Pope says atheists can go to heaven...

[TimG]

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

You are mixing a lot of things in that list. Some may have merit and some may have not. For example, I support private clubs being able to set whatever criteria they want for admission. So if Christians are asking that their private clubs (a.k.a. Churches) be exempt from discrimination laws then I am fine with it.

I also think hate speech laws are an abomination so anyone asking for exemptions to those is fine with me.

When it comes failing to provide care to children or actively tormenting others I would not support that, however, the fact that some Christians make unreasonable demands which are not currently accepted under law does not make theism inherently wrong. People who do go from these examples and try to claim that all theists are bad are no different from bigots who say all natives are drunks.

Edited January 26, 2014 by TimG

[kimmy]

You are mixing a lot of things in that list. Some may have merit and some may have not. For example, I support private clubs being able to set whatever criteria they want for admission. So if Christians are asking that their private clubs (a.k.a. Churches) be exempt from discrimination laws then I am fine with it.

Churches aren't subject to these laws, so it's a moot point. But a hotel or a restaurant or a flower shop isn't a private club, it's subject to laws regarding public accommodation. And if some religious group is in the business of renting out facilities to the general public, then so are they. A church is exempt, but a Knights of Columbus community hall isn't.

I also think hate speech laws are an abomination so anyone asking for exemptions to those is fine with me.

I'm not a fan of hate speech laws either, but if one group is to be made exempt, then everybody should be made exempt.

When it comes failing to provide care to children or actively tormenting others I would not support that, however, the fact that some Christians make unreasonable demands which are not currently accepted under law does not make theism inherently wrong. People who do go from these examples and try to claim that all theists are bad are no different from bigots who say all natives are drunks.

As I said before, these are legislative efforts being made by mainstream elected lawmakers. If their demands are unreasonable, then waving the banner of "Protecting religious freedom!" doesn't make them any less so.

-k

[sharkman]

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

Politicians, lawmakers, whatever. The same type of people can be behind any such effort, and usually are. Again, I can't get worked up about what some groups of people are trying to do in the US. I've found that things are much worse for human rights/freedom/etc. in China, Russia, Africa, Korea and various middle east countries than what some whacko group may be doing down south. The world ain't fair, or am I missing something?

Edited January 26, 2014 by sharkman

[bleeding heart]

Well, in that case, Haiti is worse than China or Russia...so we shouldn't get worked up about them, either.

I think you're deflecting, frankly.

[sharkman]

Sure, whatever, I just don't care in case I didn't make that clear, I can't do anything about what goes on. I brought up other places as a way to demonstrate that things here aren't so bad. Now that I think of it, people that do get worked up about such things seem to have selective outrage, which I don't understand. They strongly object to some effort to bring forward some pro faith or anti gay legislation in the US, ignoring that gays get killed for their lifestyle in the middle east and strongly persecuted in other places.

Same with environmentalists, freaking out in North America while China builds new coal and nuclear fired plants etc. I just don't get that, go protest where there are no environmental laws.

Edited January 26, 2014 by sharkman

[kimmy]

Politicians, lawmakers, whatever. The same type of people can be behind any such effort, and usually are. Again, I can't get worked up about what some groups of people are trying to do in the US. I've found that things are much worse for human rights/freedom/etc. in China, Russia, Africa, Korea and various middle east countries than what some whacko group may be doing down south. The world ain't fair, or am I missing something?

"some whacko group"? That wacko group is the Republican Party that you usually defend by sheer reflex.

-k

[sharkman]

There are extremists under the umbrella of that party. There are good people in the party too. Just like there are whackjobs in the Dem party. Some of these groups within the Rep. party have an agenda I wouldn't support and I expect such groups in the Dem party have an agenda you wouldn't support.

[eyeball]

the fact that some Christians make unreasonable demands which are not currently accepted under law does not make theism inherently wrong.

What's wrong is that theism is inherently dangerous due to the uncritical muddle-headed way of thinking that it encourages. This stems from the great amount of respectability that theism demands and all too sadly receives. We might as well be treating our public water systems with LSD.

[kimmy]

There are extremists under the umbrella of that party. There are good people in the party too. Just like there are whackjobs in the Dem party. Some of these groups within the Rep. party have an agenda I wouldn't support and I expect such groups in the Dem party have an agenda you wouldn't support.

Of course.

But again, I stress this isn't "the fringes" of the Republican party, these "religious freedom" measures are mainstream within the party in many states. In Michigan, "Matt's Safe School Law" --the one that would have provided legal protection for bullies as long as they were religious bullies-- passed the state senate with majority Republican support, and would have passed the state house of representatives as well until an impassioned speech by a state Democrat, and an angry denouncement from "Matt's" father saying he was disgusted that his son's name was being attached to the bill, went viral and brought national shame to them. They amended the law to remove the religion exemptions. Other states like Illinois have had similar fights regarding anti-bullying laws.

Currently Arizona and Maine (and probably other states as well) are working on laws that will protect businesses that want to discriminate by providing a legal "religious freedom" defense.

You want to play it off like this is just some fringe movement, but it's not. These are being made law in Republican states.

-k

[TimG]

What's wrong is that theism is inherently dangerous due to the uncritical muddle-headed way of thinking that it encourages.

That description applies to many belief systems. Not the least of which is environmentalism which constantly drives people to support really dumb policies because they have emotional appeal. Edited January 27, 2014 by TimG

[sharkman]

Okay, this is why I don't usually bother reading/researching other people's pet causes on forums. Against my better judgement I looked up Matt's Safe School Law, and find that it is waaay more complicated and involved than the "republicans on a crusade" angle you put on it, kimmy. Well, hate on I say, whatever floats your boat. Just good to know where you're coming from the next time you go on a rant.

In the Bill, the wording that people were concerned about was:

"does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held belief or moral conviction” of a student or school worker.

This in no way is making some kind of special provision for the religious. Every single person has sincerely held beliefs and moral convictions regardless of whether they are religious or not. So the the knee jerk left response completely ignored that and went for the religious angle. Personally I think the wording was a problem, but not because it reserved bullying for the religious.

Edited January 27, 2014 by sharkman

[kimmy]

This in no way is making some kind of special provision for the religious. Every single person has sincerely held beliefs and moral convictions regardless of whether they are religious or not. So the the knee jerk left response completely ignored that and went for the religious angle. Personally I think the wording was a problem, but not because it reserved bullying for the religious.

Haha, sure. You're allowed to be a bully as long as it's a "sincerely held belief". In practice, that means you have to belong to a church. That language was put in there at the demand of religious lobbyists, for use by religious people. And yes, if you ask, I can do a bit of research and name the specific lobby groups that wanted the religious exemptions put in the laws.

In Canada, in theory you didn't have to be religious to claim Conscientious Objector status during the draft. But in practice, the only way your Conscientious Objector status claim could succeed is if you could show you belonged to a pacifist religious congregation. Same deal with this "sincerely held belief" premise you're clinging to. "Hey, it could be used by somebody who's bullying a gay kid because he just has strongly-held moral reasons to hate fags." Is that supposed to make me feel better about the original legislation? Does it make YOU feel better about the original legislation? If it does, you're not a good person, Sharkman.

-k

[sharkman]

What, you have no sincerely held beliefs? You certainly do, and here's one example, how about your sincerely held belief regarding religion? How about your beliefs concerning your gun/s?

I'm not clinging to that weak phrase, I already stated I thought it was a problem and your statement:

"Hey, it could be used by somebody who's bullying a gay kid because he just has strongly-held moral reasons to hate fags."

is a perfect reason why. But it's only ONE OF MANY reasons why. A non religious kid with a sincerely held belief that blacks/Hindus/Muslims/Asians or any other race are bad for the country and taking our jobs could use it as a defence. A kid who was taught to hate rich kids has a sincerely held belief. A kid who's single parent mom taught her to hate men/boys has a sincerely held belief.

Listen I gotta go clean the car interiors. Can't spend any more time on this. I hold a sincerely held belief that it's not rocket science. Maybe I'm nuts.

[cybercoma]

What, you have no sincerely held beliefs?

What does this have to do with anything? I can't even believe you would respond with this.

[kimmy]

What, you have no sincerely held beliefs? You certainly do, and here's one example, how about your sincerely held belief regarding religion? How about your beliefs concerning your gun/s?

Yeah, I have "sincerely held beliefs", and the difference between me and the religious people lobbying for these exemptions is that I've never presumed that my "sincerely held beliefs" should give me a legally-protected right to inflict harm on people.

And as I said before (and you missed): while on paper a "sincerely held belief" could describe anybody, in practice the only people who would be able to successfully employ it as a legal strategy are religious people. That's how it worked with Conscientious Objectors, and that's how it would work any time such a case ever actually made it to a court of law.

-k

[sharkman]

Do you find it even just a little bit odd that you are arguing with a complete stranger about a bill that was changed(what I mean by that is the original bad wording was changed) in another country years ago? I find it strange. It doesn't benefit either of us in any way and it has the potential of putting one or the other in a bad mood.

I think I'd rather interact with a real person in the room and leave the theorizing and bickering on forums to others. My car and my wife's car are now both clean with a hint of lemon. Peace out.

Edited January 27, 2014 by sharkman

[Mighty AC]

hmmm....

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

What is the difference between making calculated predictions based on evidence and simply believing something something because you want too?

[Mighty AC]

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

Why? Because you say so?

Hey, I'm glad you are at least questioning something. You should proceed the same way even if you're told a god or some other authority figure made the assertion.

The dangers of an unskeptical population, that accept assertions without evidence, are similar to that of an illiterate or uneducated population. Politicians, industry, advertisers, religious groups, etc. exploit this lack of critical thinking all the time. The results vary from benign scams like Q-Ray bracelets and homeopathy to seriously harmful acts like anti-science misinformation campaigns and hateful, segregatory religious/political movements.

Fortunately, the creation of self learning, skeptical, critical thinkers has recently become the major push of western education. As a result, I expect we will continue to see an acceleration in the number of people who challenge the whole concept of faith as a virtue.

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?

Do you really think the god aspect is why AA members sober up? Despite the fact that non-believers still go and have similar success? Maybe it's the peer support, shared success strategies, the dropping of excuses, admitting the problem, etc.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Mighty AC

[Mighty AC]

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.

Placebo's can lead to real benefits but it is typically better to treat the underlying psychological problem than temporarily relieve a symptom. It seems that studies are showing that the benefits of religion come from being part of a community and helping to do some perceived good...not from god belief. Community groups and charitable acts can both be done without the fairy tale baggage. Especially when the fairy demands that millions of its followers behave in an immoral fashion in order to please it.

[TimG]

Do you really think the god aspect is why AA members sober up?

Definitely. The core of the AA 12 steps is the belief in an a higher power. If someone has an issue with the god thing they can choose some other benevolent abstraction (for example, the AA group) but most members with long time sobriety come to believe in some sort of god as part of their recovery. Most meetings have people talking about a higher power so it is really not possible to last in the program without coming to terms with the idea.

The psychology is not hard to understand. Addicts tend to be control freaks and developing a belief in a benevolent abstraction allows the addict to let go of things they would feel otherwise compelled to try to control. This in turn gives them peace of mind that allows them to better manage the obsession.

IOW - It makes no difference whether the higher power is real or not - simply believing in it gives the addict critical tools needed to live a sober life. It makes no difference if you think they could have accomplished the same thing another way because they found something that works for them. This example also proves that believing in things which are not real can be beneficial to some people and to society (since addicts often cause great harm to those around them).

Edited January 28, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

Placebo's can lead to real benefits but it is typically better to treat the underlying psychological problem than temporarily relieve a symptom.

Unless the belief is not the placebo but an actual way to treat the underlying psychological problem (see post above).

Can you provide any evidence that psychologists feel that believing in untrue things is necessarily bad? I would expect any competent psychologist to recognize that a belief in a god can be an effective coping technique and would encourage such beliefs in a patient that already had them as long as those beliefs were not causing the patient to act out in negative ways.

Edited January 28, 2014 by TimG

[carepov]

What is the difference between making calculated predictions based on evidence and simply believing something something because you want too?

There is as much evidence for the existence of intelligent life on other planets as there is for the existence of God.

[eyeball]

Anyone else ever had that eerie feeling they're trapped in an acid trip? That said, the fact cannot be ignored, there is no corroborating evidence that we exist. For all we know we're just figments of someone's imagination.

This is why I think we're probably screwed as a species. How many billions of us are confused to the point that the world may literally be neither here nor there in their scheme of things? Is it any wonder we treat it so cavalierly?

It's the next one in the after-whatever-this-is that counts, so yeah lets party like it's the end of reality or whatever it's called.

[Mighty AC]

There is as much evidence for the existence of intelligent life on other planets as there is for the existence of God.

It is certainly true that there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of gods or extraterrestrial life. So it would be silly to claim they exist. It would be downright ludicrous to indoctrinate children into belief in either and then teach them to take pride in their baseless beliefs.

However, unlike gods there is evidence that life exists on this planet. We also know that there are many billions of planets with similar conditions to earth in the Milky Way galaxy alone. Current estimates say there are 100 to 200 billion galaxies in the universe. The chance of something along the lines of abiogenesis is remote, however, when given 400 sextillion rolls of the dice the odds become possible or even probable. Still we must say alien life is just a possibility until we find some...claiming otherwise would be a silly leap of faith.

Probability based on evidence is quite a bit different than brainwashed belief in magic men.

[kimmy]

Do you really think the god aspect is why AA members sober up? Despite the fact that non-believers still go and have similar success? Maybe it's the peer support, shared success strategies, the dropping of excuses, admitting the problem, etc.

Definitely. The core of the AA 12 steps is the belief in an a higher power. If someone has an issue with the god thing they can choose some other benevolent abstraction (for example, the AA group) but most members with long time sobriety come to believe in some sort of god as part of their recovery. Most meetings have people talking about a higher power so it is really not possible to last in the program without coming to terms with the idea.

The psychology is not hard to understand. Addicts tend to be control freaks and developing a belief in a benevolent abstraction allows the addict to let go of things they would feel otherwise compelled to try to control. This in turn gives them peace of mind that allows them to better manage the obsession.

IOW - It makes no difference whether the higher power is real or not - simply believing in it gives the addict critical tools needed to live a sober life. It makes no difference if you think they could have accomplished the same thing another way because they found something that works for them. This example also proves that believing in things which are not real can be beneficial to some people and to society (since addicts often cause great harm to those around them).

This is an interesting concept for me. I encountered it recently in a self-help book I've been reading. The author talks about 12-step programs quite a bit and argues that it's applicable to a wide range of behavioral issues that are rooted in hidden guilt or shame. (in my case, I'm not an alcoholic, I'm a rageoholic. I'm addicted to rageohol.)

I like your phrase "a benevolent abstraction." And like you this author (John Bradshaw, a Catholic who attended seminary school, interestingly enough) explains that there's need that this "higher power" be a god or God or any supernatural entity. He wrote about one member of one of his 12-step groups whose higher power was a tree. The man came into a meeting one day and exclaimed "They're cutting down my higher power!"

The power of this apparently comes from the "benevolent abstraction" itself. It's apparently a useful psychological tool.

There are other instances where religion can provide people with useful psychological tools as well.

-k