Anti-Christian Bigotry?

dre · September 30, 2013

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

//www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

Its betsy all over again. May as well give up

The word comes from ancient greek... atheos. It basically means godless. You dont have a god. It doesnt necessarily mean you think the whole idea is impossible.

Arguments over the exact definition are futile though.

But I will say this... Most people I know that self-describe as atheist do not have a strong disbelief. They just have an absense of belief in any specific god. I believe myself that the thousands of human religions practiced over the last few thousand years are the result of a human disposition. Believing in gods is just something we do. Theres strong evidence for that, so Im quite certain that none of these religions are based on truth.

But thats really a different question than the possibility that a diety might exist. It sounds unlikely to me, but it would be unscientific to dimiss something because it sounds crazy. I would have sounded crazy to me if someone told me a thousand years ago that the object in my hand was mostly empty space and that it was made up of zillions of tiny vibrating particles.

Im going to need some real evidence to be completely certain, and Its highly unlikely that will ever be available to me.

Edited September 30, 2013 by dre

kimmy · October 1, 2013

An atheist is a person who believes that a god/gods do not exist. If you reject the notion that gods exist, then you believe that they do not. By rejecting the notion that a god/gods exist, you believe that they do not. By refusing to believe that there is a god/gods, atheists believe that there is not a god/gods.

I'm completely baffled as to why True Believers such as William Lane Craig or Betsy think they have discovered some earth shaking argument with this insignificant bit of pedantry.

Last year Betsy pounced upon an article in which Richard Dawkins refused to state that he is certain that there's no god. "A HA! His faith has weakened! He is no longer sure of his position!"

Well, no.

"...the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"

Can you prove that there's no such thing as the tooth fairy? Is it possible to prove with certainty that the tooth fairy does not exist? No, it is not. No person can honestly and accurately claim that they know for certain that there's no such thing as the tooth fairy.

Does that mean that we are all open-minded to the existence of tooth-fairies? Would it be fair or accurate for me to describe you as "American Woman, tooth-fairy agnostic, open-minded to the existence of tooth fairies"? Of course not. It would be insulting to you, and it would be dishonest of me.

And yet when it comes to theological discussions, some people accept this as a reasonable argument. They want you to either claim that yes, you are 100% certain that there is no god, in which case they demand to see your proof, or if you're not willing to say that you are 100% certain, then you're "not an atheist, you're an agnostic and therefore open-minded to the existence of god" in which case they think they have achieved some sort of victory.

It's not an honest discussion point, it's a douchey rhetorical tactic, and should be treated as such.

-k

October 1, 2013

I'm completely baffled as to what you are going on about. I simply gave the definition of "atheist." I couldn't care less if you or anyone else believes in God, but if you don't, and you don't believe there could be, then you are an atheist.

As for the tooth fairy, I'll take a stand. I don't believe the tooth fairy exists. I don't believe that there could be a tooth fairy. It's my belief that the tooth fairy doesn't exist.

Substitute "god" for tooth fairy, and you are an atheist.

Edited October 1, 2013 by American Woman

Bob Macadoo · October 1, 2013

It's not an honest discussion point, it's a douchey rhetorical tactic, and should be treated as such.

I'm an agnostic believer in the word "douchy". I have yet to see evidence that its a real word, but I haven't read all the dictionaries int he world to know for sure.

eyeball · October 1, 2013

I'm completely baffled

For which there is no end of evidence.

kimmy · October 1, 2013

This is my opinion. I have no evidence to support it but I am open to changing my opinion if I see evidence suggesting otherwise.

I would be interested in the study that shows that "non-religious are under-represented in prisons".

What are the typical criminals in Canada and the US like? Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time imagining them attending religious services.

Atheist blogger Hemant Mehta has the most up-to-date statistics that I'm aware of. (these statistics are for federal prisons only; not sure if that makes a difference).

The number of self-described atheists in prison is absolutely miniscule, just 161 out of 218,167 prisoners. Add to that the 37,139 "nones" in prison, and you get about 17% of the prison population being non-religious. As the non-religious now make up about 20% of the general population of the US, I think that the claim that the non-religious are under-represented in US prisons is fair. At the very least, there's certainly no evidence to support the idea that the non-religious commit more crime than the religious.

As for the question of whether they attend services, you're moving the goalposts. At first you started with the premise that organized religion is the best way of teaching morals and values. Well, does that really require regular attendance? Do people forget the morals they learned in church if they stop attending the services? Doesn't that kind of dispute the idea that it's a great way of teaching morals and values? Doesn't the fact that they stop going to the services in itself dispute the claim that it's a great way of teaching morals and values?

-k

Moonlight Graham · October 1, 2013

This is my opinion. I have no evidence to support it but I am open to changing my opinion if I see evidence suggesting otherwise.

Well, funny that, at least in the US, the religious are far more likely to own guns than those who identify with no religion. I'd also hypothesize the religious are also more likely to join the military and support wars. On the other hand, maybe the religious give more money to charity? I don't think being religious has anything to do with virtue. I also think a lot of religious people really suck at following the basic tenets of their religion (and seem to dwell on the small stuff), at least with Christians.

kimmy · October 1, 2013

I'm completely baffled as to what you are going on about. I simply gave the definition of "atheist." I couldn't care less if you or anyone else believes in God, but if you don't, and you don't believe there could be, then you are an atheist.

The phrase "could be" is where we find ourselves in disagreement. I don't believe there is one, but I won't state that there *could not* be one.

As for the tooth fairy, I'll take a stand. I don't believe the tooth fairy exists. I don't believe that there could be a tooth fairy. It's my belief that the tooth fairy doesn't exist.

Can you prove there's no such thing? Where's your proof? Have you personally looked under every leaf in every forest? Do you discount the personal experiences of those who do believe they have been contacted by "wee people"?

I won't ask you to answer, I'm just trying to point out the tedious pedantry that comes with saying that something *could not* exist.

Substitute "god" for tooth fairy, and you are an atheist.

Indeed. The only difference being that if you say you don't believe there are tooth fairies, you don't get people demanding you prove it or maneuvering you into conceding that there is a possibility that tooth fairies exist.

-k

BubberMiley · October 1, 2013

I'm completely baffled as to what you are going on about. I simply gave the definition of "atheist." I couldn't care less if you or anyone else believes in God, but if you don't, and you don't believe there could be, then you are an atheist.

No, you gave a definition of atheist, but not he only one. You ignored this fact because you only like one definition because that one allows you to tell people what they "believe" even while they clearly explain to you what they really think. It's a terribly dishonest and rather unintelligent debating tactic that confirms the initial premise of the debate.

October 1, 2013

The phrase "could be" is where we find ourselves in disagreement. I don't believe there is one, but I won't state that there *could not* be one.

Then you aren't an atheist. Atheism is specifically the position that there are no gods.

Can you prove there's no such thing? Where's your proof? Have you personally looked under every leaf in every forest? Do you discount the personal experiences of those who do believe they have been contacted by "wee people"?

I didn't realize there was a great following of tooth fairies, nor did I realize that they live under leaves in the forest. I also didn't realize that there was evidence of such.

But here's the thing. Again. I couldn't care less if you believe in God or not. I've been quite clear as to what I take objection to.

I won't ask you to answer, I'm just trying to point out the tedious pedantry that comes with saying that something *could not* exist.

I'm getting quite a bit of tedious pedantry myself, from those who don't believe in God insisting that it's a disbelief, not a belief that God doesn't exist. They are one and the same.

Indeed. The only difference being that if you say you don't believe there are tooth fairies, you don't get people demanding you prove it or maneuvering you into conceding that there is a possibility that tooth fairies exist.

I couldn't possibly want to get you "concede that there is a possibility that God exists" any less than I do - which is not at all. Not in the least. Not even in the tiniest bit.

I couldn't care less if anyone believes in God or not. I will repeat that as many times as is necessary. My only point has been that those who insist that everyone who believes in a God is of inferior intelligence, those who mock those who believe, those who feel smugly superior are bigots and just as intolerant as the religious that they criticize.

BubberMiley · October 1, 2013

It's funny that someone would pretend they didn't lose the semantic debate and deny that dictionaries define atheism as a disbelief in gods in the vain hope that someone might be convinced they won the argument. It's as though evidence and words mean nothing. :lol:

kimmy · October 1, 2013

Then you aren't an atheist. Atheism is specifically the position that there are no gods.

Lack of belief in gods. "Strong" or "gnostic" atheists may be willing to claim with certainty that there are no gods, but that's not a universal position among atheists.

I didn't realize there was a great following of tooth fairies, nor did I realize that they live under leaves in the forest. I also didn't realize that there was evidence of such.

Whether there's a great following is irrelevant. Lots of ideas that have no evidence have great followings.

You're arguing that belief in gods is different from belief in fairies because one is mainstream and the other is fringey. But that's not a good argument. Lots of people think that Justin Bieber is an awesome musical talent, but that doesn't make it so. Lots of people used to think the earth was flat, but they were wrong. They even thought they had "evidence". The evidence that some people see for god is as debatable as the evidence others see for fairies: subjective, unquantifiable, unmeasurable, irreproducible.

I'm getting quite a bit of tedious pedantry myself, from those who don't believe in God insisting that it's a disbelief, not a belief that God doesn't exist. They are one and the same.

False. Erroneous.

I couldn't possibly want to get you "concede that there is a possibility that God exists" any less than I do - which is not at all. Not in the least. Not even in the tiniest bit.

You may not, but others who play the same word game certainly do, presenting the same argument you are, with the intention of demonstrating that atheism is not a valid world view.

My only point has been that those who insist that everyone who believes in a God is of inferior intelligence, those who mock those who believe, those who feel smugly superior are bigots and just as intolerant as the religious that they criticize.

And who is doing that, anyway?

-k

dre · October 1, 2013

Then you aren't an atheist. Atheism is specifically the position that there are no gods.

No thats not correct. Again... The word comes from ancient greek... atheos. It literally means godless. All you really need to be an atheist in the traditional sense of the word is not believe in any gods. You dont have to firmy believe that there isnt any gods.

My only point has been that those who insist that everyone who believes in a God is of inferior intelligence

Show me a single case of a person doing that...

those who mock those who believe

Mocking opposing beliefs is just a debating tactic.

those who feel smugly superior are bigots and just as intolerant

No not really. Feeling confident in a belief has nothing to do with bigotry. And being intolerant would mean a refusal to accept that beliefs of others. Nobody does that either... Nobody is trying to deny you your right to be religious. Nobody is refusing to tolerate it.

dre · October 1, 2013

And who is doing that, anyway?

-k

You guessed it...

Mighty AC · October 1, 2013

I couldn't care less if anyone believes in God or not. I will repeat that as many times as is necessary. My only point has been that those who insist that everyone who believes in a God is of inferior intelligence, those who mock those who believe, those who feel smugly superior are bigots and just as intolerant as the religious that they criticize.

Great. I couldn't care less who believes in gods either. I don't care who believes in Zeus, Thor, ghosts, the tooth fairy, unicorns, feng shui or our cosmic gummy bear overlord either. However, I see all belief without evidence as equivalent and worthy of condemnation. You, on the other hand, seem to make special cases for specific unfounded beliefs and have varying standards for evidence.

Edited October 1, 2013 by Mighty AC

carepov · October 1, 2013

Atheist blogger Hemant Mehta has the most up-to-date statistics that I'm aware of. (these statistics are for federal prisons only; not sure if that makes a difference).

The number of self-described atheists in prison is absolutely miniscule, just 161 out of 218,167 prisoners. Add to that the 37,139 "nones" in prison, and you get about 17% of the prison population being non-religious. As the non-religious now make up about 20% of the general population of the US, I think that the claim that the non-religious are under-represented in US prisons is fair. At the very least, there's certainly no evidence to support the idea that the non-religious commit more crime than the religious.

As for the question of whether they attend services, you're moving the goalposts. At first you started with the premise that organized religion is the best way of teaching morals and values. Well, does that really require regular attendance? Do people forget the morals they learned in church if they stop attending the services? Doesn't that kind of dispute the idea that it's a great way of teaching morals and values? Doesn't the fact that they stop going to the services in itself dispute the claim that it's a great way of teaching morals and values?

-k

Thanks, very interesting.

I wonder what percentage of prisoners know what "atheist" means?

Sorry if I gave the impression of "moving goalposts" I did not mean to establish any goalposts. As I described in my previous post - I think that there needs to be a distinction between self-identified religious affiliations and those people that actually are active practitioners of a religion.

Yes it is fair to say the self-identified non-religious and atheists are underrepresented in US federal prisons. So far I know nothing about whether or not practicing religious people (those people that were practicing their religion lets say 12 months before they committed their crimes) are over/under represented. My money is on under.

Many people receive religious/moral/values teachings that goes in one ear and out the other. Is this any different than learning Canadian history or trigonometry? Would the fact that Canadians are largely ignorant of trigonometry and their own history dispute anyone's claim that public education is the best way of teaching these subjects? I think that there are so many upsides to a moderate amount of religious/moral teaching/practice for children (1-2 hours per week) and no downside.

dre · October 1, 2013

Yes it is fair to say the self-identified non-religious and atheists are underrepresented in US federal prisons. So far I know nothing about whether or not practicing religious people (those people that were practicing their religion lets say 12 months before they committed their crimes) are over/under represented. My money is on under.

Im not sure if thats mathematically possible... if self-identified non-believers are underrepresented, and self identified believer have to be overrepresented.

I think that there are so many upsides to a moderate amount of religious/moral teaching/practice for children (1-2 hours per week) and no downside.

The downside, is that christians are not the only people that would gladly take up 2 hours. Theres all kinds of other social causes that could make a case as well, and things like math and science can get crowded into a smaller slot. The other downside is that religion is a personal thing. Even if we DID decide to teach religion for 2 hours, which one would we teach? Canada has Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Buddists, Sunnis, Shia, Jews, etc. They arent going to like it if their kids are taught something they dont believe.

I see a very large downside to teaching religion in public schools. It would displace real academics, and perpetuate the culture war.

How about you just send your kids to sunday school, and jewish parents send their kids to a synagogue, and muslim parents send their kids to a mosque? And public schools teach math, science, literature, history, etc?

I WOULD however support an elective class on comparative religion, that teaches the basics of all religions and religious history.

carepov · October 1, 2013

Im not sure if thats mathematically possible... if self-identified non-believers are underrepresented, and self identified believer have to be overrepresented.

You mis-read my post: my opinion is that practicing religious people are underrepresented in prisons.

How about you just send your kids to sunday school, and jewish parents send their kids to a synagogue, and muslim parents send their kids to a mosque? And public schools teach math, science, literature, history, etc?

I did not at all mean to suggest that religion/morals be taught in school. I 100 % agree with you.

However, earlier in this thread some people equated religious education (eg: Sunday school) to child abuse. A common theme with some posters is that religious teachings weakens the mind, especially critical thinking skills. Do you see these or other downsides associated with taking kids to religious services and some religious education (outside public schools)?

Mighty AC · October 1, 2013

Many people receive religious/moral/values teachings that goes in one ear and out the other. Is this any different than learning Canadian history or trigonometry? Would the fact that Canadians are largely ignorant of trigonometry and their own history dispute anyone's claim that public education is the best way of teaching these subjects? I think that there are so many upsides to a moderate amount of religious/moral teaching/practice for children (1-2 hours per week) and no downside.

I disagree that the moral teachings are religious in the first place. Much of the bible is so immoral that I feel the term evil fits. The fact that many Christians don't even know some of the passages exist or at least ignore them is evidence of secular morality tempering religious practices.

There certainly are benefits to kids learning universal, secular moral lessons on compassion, empathy and humanitarianism. However, teaching these concepts in a religious setting is fraught with downsides. As has been discussed at length in this thread, the idea that belief without evidence is a virtue is already ludicrous. The massive movements to deny equal rights to homosexuals and women, limit medical research, prevent euthanasia and limit access to birth control are all Christian based.

carepov · October 1, 2013

I disagree that the moral teachings are religious in the first place. Much of the bible is so immoral that I feel the term evil fits. The fact that many Christians don't even know some of the passages exist or at least ignore them is evidence of secular morality tempering religious practices.

I disagree but I don't know much about the Bible so won't engage on this point.

There certainly are benefits to kids learning universal, secular moral lessons on compassion, empathy and humanitarianism.

Where are kids learning this now?

As has been discussed at length in this thread, the idea that belief without evidence is a virtue is already ludicrous.

No, I thought the consensous was that most religious beliefs (by definition, without scientific evidence) are benign.

Harmful beliefs should be challenged and changed

The massive movements to deny equal rights to homosexuals and women, limit medical research, prevent euthanasia and limit access to birth control are all Christian based.

You are overstating both the size and influence of so-called "massive movements".

You are also not mentioning the faith-based movements and countless smaller actions that promote social justice/humanitarianism.

Mighty AC · October 1, 2013

RE: Moral lessons: Where are kids learning this now?

Home, school, interactions with people, our culture, media, etc.

RE: Belief without evidence is harmful: No, I thought the consensous was that most religious beliefs (by definition, without scientific evidence) are benign.

Harmful beliefs should be challenged and changed

First of all, promoting the acceptance of beliefs without evidence is harmful in itself. Secondly, by saying if the beliefs are problematic, then change them, you are echoing my point that humans are the source of ethics, not religion. Why bother with the word of god fairy tale, if humans can change it on the fly?

RE: Massive harmful Christian based movements exist: You are overstating both the size and influence of so-called "massive movements".

Did you witness the freak show that was the most recent Republican nomination process? A party that represents almost half of US voters looked as if it was hoping to lead a nation whose citizens were hand picked by Pat Robertson and not the richest, most powerful nation on the planet.

You are also not mentioning the faith-based movements and countless smaller actions that promote social justice/humanitarianism.

I'm not denying that religious groups can do positive work as well. However, we've already shown that the moral teachings you speak of have secular origins, not religious. Since it has been humans forcing Christianity to behave more humanely for hundreds of years and not a god, there is no value in keeping the myth alive.

carepov · October 1, 2013

First of all, promoting the acceptance of beliefs without evidence is harmful in itself.

Why? Which beliefs? Harmful in what way?

Secondly, by saying if the beliefs are problematic, then change them, you are echoing my point that humans are the source of ethics, not religion. Why bother with the word of god fairy tale, if humans can change it on the fly?

Humans are the source of ethics and religion. Why bother with religion? It is in our nature as humans to be religious. At no point in human history, from the first humans to the present can we separate religion from society. Even if we could, why would we want to do this. Many people seek out and draw great benefits from religion including worthy inspiration.

Did you witness the freak show that was the most recent Republican nomination process? A party that represents almost half of US voters looked as if it was hoping to lead a nation whose citizens were hand picked by Pat Robertson and not the richest, most powerful nation on the planet.

Yes. In the end the dumb-ass republican leadership was soundly defeated and most of their dumb-ass misogynistic, discriminatory, creationist and homophobic ideas were properly exposed and ridiculed, whether or not they claimed to be religious-based or not. The Republicans of 2000-2013 are not a Christian-based movement, they are an ignorance-based movement. Thankfully their influence is declining!

I'm not denying that religious groups can do positive work as well. However, we've already shown that the moral teachings you speak of have secular origins, not religious. Since it has been humans forcing Christianity to behave more humanely for hundreds of years and not a god, there is no value in keeping the myth alive.

There is some truth to your claim that secular influence on organized religion has been beneficial. But I argue that overwhelmingly the positive influence has been from religious teachings to society. Many humanist ideas have been and continue to be inspired by religion and spread though religious groups.

How are you defining "value"? Believing in god(s) and practicing a religion is clearly valuable to many people.

Why do you insist on insulting all believers, including those that give up so many of their own comforts in order to help others?

scribblet · October 1, 2013

......................... You are so very sure that you have the answer to the age old question. Newsflash. That's not "questioning" nor is it any more evidence of "critical thinking" than those you look down upon.

You are all cut from the same cloth, and you are all totally intolerant of anyone else's beliefs. You cannot even discuss it in a mature, rational, respectful way. But yeah, you are all sooo very enlightened.

Well said !!! I think many people have a faith of some kind which helps them get through life and if it does, good for them.

GostHacked · October 2, 2013

Actually, she said she believes disbelief is belief. Can't argue with that.

Oh noes!!

Moonlight Graham · October 2, 2013

I didn't realize there was a great following of tooth fairies...

Many millions of people believe in tooth fairies. Same with Santa Claus.

Anyways, I will say that one of your main claims in this thread is true IMO. That being that a belief in God(s) or even being Christian does not make one an "idiot" or a "nutjob". Clearly there are a great many Christians who aren't idiots or nutjobs. So people shouldn't label an entire group of people as such based on one belief or one group of beliefs they have.

That said, without labeling the believers themselves, I still think it's perfectly legit for anyone to label certain beliefs, such as belief in God or following Christianity, as "idiotic" or "crazy", if that is what they believe and they can argue it logically. The difference is the belief may be idiotic and crazy, but the people may not necessarily be. That said, there are certain Christians who do seem to be, IMO, idiots and loons, and I'm sure other Christians would agree.