Pope says atheists can go to heaven...

[carepov]

I really don't know any atheists that care about people's personal relationship with gods. They care about it when those relationships are pushed on others and are used in defence of dangerous things.

cyber, let me introduce you to our friend Mighty AC:

Odd...you seem to think people are born religious. People are born into a race category but belief in invisible magic men is taught. Well, taught is being to kind. It is forced on children who have yet to develop the critical thinking skills necessary to prevent the brainwashing. In that regard, theism spreads like racism.

Poverty and massive income inequality are sources of crime and worth fighting, but more importantly they actually exist. There is no evidence for the basis of theism. Stamping out BS is a worthwhile goal in itself, but especially when the fairy tale is a major source of socially tolerated evil.

Even the religious who oppose misogyny, sexual orientationism, racism, social regression and the suppression of scientific knowledge still contribute to perpetuate the problem by lending support to a church or the idea that faith is a virtue. Belief in anything without evidence is a dangerous problem itself, but the social protection we grant to this stupidity is far worse.

[TimG]

I really don't know any atheists that care about people's personal relationship with gods.

We are now using the term anti-theist to describe atheists that do care about other people's personal relationship with gods (i.e. they want to get rid of it). Edited January 24, 2014 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

And you are bigot as venal as any racist because you judge an entire group of people based on the actions of a some. Discrimination laws don't distinguish between groups which are genetically defined vs groups which are defined by choice.

The only actions I attribute to the entire group are belief without evidence, propping up the ridiculous notion that faith is a virtue, and in varying capacity lending support, in the form of political power, to religious organizations. Religion is widely used to excuse racism, misogyny, homophobia and the suppression of knowledge; which is a serious and pervasive problem, but I didn't ever say all religious folk commit those sins.

Stamping out BS is a worthwhile goal but the BS now-a-days comes from all sides. Theism is not a uniquely associated with it. In Canada most of the BS comes from environmentalists who make completely irrational demands based on nothing but a belief that if something is done by humans it must be bad.

Let's leave environmental arguments out of this topic...there is no need for you to get trounced by Waldo in yet another thread.

What social protection?

The cultural protection society grants religious ideas. Like unicorns and fairies, religious ideas are not backed by any evidence. However, adults who who publicly acknowledge a belief in ideas like fairies, unicorns or the living Elvis, without evidence are subject to ridicule or feelings of pity. And they should be, as that is how bad ideas are weeded out and good ideas elevated. Religion, which is also free of evidence, is given a free pass due to social conventions. I don't think any ideas should be beyond criticism.

[Bonam]

Discrimination laws don't distinguish between groups which are genetically defined vs groups which are defined by choice.

Perhaps not. But maybe they should.

[Mighty AC]

Is the belief/conviction of the existence of extraterrestrial life dangerous? If not, why is that different than the belief in the existence of God?

That depends. Having faith in the existence of aliens, unicorns, gods, Scottish sea monsters or invisible cosmic gummy bears would be a dangerous practice. Being confident that other life forms exist in the infinitely vast universe because of the positive odds presented by an inconceivably large number of planets that reside in temperature (Golidlocks) zones considered suitable for the existence of life, is not dangerous.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Mighty AC

[cybercoma]

cyber, let me introduce you to our friend Mighty AC:

His problem is with perpetuating the notion that the dangerous and sometimes disgusting ideas of some theists are sacred and should be respected. Faith and any arguments from faith deserve no more or less respect than we give the political or scientific ideas. They should be challenged by their opponents and supported by their proponents. And support does not mean demanding reverence to ideas for no other reason than people claiming that they're sacred.

[carepov]

His problem is with perpetuating the notion that the dangerous and sometimes disgusting ideas of some theists are sacred and should be respected. Faith and any arguments from faith deserve no more or less respect than we give the political or scientific ideas. They should be challenged by their opponents and supported by their proponents. And support does not mean demanding reverence to ideas for no other reason than people claiming that they're sacred.

Yes he is saying that - and every rational humanist would agree.

But there's more, he spefically said, even when religious people oppose the dangerous and disgusting ideas they are still part of the problem.

Even the religious who oppose misogyny, sexual orientationism, racism, social regression and the suppression of scientific knowledge still contribute to perpetuate the problem by lending support to a church or the idea that faith is a virtue.

Unless I'm mis-understanding his message, he is driving a wedge between secular humanists and religious humanists.

[Mighty AC]

You say you challenge the lack of skepticism in ALL sectors on one hand, and then heap scorn on those who are skeptical of vaccines. Hypocrite.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130716-autism-vaccines-mccarthy-view-medicine-science/

[sharkman]

...

What social protection? If people break laws they are accountable. The problem you have is you have your own belief systems which you want to impose on others and you dislike laws which prevent you from doing this. This makes you no different from those that you claim to oppose.

On second thought, I really doubt that Mighty AC is this simple minded. Just more boredom and attempts to stir the pot much like Argus does. It's difficult to have a serious discussion at the best of times, but when one side compares people's faith to a belief in cosmic gummy bears then you know it's an attempt to troll. What's the point in responding to that?

[Mighty AC]

But there's more, he spefically said, even when religious people oppose the dangerous and disgusting ideas they are still part of the problem.

Even the religious who oppose misogyny, sexual orientationism, racism, social regression and the suppression of scientific knowledge still contribute to perpetuate the problem by lending support to a church or the idea that faith is a virtue. Belief in anything without evidence is a dangerous problem itself, but the social protection we grant to this stupidity is far worse.

Unless I'm mis-understanding his message, he is driving a wedge between secular humanists and religious humanists.

I am saying two things here. 1) Belief without evidence is a dangerous practice regardless of the idea in question. 2) Even those who oppose evils being espoused or committed by their church, are accessories to that evil if they stand and are counted as members of that organization. It lends political and sometimes financial power to those spreading the evil.

I have no beef with humanists that claim to be religious but have no affiliation with a church sect that espouses hate. If that were the majority of religious people I doubt this entire section of the forum would exist.

[Mighty AC]

On second thought, I really doubt that Mighty AC is this simple minded. Just more boredom and attempts to stir the pot much like Argus does. It's difficult to have a serious discussion at the best of times, but when one side compares people's faith to a belief in cosmic gummy bears then you know it's an attempt to troll. What's the point in responding to that?

That's really the ultimate question. Why should your belief in a god be considered different than belief in other gods, ghosts, gremlins and invisible cosmic gummy bears? Why should your beliefs be considered sacred and exempt from criticism when the other g's are not?

Edited January 24, 2014 by Mighty AC

[sharkman]

That's really the ultimate question. Why should your belief in a god be considered different than belief in other gods, ghosts, gremlins and invisible cosmic gummy bears? Why should your beliefs be considered sacred and exempt from criticism when the other g's are not?

Uh, they are not exempt from criticism, I'm surprised that you can't see that. What you are doing is beyond criticism and purposely saying controversial/immature things in an attempt to troll. This reveals a bigotry in you that is no different from racism. I work with racists and avoid certain topics with them and I think I'll do the same with you. How's the weather over there?

Edited January 24, 2014 by sharkman

[Mighty AC]

Don't worry Sharkman, theists never answer that one. They are always offended by the comparison of personal beliefs to other entities that are considered fake, but can never explain the difference. Atheists are just like you, but we just believe in one less imaginary entity.

I know how it feels to be asked this question though. I eat meat and I have a friend and a relative that are vegetarian/vegan. It's hard to debate a choice when all the ethics, logic and data support the other side. I listen to them talk about health, ethics, environmental concerns, runoff, energy, etc and I know they are right. But in the end I still say, screw it, I like steak.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Mighty AC

[carepov]

That depends. Having faith in the existence of aliens, unicorns, gods, Scottish sea monsters or invisible cosmic gummy bears would be a dangerous practice. Being confident that other life forms exist in the infinitely vast universe because of the positive odds presented by an inconceivably large number of planets that reside in temperature (Golidlocks) zones considered suitable for the existence of life, is not dangerous.

hmmm....

What is the difference in "Having faith in the existence of aliens" (dangerous) and "Being confident that other life forms exist?" (not dangerous).

Are you saying that the vastness of the universe is evidence of other life forms? Funny, some claim the same evidence for the existence of God.

Both scientists and theologians "believe without evidence". Both construct models that explain the universe and both revise these models over time. Remember both are branches from the same tree and there is still some areas of overlap.

Is there evidence for the existence of strings?

Until recently when evidence was found, were the believers of the Higgs-Boson "dangerous"?

[sharkman]

Don't worry Sharkman, theists never answer that one. They are always offended by the comparison of personal beliefs to other entities that are considered fake, but can never explain the difference. Atheists are just like you, but we just believe in one less imaginary entity.

I know how it feels to be asked this question though. I eat meat and I have a friend and a relative that are vegetarian/vegan. It's hard to debate a choice when all the ethics, logic and data support the other side. I listen to them talk about health, ethics, environmental concerns, runoff, energy, etc and I know they are right. But in the end I still say, screw it, I like steak.

Sure, sure, thanks for raising that important issue friend! Hey listen, I gotta run(slowly backing away) so you take care and watch out for that weather okay?

[carepov]

2) Even those who oppose evils being espoused or committed by their church, are accessories to that evil if they stand and are counted as members of that organization. It lends political and sometimes financial power to those spreading the evil.

I have no beef with humanists that claim to be religious but have no affiliation with a church sect that espouses hate. If that were the majority of religious people I doubt this entire section of the forum would exist.

The work of almost any group of people can accused of "spreading evil". Whether it is a religious organization, nation, NGO, political party, corporation, even Boy Scouts and sporting groups.

The larger the group the more certain that it is not perfect. As long as the goals of the group are positive and the majority of the actions are positive I think that it is noble to be a part of and support that group - especially if you are working on improving that group.

[bleeding heart]

............

Edited January 24, 2014 by bleeding heart

[TimG]

1) Belief without evidence is a dangerous practice regardless of the idea in question.

Why? Because you say so?

Trying visiting an AA or an NA meeting in your neighborhood. You will find many people who have been clean/sober for years because they decided to believe in a higher power. What right do you have to judge them? What basis do you have to say that their "belief without evidence" is dangerous?

The belief in a god is a personal choice that often brings psychological benefits to the people that make that choice. These benefits are real even if the god is not. It is incredibly arrogant for you to make the blanket statement that all such beliefs are bad.

I have no beef with humanists that claim to be religious but have no affiliation with a church sect that espouses hate.

Now you are contradicting yourself. You have made many statements vilifying all theists and make no distinction between those that belong to particular organizations that advocate positions that you disagree with and those that don't.

If you really want to move the goal posts you need to state explicitly that your objection is not with theists but with the actions of some theists and theist organizations.

Edited January 24, 2014 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

You're right, Tim, of course, but surely it cuts both ways? People of faith don't seem to...well...trust atheists, and that predates any "militancy" by a long shot.

Apparently, without God, atheists must "lack a moral compass"...which of course is a preposterous notion on its face.

As for your earlier question about being unaware of any agnostics who also self-identify as atheists: me, Noam Chomsky, the late Bertrand Russell, Raul Hilberg, and (by definition of some of the debates you've been having here with others) several people on this forum. So it would seem we agnostic/atheists are legion.

[TimG]

You're right, Tim, of course, but surely it cuts both ways? People of faith don't seem to...well...trust atheists, and that predates any "militancy" by a long shot.

Apparently, without God, atheists must "lack a moral compass"...which of course is a preposterous notion on its face.

It does cut both ways but no one here seems to express the "I don't trust people who don't believe in god" view so it is not going to come up.

As for your earlier question about being unaware of any agnostics who also self-identify as atheists: me, Noam Chomsky, the late Bertrand Russell, Raul Hilberg, and (by definition of some of the debates you've been having here with others) several people on this forum. So it would seem we agnostic/atheists are legion.

As the discussion when on it became clear that the people I was calling atheists are better described as anti-theists. I have since changed my word choice.

[kimmy]

What social protection? If people break laws they are accountable.

Uh, they are not exempt from criticism, I'm surprised that you can't see that. What you are doing is beyond criticism and purposely saying controversial/immature things in an attempt to troll.

Christians are demanding legal exemption from laws based on religious beliefs. They've lobbied to have religious exemptions put into anti-bullying laws. They want exemption from non-discrimination laws. Here's a politician who wants to protect parents from charges if their kids die of negligence... as long as it's religious negligence.

These people indeed are demanding special legal protection for their brand of ignorance.

-k

[sharkman]

And that has nothing to do with criticism of belief in God, either on this forum, or to a person one is acquainted with. However, I tend to think that bullying someone(which, again, is not criticism) based on what they do or do not believe is wrong. Gay kids, for instance, have a right to live in the same freedom that religious kids have a right to.

There are many examples of religious whack jobs doing crazy things, and there are many examples of non-religious whack jobs doing crazy things.

[kimmy]

Yeah, but only the religious person gets to claim that his religious freedom entitles him to cause harm to others without consequence.

You want a society where if one kid torments the gay student it's bullying, but another kid torments the gay student it's a legally protected expression of religious belief? That's what they almost had in Michigan,

Or if one hotelier refuses to rent a room to someone it's a violation of public accommodation laws, but another hotelier does that it's a protected expression of religious belief? That's what they're working on right now in some states.

-k

[sharkman]

I was earlier talking about honestly criticizing religion vs mocking/trolling or what-have-you on this forum. You quoted me but are morphing this into something else, and that is fine, but I'm not defending various legal fights going on in the US. There are zillions of legal fights in lawsuit crazy US. Some religious nut based, some non-religious nut based, you seem to feel that religious based nuttery is worse than non-religious based nuttery that causes harm to others. I do not concur, but I'm afraid I'm not particularly interested in what strategies nutjobs are spending their time on across the US, there's just too many of them and I find I can't get worked up about it.

Let the various related authorities or legal systems deal with it.

[kimmy]

I was earlier talking about honestly criticizing religion vs mocking/trolling or what-have-you on this forum. You quoted me but are morphing this into something else, and that is fine, but I'm not defending various legal fights going on in the US. There are zillions of legal fights in lawsuit crazy US. Some religious nut based, some non-religious nut based, you seem to feel that religious based nuttery is worse than non-religious based nuttery that causes harm to others. I do not concur, but I'm afraid I'm not particularly interested in what strategies nutjobs are spending their time on across the US, there's just too many of them and I find I can't get worked up about it.

Let the various related authorities or legal systems deal with it.

I'm not talking about lawsuits, I'm talking about lawmakers. These are bills being brought into legislatures by mainstream elected officials in many states.

-k