I live in a country full of superstitious twits

My Father believes that he has an animal spirit guide, that in fact, every person does. I find this a little less than rational but it does not make my Fathers wisdom in other areas any less rational for me.

When he tells me that I should save my money, pay off my house and be careful today because hard times are coming for this country financially, (he means another great depression) I believe him. I don't think he's irrational - he's seen one before. He's giving me good rational advice. I don't assume he is irrational in other areas.

That is false logic.

I don't try to make him *not* see a spirit guide, if it gives him comfort, more power to his spirit guide. The only reason I would ever do that is if I felt that his spirit guide told him to do something that I thought was harmful to himself or others. Fortunately, it is not in the nature of spirit guides to do that.

The interesting thing is - he dosen't feel compelled to make me see his spirit guide either - so all is well between us. I think it's called respect. Seven little letters, so much meaning.

.

There's nothing insulting to individual religious people in those statements, or did you miss this part...



That's the opposite of bigotry but you conveniently overlook every similar statement I've made in this thread in your self-righteous ad hominem attacks. Spare me your holier than thou bullshit. Are you really so blind that you can't see that I'm arguing that all people are equal and that (as you yourself have admitted) it's wrong for religious people to make those kinds of judgements based soley on the belief systems of others? Since I've said that over and over again now I'm sure I'm wasting my breath. You're too busy getting off on attacking my character for having the audacity to speak out against bigotry, which happens to be codified in most religions. It fucking boggles my mind. Political correctness and our culturally imposed bias against anyone who dares say an unkind word about religion really makes people twist themselves into intellectual pretzels. Does it hurt?

You say that as if someone on these forums has tried to compel you to believe their personal beliefs. If that is true, you must be talking about the atheists, because I saw no one pushing any religion. But I have seen atheists suggest you would have to be a nut to believe other than they do.

Jeez, chill, Chip! Maybe a member of your own priesthood can supply you with some happy pills and then it'll all be ok.

Gee, for some reason I get a little ticked when people repeatedly call me a condescending elitist bigot while claiming that I'm the one attacking people. I can't imagine why that would bother me.

I don't know if that has to do with atheism, I tend to think people are nuts whenever they don't believe what I do.

No - but the bottom line is that when people feel you are less than a good human because of how you believe (see section from quoted article Chip posted and referenced):


Then that seems to amout to saying "in order to be a decent human, you have to do it my way". Or at least many seem to read it that way. It refers to atheists in a less than respectful and rational manner. I think thats the point.

.

Yes, that's exactly the point.

Well, it's not an either/or situation. Both the pot and the kettle can be black.

Once everyone starts in on the make-wrong, ain't nothing left but wrongness on all sides.

You really should read some of the posts in regard to my beliefs. I don't complain when the majority (atheists) attack me based on my beliefs. I think it's a victim mentality to whine about how others perceive you.

No one has said any particular atheist is untrustworthy. They said in general atheists are associated with "criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism". Most atheists I've met don't deny being materialistic and culturally elite, though they would reject the criminal behaviour point.

When you hear a person is religious, you make certain assumptions. Deny it, tell us you are open-minded, I believe you.......

And as for the reverse?

I have friends that ask me if I have found Jesus, regularly. What they overlook, probably because they were in a stupor while I was pushed to immerse myself in Christianity as a child, is that I have been around the block. I have the necessary info to form an opinion of my own. That info being a lack of info.

Some of them are the same friends that were hard core druggies in the 70s and 80s. (funny how they seem to be as addicted to religion as they were to drugs)

I lived Christianity while they were off mucking about, yet now, because I've decided much later in life, that I cannot subscribe to it, I am the bad guy. What a reversal, and what a farce.

If I attack your ideas I'm not attacking you as a person. I'm disagreeing with a position you hold. If you're a huge fan of the Rolling Stones and I tell you that I think they suck, am I attacking you as a person? If I believe in evolution and you think it's bunk and say so are you attacking me as an individual? In my book, no, even if you stated that anyone who believes in evolution must be a bit nutty. I wouldn't take it as a personal insult because it's not. It's a strong opinion about an idea. Now if I called you personally an idiot that would be a different matter. That's why I think the claims that I'm insulting religious people are misguided and the personal insults levelled against me are so ironic.

This notion that certain ideas are sacred and expressing any strong disagreement with them is an attack on individuals who hold that idea isn't rational. It's a kind of culturally imposed censorship against dissenting views on religion. It's a double standard. If you say you think that Socrates was an idiot and his philosophy is irrational, that's fine, but if you say the same thing about Jesus or Mohammed you're an asshole. Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me.

Ah so as long as you don't direct it toward an individual, you can make blanket statements about religious beliefs and the people who have them. That's like saying as long as you don't target a black person, you can talk in general about blacks and no one is supposed to be insulted.



I will if you will - you have been doing the athiest version of "holier than thou" quite well.



Don't you see that in the same breath that you are arguing for equality, you are maligning another group in the process because they believe differently than you? That is my point. Neither is fine to do - not for them, certainly not for you.



I am not attacking you for speaking out about bigotry. I am attacking you for fighting bigotry with bigotry. You are countering blanket views about athiests with blanket views about those who believe in God (delusional, disturbingly tribal, superstious, wishful thinkers). You should be outraged about that survey. At the same time, that not then give you license to malign people who are not athiests. That is the entire point, Chip, and one you cannot seem to grasp.

Why can't my last name be Midnight?



I could rig the scales, being odd man out.

Sorry, but that's a bogus argument. Someone's race is in no way equivelant to their ideas or beliefs. People aren't born believing in a particular god or philosophy. They're ideas and they're learned just like any other ideas that aren't artificially protected from dissent by the claim that they're sacred. If I speak out against the death sentence imposed on that Christian convert in Afghanistan, which is codified in the Sharia Islamic law against apostacy, and I call it absurd and barbaric, am I being a bigot or am I attacking an idea that I feel is wrong? By your logic I would be.

Kevn - when someone I meet tells me that they are a certain religion, say Catholic or Methodist etc or that they go to church., in the course of an everyday conversation and leave it at that, I pretty much think nothing of it. I don't consider them irrational, I don't think more of them or less of them and I consider them on their own merit entirely.

However when someone I meet tells me that they are "Christian" and they begin to alter and the direct the entire course of our discussion toward "christianity", then I become wary and less than open minded. I have become this way because of past experiences with people who have previously have been judgmental and down right mean and frankly, I can't get away from them fast enough.

It's not my assumptions, it's been their actual behavior. Both types of people are Christians, it's just that one has a real different approach or concept to defining it for others I guess.

Just saying.

Ah! Let me try this out:

All your fellow Christians are delusional idiots who believe in ritualistic cannibalism and killing anyone who refuses to believe as you do. But you personally are a prince among men.

Thanks for the tip, Chip. Now I know how to engage in friendly discourse on important issues.

I suppose that what's going on here is that the religious folks are effectually wanting other people see things the way they do themselves. This would be where all that evangelism stuff comes from. Shoving the beliefs down everyone’s' throats! Tsk Tsk! Those crazy superstitious evangelicals, et. al!!

Intrinsic within their simpleminded beliefs is this need and desire for others to view the world and reality the way they do. So what is the solution? Hmmm... I've GOT IT!

They (the superstitious) should be made to see things the atheistic / humanistic way! THEN everything will be 'right' and peaceful! Tada!

Humanist Evangelism!

Ah so when it suits you, you can align yourself with black people and gays with comments about not sitting at the back of the bus or being kept in the closet, and what a maligned minority that you are, but then you acknowledge that unlike those groups, this is a choice you make. By the way, you aren't just denouncing a religious practice that you think is wrong - you are denouncing all religion, and making statements about those who do believe in it. It's fine to say "I don't believe in God". It is another thing to make blanket statements about everyone that does, especially when you call into question their intelligence. You certainly don't like your morality being impuned, but you don't have a problem painting people as stupid when they think differently than you.

I see where Chip is coming from. "Superstitious twits" was an unfortunate choice of words. What is true is that many people who have religion or a belief in God, Allah, or FSM (whoever they choose to believe in) view atheists as less moral. Religious people do tend to equate religion with morality, this is a fallacy.

As I said before, I'm agnostic. I don't know if there is a God or not - and I don't really care. I do tend to get close-minded when people scream at me that I'm going to Hell if i don't go to their church, or if I go dancing, or if I happen to have a drink or two. Turns me off to the entire religion thing. Ah well. To each their own, just don't try to force it on me.

It is your opinion that it is a fallacy - each person defines morality for themselves. Morality is a fluid concept. For many of those of a religious background, their perception of morality and what morality means is steeped very much in their religion. In viewing morality from that perspective, someone who rejects religion is seen to be less moral, based upon the person's definition of morality. For an athiest, their morality is steeped in what they view as common sense right and wrong. Both approaches are matter of opinion, and cannot be validated (or invalidated) by having the same or a different view.

If you want to look at the original issue, it's a case of selecting out an entire group of people as the source of the mentioned problems (rampant materialism, cultural elitism) rather than individuals. I think that a number of the cultural messages out there which lead to such decay and individuation and immorality are atheistic in nature, but you have to trace them back to individual people, not just label an entire group which may or may not consider those source people as members.

This survey, of course, doesn't address that. It just picked up on a common bit of wrong-targeting. If it had asked about lawyers or advertising executives or psychiatrists or scientists it probably would have gotten many of the same prejudicial responses.

Ah the irony of it all. Religion does not a moralist make. Yes, morality is a fluid concept. For people to say they are "more" moral because they are religious and that athiests are "less" moral because they are not is a weak argument at best. Calling people immoral because they do not share your views and calling them un-trustworthy is one way to validate (or invalidate) the argument. Taking the higher moral ground, in my opinion, would involve not judging others on their beliefs (or lack thereof).

Okay Cristiano, here's a little test for you that will maybe help you understand the point I'm trying to make...

Consider the following statements:

Belief in ghosts is a superstition.
Belief in astrology is a superstition.
Belief in evolution is a superstition.
Belief in Zuess is a superstition.
Belief in Christianity is a superstition.
Belief in atheism is a superstition.
Belief in reincarnation is a superstition.
Belief in alien abduction is a superstition.

We'll take it as read that they're all opinions. We'll also take as read that they all represent ideas. Now tell me honestly without being disingenuous or equivocating if you believe all of those statements are equal, and if not, why not? Where do you draw the line and how do you justify where you draw it in a logical way without claiming that any of them are sacred? If you claim that they're all insulting then I'll know you're being disingenuous because I'm sure you'd have no problem debating the merits of belief in Zuess. If you claim that you're agnostic about all of them I'll know you're lying. If you don't think they're all equally insulting then you'd better be prepared to explain why some ideas are more "sacred" than others. Every one of those statements has the potential to be insulting to someone who disagrees, but I'm going to take a wild guess that you probably agree with at least one of them.

If you want my opinion, the validity of any one of the topics is irrelevant and all of the statements are equal, regardless of whether or not I agree. They're either all an insult or none of them are.

The beloved, [inconsistent] relativism of the [inconsistently] tolerant humanist...

May I ask, what are the overriding, overarching principles or 'values' that all views of the world 'ought' to have in common? And in response to the answer or answers, could someone please explain to me how these answers are arrived at? And lastly, on what grounds should the common principles be applicable and/or enforceable to/upon those with the aforementioned diverse views of the world? (That is to say/ask, what makes these principles more than yet more mere opinion? and why ought we as humans universally agree? (I'd like to see the science, please!))

Looking forward to the colorful, creative, teetering on being and possibly crossing over into being irrational responses. Thanks!