow and then claimed made us superior to non-atheists.
I’ve seen a bumper sticker: “Christians aren’t perfect, just saved.” If they kept it at that, I’d agree with you. But they don’t, and I have no problem with someone pointing out hypocrisy.
“If an atheist were being accused of stealing a Christian display, the whole community would be up in arms about how atheism shouldn’t be judged by the actions of a single miscreant.”
Oh come on, give me a frickin break!
Christians exactly try to use this totally unfair tactic on Atheists each and every time some event, from the very minor example like this one, to major disasters.
I shudder at the day when an identified Atheist really does do something wrong, believers will use that one incident forever after as an example of the moral depraved Atheists compared to the supposed “godly Christians”.
Shootings at school? Well, blame the godless Atheists for not teaching about god in schools! Even when over and over and over, one form or another of deluded godly believer is responsible for the despicable acts.
Morals of the school, town, county, state, or USA not to your liking? The minority liberal Atheists are taking over! Even though each and every study I’ve seen so far find that the more religious the location, the more crime, illiteracy, STD’s, and teenage pregnancies.
Got hurricanes? Well of course the godless Atheists or gays are to blame for that too.
No, the Christian community has continually, historically and unfairly placed quite a bit of blame for everything under the sun on those who have different world views.
If an atheist were being accused of stealing a Christian display…
well, that’s the difference between wishes and farts, eh?
And to all the whiners that think the wording was a little strong on the atheist sign, you have to remember that the nativity is a reminder that Christians think that atheists deserve to be tortured forever for being atheists.
Or at least, that’s what Christians have told me.
Sorry, took awhile to write this all down, and many of the sentiments were expressed elsewhere in the comments while I was writing this, but I wanted to have my say too…
That’s just not true. The sign IS anti-Jewish it’s also anti-Muslim, anti-Thor, anti-Baal, and anti-Satan. Please forgive me if I am mistaken, but it sounds to me as if you believe that Christianity is under some sort of special persecution not shared by any of the other religions, and that this sign is part of a campaign specifically directed against Christianity.
That’s a common belief, but it’s wrong. Regardless of whether or not one believes in God, one can still believe in a natural moral sense. You may not believe the genesis of such a sense of morality is possible without God, but to argue there is no physical component to morality is to completely ignore the many well-documented instances of people whose moral behavior has changed drastically after brain-damage. We KNOW from such cases there is a portion of morality that is related to biology, atheists argue the entire kit and kaboodle arises from natural means, and theists that it arises from super-natural means, but we should all agree that there is a physical component, Whether ultimately sourced in God or nature, part of the biology of being a normal human is to have moral sentiments and so why shouldn’t atheists have a sense of morality? Even if their “morality” is “wrong”, it wouldn’t feel that way to them would it?
There are all sorts of natural sentiments that we share– normal people have a sense of “fair” and “unfair”. Normal people experience anger, happiness, hostility, grief, and wonder. Society helps shape and define what we view as fair and unfair; what makes us angry, what gives us joy; what we consider a threat; and what makes us sad. It does the same for what we consider right and wrong. There are actions whose rightness and wrongness we pick up just by interacting with our friends, family, peers and colleagues. Most theist would claim that this social morality is occasionally correct and more often that it is wrong– BUT the moral sensibilities felt by such person performing the “right thing” is the same, whether that action is transcendentally right or only socially right. So again– a sense that an action is “right” or “wrong” is independant of whether or not the person is actually doing something right or wrong… so no matter what you believe, why shouldn’t atheists have a clearly defined sense of right and wrong? Even if they are mistaken about what is right and what is wrong?
The major point of contention between theists and atheists, in this regard, lies in the justification of this sense. Most theists say that there is an absolute “right” and “wrong”, a transcendental standard sourced in God that is independant of all people (but all to frequently misunderstood– even by Christians). Atheists say “right” and “wrong” arise from experience, society, and biology. For some reason theists seem to think this implies that atheists believe they can choose what is right and what is wrong on a whim, but that’s just not true.
There are plenty of non-physical things defined by society that are, in some sense, arbitrary, but still constrained. Consider a hi-definition DVD player selling at your local store for $230.00. The “price” of that DVD-player is $230.00. No matter how much I might want the price to be $20.00. It isn’t. That price is detetermined by the interaction of people– how much to pay the the advertisers, the assemblers, the people who process the raw materials, the store clerks, the overhead of the store, current tax law, what customers are willing to payetc, etc, etc. And yet, it is entirely a human construct– there is no need for a transcendental Bob Barker to exist beyond space and Time in order for the price, in that store, at that time to be $230.00.
In another store, at another time, it may will have a different price… so what? It is the complex interplay of people– people with changing needs and desires that sets the price in that situation and despite the arbitrariness of the situation– I can’t buy the thing for $20.00 in that store– no matter how much I might want to. However, I might believe the DVD player is only worth $20.00– this too is a complex belief, shaped by past experiences, society and knowledge. If I truly believe this (and I don’t want the player badly enough), then I won’t buy it from that store. If enough people agree with me, the price will change (although it may never cost $20.00– and they may even stop making the item)
Similarly, in one culture, at one time, a certain action may be good, in another culture at another time, that same action might be bad… so what? It is the complex interplay of people– people with changing needs and desires that sets the social morality of that situation and despite the arbitrariness of the situation– I can’t change the social morality of that action– no matter how much I might want to. However, I might believe the action has a different moral interpretation– this too is a complex belief, shaped by past experiences, society and knowledge. If I truly believe this, and if enough people agree with me, the social morality of that action will change (though society may never entirely agree with me).
I want to stress that I’m not trying to change your mind about God being thesource of morality, nor am I trying to convince any atheists that God IS the source of morality. I’m trying to convince you that a clearly defined sense of “right” and “wrong” is independant of a belief in God, and is, in fact, independant of whether or not one is acting morally– God may whisper in your ethical ear about “right” and “wrong”, but there’s no way to be certain that you’re discriminating His whisper from any of the other ethical voices influencing your beliefs– you have to have faith that you’re getting it right; faith that you’re listening correctly; faith that you understand; faith that your knowledge and interpretation of the scripture is accurate. But you can never be certain the God isn’t whispering to the atheist in precisely the same fashion (sure She SAYS its from society, but does that mean she can’t be mistaken?). We ALL have the capacity for acting morally, no matter what we believe about an ulimate creator/law-giver; and MOST of us have a moral sense (whether accurate or inaccurate.) This includes atheists.
Maybe the person did feel that they were “borrowing it”… but it doesn’t mean that what they did was right does it? It doesn’t even mean that an atheist is being logically inconsistent if they say stealing the sign was “wrong”. At the very least shouldn’t we all agree that it was unfair?
But there’s more to say on this topic: you’re wrong about nativity scene thefts. If a nativity scene was stolen from an important building in a CAPITOL city it would make national news. When it’s stolen from a smaller town it makes local news. Here’s one from Boston:
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/18206509/detail.html
Here’s one from last year:
http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2007/12/07/news/10nativity.txt
Notice the police chiefs comments– he couldn’t recall a previous nativity theft. So, in Boseman, at least, nativity scene thefts aren’t in the news because (aside from this one), they aren’t happening. I have no reason to think it’s any different around the country.
I don’t think anybody here would argue that you’re not entitled to your beliefs. Most just disagree.
Why is it hypocritical to point out when somebody doesn’t live up to the standards by which they judge others? Even if you believe those standards to be incorrect? Note, the atheists are not saying that theft is wrong because it is one of the 10 commandments– they are saying that people who claim theft-is-wrong-because-it’s-one-of-the-10-commandments are hypocritical when they steal. Most will also claim that theft is wrong.
Some do, some don’t. It’s a matter of personal preference. I hope you realize that Atheists have feelings. That they have the same capacity for enjoyment and socialization as Christians, That they have families (some of which are not atheists). Many atheists enjoy the holdiays rituals– just like many Christians enjoy hiding Easter Eggs or dressing up a Christmas tree. (both are holdovers from Pagan celebrations).
But all of that being said, it’s important to realize that the Christian holidays are not just like any other days… most people aren’t working on those days. That alone makes them different from a secular perspective. Why should an atheist have to work when everybody else is taking the day off? Even if you’re right, and atheists have no sense of “right” and “wrong”, they still have a sense of “fair” and “unfair”. (which is why some of them are so angry)
I’ve always held the view that groups are not monolithic. Just like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton don’t speak for all black people; PZ doesn’t speak for all athiests. And not all Catholics follow to the exact beat of the pope. And I’m not hear to debate the semantics of what some should do, or could do or what have you. Groups are not monoliths. To view them as so is to stereotype.
“Can’t you condemn the actor and the underlying cause for his actions (an unhealthy and destructive religious ferver) without condemning the concept of religion and faith?”
We could, but why stop there when there’s so much to condemn about religion and faith? I mean, accepting things with great personal consequences as true without evidence? I condemn the crap out of that.
And more to the point is the common notion that religion makes one a better person, or that they have some basis for morality that we as atheists don’t. Any data point against that hypothesis is certainly worth pointing out. It’s just further confirmation of my opinion that religion in this country is mostly just a tribal affiliation sort of thing, and that living to Christian principles really takes a back seat to Christianity just being used to demonize outgroups. And since this is the sort of thing that religion tends to lead to, then it’s safe to say that religion really isn’t as wonderful as people make it out to be.
raven:
“The problem with xians isn’t that they are more moral than anyone else, having a written guideline that most couldn’t recite in full if they had to.”
Hey, it’s not their fault they have poor memories. That must be why they want to put their ten commandment monuments everywhere, because they can’t remember them without constant reminders.
“1. A tree of knowledge, ornaments are books and scientific themes, microscopes, etc..”
They already did something similar in Philly last year, and the Christianists still shit a brick.
“It’s just further confirmation of my opinion that religion in this country is mostly just a tribal affiliation sort of thing, and that living to Christian principles really takes a back seat to Christianity just being used to demonize outgroups.”
Well said, Rey!
“That must be why they want to put their ten commandment monuments everywhere, because they can’t remember them without constant reminders.”
In my experence, most really don’t, or haven’t even read the bible. They know small parts of it.
Also, and someone said this on another thread, believers like to mark their terratory like dogs…….
Yeah, unless one of those groups claims to have the One True God™ whispering in their ear–then you’d at least expect some consistency in their actions. Unless of course, the One True God™ isn’t all that one, or true, or even god.
The ffrf put up the sign that got stolen, twice.
If you support free speech and/or atheism, please join.
http://ffrf.org/membership/
Do you think they’ll ransom the sign for the senate seat?
:)
#96 (Naked…)
Which would be equivalent only if atheists had a list of proper behavior — sort of a list of commandments — that we claimed to follow and then claimed made us superior to non-atheists.
Sorry, I’m not going to let that one go. Atheists DO have a list of proper behavior – a rather comprehensive one. It’s called the law. And I have heard many an atheist argue that they’re morally superior to theists because their morality comes from their own decision to be moral/law-abiding and not because of their fear of god or hell.
Now, I’m not going to generalize and say that all atheists behave that way, but I’m not going to ignore it, either.
#97 (RAM)
I shudder at the day when an identified Atheist really does do something wrong, believers will use that one incident forever after as an example of the moral depraved Atheists compared to the supposed “godly Christians”.
I hate to tell you, RAM, but they already use people like Pol Pot as an example of that. It’s absolutely hypocritical in light of the crusades and various inquisitions and witch trials throughout history, I’ll agree, but it cannot be denied that atheism has its own villains.
But that’s PRECISELY my point. You can’t look at the actions of an individual who holds a particular belief system and condemn everyone else who holds the same set of beliefs.
#98 (Ichthyic)
If an atheist were being accused of stealing a Christian display…
well, that’s the difference between wishes and farts, eh?
Hey, I love a good deflection, but I’m going to call you out on that one. Not only is it not funny, but it doesn’t make any sense.
By the way, you guys… I’m an agnostic, not an atheist, but I’m on your side! I think this is atrocious behavior. But you’ve got to stop foaming at the mouth for a few minutes so you can think this through. Most Christians find this sort of behavior reprehensible as well. You can’t judge an entire group of people by the actions of the folks on the fringe.
Emhpasis mine. Anyone with half an ounce of sense will dismiss such a claim for the nonsense it is, simply because the absence of a belief in god/s cannot be used as an explanation for why anyone does anything. Pol Pot probably didn’t believe in leprechauns or unicorns – does it mean that he was driven to do what he did because of the moral vacuity of aleprechaunism or the ethical depravity inherent in aunicornism?
@#108 (Wowbagger)
You’re incorrect, sir, and your (straw man) argument is avoiding the point. Pol Pot insisted that Cambodians shed any religion at all (in his case, mainly Buddhism) – he forced atheism on an entire country.
He also insisted that they discard education, medicine and science, which demonstrates, I think, that he is a villain of the highest order and not someone anyone would want to be identified with.
Religion (or the lack thereof) is a CULTURAL CONSTRUCT. You might feel it is a fantasy, but religion has different implications on culture than the personal belief in folklore.
Anyhow, I’m heading out, guys. Have a wonderful evening, and I hope whoever stole the sign is caught and brought to justice!
So, you create a strawman by claiming your opponent created a strawman? Interesting. A strawman2 defence?
Anyway, it’s easy enough to understand once you bother to stop and think about why Pol Pot wanted Cambodians to ‘shed religion’. It was because he identified it as a key form of organised opposition to his rule.
Had his goal been to rid the country of religion so all could share in the beauty of an atheistic worldview then you might have something – but he didn’t. Nor did any other ‘atheist’ tyrant or despot. They’ve always attempted to eliminate religion because of its potential to oppose them, not so the subsequent atheism would benefit the people.
religion may be a social construct, but the absence of religion is not. It’s like saying that black is a construct of light.
Hey, I love a good deflection, but I’m going to call you out on that one. Not only is it not funny, but it doesn’t make any sense.
then go find me an atheist that stole a nativity scene.
your construct is fictitious.
get it now, or do i need to actually spell out the literal difference between wishes and farts?
go on home and play with your preconceptions.
Wowbagger, not forgetting that as well as eliminating or controlling a group that they feared had the power to organise against them, often they wanted to replace it with an ideology of their own. Though in the case of the Nazis and the soviets at least, they were not above using the religious leaders for their own ends when it suited. In other words, whatever name they gave it, their real ideology was power and keeping it and anything that might conceivably threaten their power was to be controlled and if it couldn’t be controlled, effectively eliminated.
Indeed.
I’ve always wonderered exactly how the argument that such regimes can be considered ‘atheist’ work. In what way does atheism – a lack of belief in god/s – dictate political structure? All the so-called ‘atheist’ regimes are always anti-democratic as well, which is far more in line with theocractic systems of government – only with the leader (or the party) replacing god at the head. Swapping one monstrous tyrant for another.
@ 102 Rey
“living to Christian principles really takes a back seat to Christianity just being used to demonize outgroups. And since this is the sort of thing that religion tends to lead to, then it’s safe to say that religion really isn’t as wonderful as people make it out to be.”
Well, that depends if you’re on the inside or the outside. It’s awfully warm in here. :)
“The common notion that religion makes one a better person, or that they have some basis for morality that we as atheists don’t.”
Regardless of what extreme Christians or others will say, this notion is dead wrong. No one is a better person because of their religion, but my religion strengthens and reinforces my desire to do good, and it does the same for others as well. In this way, religion is a tool. When used as a hammer, bad. When used as a blanket, good. It isn’t bad because many terrible things have been done in the name of religion, any more than science is bad because of things done in the name of science.
“accepting things with great personal consequences as true without evidence? I condemn the crap out of that.”
I don’t. I think that’s the essence of faith. But my belief has to be informed by the realization that I don’t have any hard evidence and I could totally be wrong.
But religion doesn’t do shitty things to people. Shitty people use religion to do shitty things to others. Just because someone uses a baseball bat in a mugging doesn’t mean that we condemn baseball.
It seems an obvious point, that dogmatic structure is a political institution rather than a religious one. A theocracy would have the same trouble, only it’s ruling under the guise of a God but really it’s the same power for the man at the top.
What this has to do with atheism I don’t know, atheism is simply the lack of belief in a God. It has no social structure, no institution, no tenets, no dogma, it’s the absence of any dictatorial means on how to act. It has nothing to do with politics at all.
But religion doesn’t do shitty things to people. Shitty people use religion to do shitty things to others. – The Common Man
Indoctrinating children with ludicrous nonsense is pretty shitty: all religions do this – it’s essential to their survival.
Common @115, you’re trying to have it both ways. You credit religion for the good, and excuse it for the bad.
So, you’re saying that strengthening and reinforcing your desire to do good does not make you a better person.
Right.
The Common Man wrote:
Religion definitely doesn’t make people ‘better’. But if adhering to it isn’t guaranteed to make you a better person, or doesn’t fill you with god’s magical creamy goodness, then what’s the difference between it and a non-theistic ethical worldview – one that doesn’t depend on subjective interpretation of something like the bible – such as humanism?
And I suspect you’ll find that it’s not just ‘extreme’ christians who espouse this. Survey information in the US shows us that the atheists are considered the most untrustworthy of social groups. If religion alone isn’t guaranteeing ethical betterment, how do you explain these results?
Blockquote fail
The problem with this statement is “good” and “bad” are often defined within a religion so things that are overall detrimental to both individuals and society are passed down as good. Look at beating your kids.
Name some bad things done in the name of science.
Name some bad things done in the name of science.
aww, c’mon, where’s your xmas spirit?
you’re such a grinch, not letting him get away with the standard false equivalency so many xians like to use.
;)
Evolution. ;)
</ChristardMode>
Kel, “Name some bad things done in the name of science.”
I refer you to this post (and its sequel) Was Nazi science good science?
It’s okay, he was probably a drive-by troll who tried to say something insightful (and failed) then scampered off.
Actually “Science” was my first answer but I was laughing so hard I hit an infield pop fly on that floater. Sorry, my laugh-o-meter is set too low today. ;)
As you were.
I refer you to this post
oh?
from the very article you cite, John:
Do you think Orac’s point was bad things done in the anem of science, or rather was it bad science done in the name of ideology?
That’s my contention. We see killing each other over which god is true, persecuting those who believe in a different god or no god at all, committing atrocities all in the name of god. When have you ever seen a scientist kill another scientist over competing cosmological hypothesises?
Kel, you did read the whole post, right? Orac’s conclusion:
So was Nazi science good science? Yes, some of it was. Was it bad science? Also yes, quite a bit of it was. Was it pseudoscience? Yes again, a lot of it was. It may not be bad science to take two groups of people, carefully match them and inject them with a deadly microbe, and then to test whether a new drug or treatment can save people compared to a no treatment control, but it’s profoundly immoral science. Indeed, science under the Nazis was a paradox. A regime that could figure out the link between smoking and lung cancer long before anyone else also viewed its enemies as subhuman and perpetrated the most horrific atrocities on them in the name of science. That they could do this is, again, because science is completely amoral. (my bold).
Never – but that was not what you originally asked, and to which I responded.
The Common Man #115 wrote:
As Kel pointed out, religion is a very good tool for redefining right and wrong by seeing human actions as part of a larger whole grounded in the supernatural — the belief in which is grounded in “faith.” Thus, the morals are quite capable of going all over the place, with no earthly check.
If you look at the comments from Christians which follow the article in the paper, you’ll see there’s variety. Many of them, like you, condemn the thieves. Others justify the theft, claiming that it’s not wrong at all when taken in context — the sign was committing blasphemy.
The Christians on both sides of the argument share the assumption that religion is being used as a good-working blanket, whether it condemns or demands the theft. And both sides are able to claim that they’re on God’s side. The thieves very probably felt the strength of God helping them carry that heavy sign.
Another name for “faith” is dogmatic certainty — a personal commitment is made to stand by a belief, and bend and twist evidence to find confirmation. It is very nice to pay the lip service that you “might be wrong,” and it does you credit — but of course, faith can’t be tested. The believer is tested. Not the belief.
oops – my response was to Ichthyic, to what Kel asked.
you’re really stretching what Orac is saying there, John.
Especially if you think that essay represents what you represented it to Kel as:
example of bad things done in the NAME OF SCIENCE.
at best, it is a muddled picture, and clearly, Orac starts off by pointing out what the actual motivations were, which I quoted directly above.
don’t know what you’re after, other than saying there is no inherent morality applied to science itself.
If that’s what you were after, you could have done a far better job of it than you did.
if not, then it’s fail for you.
Hows this for a format:
“Thou shalt not steal: 1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force ”
+
*atheist propaganda goes here*
+
“Thou shalt not steal:1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force ”
(the +’s are actually crosses. Like when you want to ward off ghosts, or vampires, etc.)
SeanJJordan #107
There’s two problems with this. The minor problem is that, as a group, atheists are less likely to be convicted prisoners than theists. So if we do accept atheists using the law as the basis for a moral code, it would appear to be a better basis than the 10 commandments.
The major problem is that theists basing morality on “fear of god or hell” is bad theology. A five year old doesn’t steal cookies from the cookie jar because he’s afraid Mommy will smack his bottom if he’s caught. An adult doesn’t steal things because it’s not a moral thing to do. A theist should be moral because that’s what’s pleasing to god, not because god will spank him for ever and ever.
So if your moral basis is “fear of god or hell” then you need to reconsider your beliefs. “When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things.” Cor 13:11 (NAB)
*atheist propaganda goes here*
Is there propaganda that goes with not stamp collecting too?
I think you’ve missed my point. Yes the nazi scientists did bad things, but it wasn’t in the name of science. And yes there are unethical experiments that are done in the name of science, but they are by no means equivalent to what’s been done in the name of religion. As Ichthyic pointed out, Common Man was just trying to give some equivocation in order to deflect criticism.
I’ve dealt with these types of arguments before, they aren’t anything to do with unethical experimentation. What they do is take things like the atomic bomb and blame that on science. And anyone who has even had a glance at the motivations behind the creation of atomic bomb would know that it’s existence was not done “in the name of science”, rather it was done in the name of war – to get the technology before the Germans.
People who say “bad things are done in the name of science” say it purely as a means of deflecting criticism of their own ideology. It’s a “look, yours isn’t perfect either”, thus completely misrepresenting science (it’s not a religion) and shifting the focus away from religion.
Even if there have been some scientific indiscretions, none compare to even the most tame of negative elements done in the name of religion.
The very thing that undermines religion’s claims to moral/ethical inspiration is the very abmiguity the sign-thieves’ defendants are using in their defence.
Either something is wrong or it isn’t. If their omnimax invisible super-bestfriend isn’t capable, in his infinite wisdom, of dictating his will in clear, concise and unambiguous terms then he’s hardly in a position to pass judgement on people, is he?
Or to burn to intimidate your neighbors, like blacks, Jews, Catholics, Atheists, etc.
Or to burn to intimidate your neighbors, like blacks, Jews, Catholics, Atheists, etc.
naww, we have portable tesla devices to burn crosses into our neighbors.
John Freshwater paved the way.
what’s the latest on his review process, btw?
have they tossed him yet?
anyone know?
Ichthyic @132,
That science is amoral doesn’t need saying, since science is only a (methodological and conceptual) tool.
I was trying to give an example of bad things done in the course of science, since to most people, “in the course of science” would likely be pretty much synonymous with “in the name of science”. I admit it isn’t. Of course, by such pedantry nothing (good or bad) can be done in the name of science, and thus Kel’s becomes a loaded/rhetorical question.
I recognise that Common Man was clearly disingenuously trying to put religion and science into the same category, and Kel’s second point in the #121 comment was refuting that with a (poor) rhetorical question.
I just like answering rhetorical questions, I guess.
It wasn’t rhetorical, I genuinely wanted Common Man to try and justify his assertion. I’m sick of these religious types trying to
a) equate science as a religion of the non-believers
and
b) acting like religion and science are equivalent. Ben Stein’s “science leads to killing people comment” seems to resonate among the ignorant masses and it needs to stop.
‘Science’ can’t be either good or bad – it’s just a means of obtaining knowledge about how things work. It’s what gets done with that knowledge that’s subject to moral/ethical investigation.
Science will tell you whether a poison will kill a person; it has nothing to say about whether you should or shouldn’t use it to kill people. We can’t even extend Common Man’s analogy of the hammer to it, since science is more the knowledge that a hammer can transfer energy than it is the hammer itself.
Kel @141, I get it now. <blush>
@ Kel
First, Ben Stein is a fuckwit. Seriously, one good movie role and he won’t go away.
Second, I freely admit that terrible things have been done in the name of religion, and that a lot of that has been done to scientists. And I would not even begin to defend the idea that those acts were somehow morally equivalent to any nastiness that science has wrought. I recognize and accept that religiousness has spent the better part of the last few millenia doing terrible, horrible things, and that terrible, horrible things will continue to be done because of it. And that sucks. And it saddens me. But I don’t believe that means that the concept of belief itself is bad, just that many religious folks have been and are bad at believing.
It was not my attempt to somehow equate science and religion (indeed, they are different). But the ways they can be used can and have been similar, with a total disregard for the rights of those being conquered or tested (the Tuskeegee experiments, for instance). That said, I realize that the instances of scientists misbehaving in this way are miniscule compared to what religion has done.
Finally, I don’t know that I’m a troll, Kel. I have long been interested in the concept of atheism, and have recently become curious enough to try to understand it better. Frankly, I thought actually talking and commenting might help in that regard. I am and will be completely respectful of your point of view, and I appreciate that you have done the same for me. I may stick around a bit longer, if no one minds terribly.
You don’t see an inherent problem with dogmatism?
Yes, genocide and observing the untreated effects are similar.
You’re damn right it’s minuscule. There was no point for you to even try and compare what happens in the name of religion to what happens in the name of science.
Well, as irritating as it is, you’ve gotta admit that this sort of thing is giving exposure to atheists, at least. Perhaps if Bill O’Reilly and the like keep ranting and railing about us enough, others will soon stop and ask just what this whole atheism thing is about- giving us a chance to maybe change some minds, or at least be better heard.
It was not my attempt to somehow equate science and religion
LOL
backpedaling will not you simply because we noticed your obvious employment of the age old “false equivalency” tactic.
admit defeat and move on.
…will not avail you
The Common Man #144 wrote:
No, they are not bad at believing. On the contrary, people who do atrocities at the bidding of God are very, very good at believing. They care more about God, than they care about the world. That does not necessarily lead to sweetness and light.
The parts of religion which are reasonable, admirable, and inspiring are reasonable, admirable, and inspiring from a secular point of view. The more religion takes the world into account — science, charity, beauty — the better it becomes. The more doubt, the more humility.
That’s good — but from the standpoint of religion, it’s also a serious problem. If a good part of what Christianity does and says makes sense even to an atheist, then it’s making sense for secular reasons. We’re really dealing with philosophy, or ethics, or aesthetics, grounded in this world. The supernatural elements are resting lightly on top, like a cherry.
For the existence of God to really, really matter to a religion, that means the religion has to “reveal” things that would NOT make sense to an atheist, no matter how good-willed, intelligent, or compassionate. And once you’ve got some moral Truth that cannot be defended on common ground, all bets are off on what it’s likely to be.
You’re very welcome to stick around — you seem like a nice, reasonable, thoughtful person. I suspect you have a fairly nice, reasonable, thoughtful sort of religious belief, which helps you make the world a better place. So a question:
If it turns out that, after all, there is no God, and never has been a God — that there is only this natural world — and you come to this conclusion — then what would you choose to change about your life? Would you start hating everyone? Would you drop every fine and noble cause because it “doesn’t matter” anymore? Would you start kicking puppies and eating kittens? Kill yourself? Smash all the works of art, and burn all the literature? Try to turn yourself into the worst kind of person you can be?
I’m going to guess not. I’m going to guess that the major change you’d make is ‘less church.’ But that’s just a guess. Haven’t seen enough of your posts.
It’s a little late but I was thinking; I’ve known quite a few people who’d probably steal this sign and put it on their wall because they thought it was cool. Sure, given the locale of this incident the above seems less likely. But there it is.
It’s been a long while since I took a psych class, but I remember discussing something about moral development in that class.
As I recall, the earliest, most basic, child-like stage was a person who does good to avoid punishment… say, being a nice guy because if you don’t, you get tortured forever in a lake of fire.
Higher levels had different grounding, culminating in people who do the right thing because it helps society as a whole or because they feel they owe a duty to society as a whole.
On that scale, religious morality is at the bottom of the pole, and the morality of atheists is much higher up.
(woot! the magic of Wikipedia) Kohlberg’s stages of moral development – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development
Damn, I must have actually been awake during that class.
So looking at that wiki, religious morality seems to me to be best described as Pre-Conventional, stage 1 or maybe 2. Atheist morality would generally be at least Conventional, stages 3 and up.
I can only conjecture that the religious don’t follow psychology, however, since the bible doesn’t mention shrinks.