[mike777]

Perhaps the biggest or really only big complaint against religion is the intolerance it has created.

Someone once told me that asking why one likes religion is sort of like asking a guy why he married his wife.


We invent reasons or maybe we just like how they smell; the smell of incense and candles in a church or perfume on our wife and that esthetic is reason enough.

[debrose]

Quote

This statement strikes me, amongst other shortcomings, as rather dismissive of mikeh's posts.



Sorry for failed attempt to edit. Redid post below.

[mike777]

 debrose, on 2012-December-19, 22:18, said:

This statement strikes me, amongst other shortcomings, as rather dismissive of mikeh's posts.

please quote me in full context, thank you.

btw I went out of my way to not quote or direct my comments to any one poster.

[debrose]

 mike777, on 2012-December-19, 22:19, said:

please quote me in full context, thank you.

My apologies. I obviously missed, and am still missing, how the first sentence related to the rest of the post. I'm often unsure how much of things to quote. I'll try to edit my post if I can.

[CSGibson]

 VMars, on 2012-December-19, 21:58, said:

Maybe you liken "athiesm" to that, but as an atheist, I feel rather amused by that statement. I'm glad that you condescend to find my beliefs harmless, but puzzled as to why you liken non-belief in a god to a self-centered belief in a god?

Essentially I view religion as a code of ethics and behavioral guidelines. Followers of a religion agree to try and live by the ethical code, and to shape their behavior in service of that code (or worship of their god, or whatever). To some extent, they let that code dictate their behavior rather than just doing what they want to do when they want to do, or using their own judgment.

Athiests set their own code of ethics and behavioral guideline, and follow it. It does not have to be self-serving, or at least no more self-serving than any action ever is (and yes, I know you can argue that every action by every individual in every situation is somehow self-serving.) All I meant is that they provide their own moral compass, and go by it instead of assuming another's, although I understand that is an oversimplification, too - they could borrow an ethical code from somewhere other than religion, it does not have to be internal.

I also didn't think I was being condescending - I don't believe that my beliefs are superior to atheism; I don't really have strong religious beliefs to compare them to. I'm sorry that you read condescension where none was intended - my use of harmless was not meant to by synonymous with meaningless, but instead merely an antonym of harmful, in that it does not generally have the negative qualities I outlined earlier as being those I associate with organized religion gone wrong.

[gwnn]

mikeh: why is parroting definitions wrong? Isn't it nice to have a common language (maybe not shared by everyone but still more than one person)? There are two different ways of defining theism vs atheism. The one I like I hear often in the Atheist Experience and goes something like

'atheism: lack of belief in a god (in gods)'
'theism: belief in a god'
'agnostic: one who lacks knowledge whether one's position is true'
'gnostic: one who knows that one's position is true'

In this way there are 4 different groups, although the word Gnosticism is already taken. I am an agnostic atheist, I would say the existence of God seems highly unlikely but not impossible (indeed as John Shook says a sufficiently sophisticated definition of a god never allows for a complete disproof thereof). Atheists are like a jury who say 'not guilty,' (your case did not prove to the demanded standards that he exists) in that they are not saying 'innocent' (does not exist). 'Gnostic atheism' is again a position you would need to defend and a hard one to defend as well.

What you were describing about caring about a god enters under 'Apatheism.'

Anyway there is always the simple numerical scale of Dawkins for those of us who feel like the atheist/agnistic distinction is corrupted: 1 for someone who completely knows there is a god, 4 for someone who is completely neutral and 7 for someone who completely knows there is no god (he claims he is a 6.9, I guess I am a 6.5).

[debrose]

 mike777, on 2012-December-19, 22:09, said:

Perhaps the biggest or really only big complaint against religion is the intolerance it has created.

Someone once told me that asking why one likes religion is sort of like asking a guy why he married his wife.


We invent reasons or maybe we just like how they smell; the smell of incense and candles in a church or perfume on our wife and that esthetic is reason enough.

This statement strikes me, amongst other shortcomings, as rather dismissive of mikeh's posts.



Note: Attempted to edit my original post to include full quote, but couldn't figure out how, so started again. My "this statement" refers to the first sentence.

[debrose]

 mike777, on 2012-December-19, 22:19, said:

please quote me in full context, thank you.

btw I went out of my way to not quote or direct my comments to any one poster.

Hmm, now I appear to have done the same thing again, but perhaps you added the btw after I quoted the first line this time? Very sorry if that's not the case.

I realize you didn't direct your comments to anyone, but given the effort mikeh has put into detailing some of the many complaints about religion, your comment hit a nerve with me. As I said, maybe I am missing something, and I again apologize for taking the one line out of context initially.

[VMars]

 CSGibson, on 2012-December-19, 22:26, said:

Essentially I view religion as a code of ethics and behavioral guidelines. Followers of a religion agree to try and live by the ethical code, and to shape their behavior in service of that code (or worship of their god, or whatever). To some extent, they let that code dictate their behavior rather than just doing what they want to do when they want to do, or using their own judgment.

Athiests set their own code of ethics and behavioral guideline, and follow it. It does not have to be self-serving, or at least no more self-serving than any action ever is (and yes, I know you can argue that every action by every individual in every situation is somehow self-serving.) All I meant is that they provide their own moral compass, and go by it instead of assuming another's, although I understand that is an oversimplification, too - they could borrow an ethical code from somewhere other than religion, it does not have to be internal.

I also didn't think I was being condescending - I don't believe that my beliefs are superior to atheism; I don't really have strong religious beliefs to compare them to. I'm sorry that you read condescension where none was intended - my use of harmless was not meant to by synonymous with meaningless, but instead merely an antonym of harmful, in that it does not generally have the negative qualities I outlined earlier as being those I associate with organized religion gone wrong.

By saying that you judge something as harmless it implies that you are JUDGING it.

I also think that I was being too subtle: It's atheism (the "i" is part of the "-ism" or "ist", not part of the "athe").

[VMars]

This seemed to be a double-post. Sorry.

I will add that I think that you may be missing the "a" part of "atheist".

Also, everyone uses their own judgements as to morality. Others just cloak their judgements by claiming it matches something given from on-high, but they still have to judge if it fits.

[mike777]

 debrose, on 2012-December-19, 22:52, said:

Hmm, now I appear to have done the same thing again, but perhaps you added the btw after I quoted the first line this time? Very sorry if that's not the case.

I realize you didn't direct your comments to anyone, but given the effort mikeh has put into detailing some of the many complaints about religion, your comment hit a nerve with me. As I said, maybe I am missing something, and I again apologize for taking the one line out of context initially.

No problem I admire and respect you.


Perhaps I should just say in Pascal's wager there are costs to both sides of the bet.
http://en.wikipedia....ascal%27s_Wager



Someone once told me that asking why one likes religion is sort of like asking a guy why he married his wife.


We invent reasons or maybe we just like how they smell; the smell of incense and candles in a church or perfume on our wife and that esthetic is reason enough.

[Scarabin]

 mikeh, on 2012-December-19, 01:07, said:

Hitler was not what one might today call a mainstream christian, and it does appear that his attachment to the church 'evolved' especially later in life. However, as one example, in 1934 he gave a speech in which he portrayed Christ as a militant anti-semite, and for a long period he seems to have espoused a form of christianity that was stripped of its jewish roots.

He made many positive references to christianity in his pursuit of power. It appears that whether one would define him as a christian depends on how broadly one views that term. I can see and respect a view that excludes him, but my view would see him as a christian for much of his life, including much of his time as a nazi, albeit definitely a non-mainstream christian.

btw, I don't 'feel contempt for those who disagree with me'. I assure you I feel no such emotion towards you, as one rather recent example of someone who disagrees with me

Discussions like this generate an amazing degree of energy and several pages of posts have buried my original complaint. I feel however that I owe you an apology. I now accept completely that you did not twist truth to enhance your arguments.

I still feel however that your definition of christian may be too inclusive. I take it to be that you include as christian anyone who claims to be a christian or speaks approvingly of it? My judgment, beliefs, opinions are heavily coloured by my experience, indeed I expect this to be true of you, and everyman. Because of this I would exclude people whose conduct (deliberate conduct not just weaknesses) is completely opposed to christianity.

Anyhow, please accept my apology.

[mikeh]

 mike777, on 2012-December-19, 23:22, said:

No problem I admire and respect you.


Perhaps I should just say in Pascal's wager there are costs to both sides of the bet.
http://en.wikipedia....ascal%27s_Wager

There appears, at least to me, to be a direct correlation between the willingness of someone to raise Pascal's wager, as an argument in favour of a belief in a god, and the lack of understanding of the relevant issues as possessed by that someone.

An intelligent child of 13 could work out the problem with the wager...I know I did during a time when I was learning the reality that there were religions other than Xianity, and a teacher told of us the wager (I am pretty sure he didn't spell it out the way I now understand it, but maybe that's my faulty memory).

What are the odds that one chooses the correct god? Even just counting the ones we've invented so far, and many of them are undoubtedly lost in pre-history, the odds must be literally thousands to one against, and we are a young species!

Once one assumes an effectively infinite number of gods, pascal's wager breaks down to a 50-50 proposition, but in the meantime, if you have chosen to believe in a god, you will for the rest of your life be required to devote time and, usually, money to the worship of that god, thus detracting from your ability to prosper.

Of course, there are more aspects to this than this short post raises, but pascal's wager, in the form usually advanced by theists, isn't the powerful argument they seem to think it to be.

[mike777]

For starters hmm not sure why everyone wants to cut what I think is my point but anyway....

as I said there are costs to both sides of the wager.

"Historically, Pascal's Wager was groundbreaking because it charted new territory in probability theory, marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated future philosophies such as existentialism, pragmatism, and voluntarism"

It seems MikeH is ready to take one side of the wager and that makes a free capitalist market( other thread but perhaps a more important one that touches our lives) and an interesting social discussion away from tv, video games and cellphones. It makes life worth living and bbo forums

---


if you have chosen to believe in a god, you will for the rest of your life be required to devote time and, usually, money to the worship of that god, thus detracting from your ability to prosper


btw I really like the issue raised here....so once again I will post my point...
granted in a previous post I raised the issue of suckers vs those focused on the payoff.


Someone once told me that asking why one likes religion is sort of like asking a guy why he married his wife.


We invent reasons or maybe we just like how they smell; the smell of incense and candles in a church or perfume on our wife and that esthetic is reason enough.

----


edit I note in rereading MikeH used the word believe...that is a word that deserves an entire other thread.

I touched on it in another post.

[mikeh]

 Scarabin, on 2012-December-19, 23:38, said:

Discussions like this generate an amazing degree of energy and several pages of posts have buried my original complaint. I feel however that I owe you an apology. I now accept completely that you did not twist truth to enhance your arguments.

I still feel however that your definition of christian may be too inclusive. I take it to be that you include as christian anyone who claims to be a christian or speaks approvingly of it? My judgment, beliefs, opinions are heavily coloured by my experience, indeed I expect this to be true of you, and everyman. Because of this I would exclude people whose conduct (deliberate conduct not just weaknesses) is completely opposed to christianity.

Anyhow, please accept my apology.

I appreciate your courtesy and respect your views. However, may I commend to you research into the 'no true scotsman' argument, which, it seems to me, you have just raised, as do so many moderate Xians. You reject the notion that a Xian is anyone who claims to believe in the divinity of christ unless that person shares certain values with you. What gives you special status? Why should I accept you as a true Xian and reject another who claims, as passionately as you, that he believes in christ and that it is your type that are not true Xians?

Do I take it that you reject all those christians who participated in the Crusades? What about the Russians who fought several wars in the 1800's to prctect orthodox christianity?

Or the Spanish priests who destroyed the records of Central and South American religions and histories, in the name of christ?

Or the inqusitors?

Or those who fought in the wars of the reformation?

or who used slogans such as 'For God and Country' or 'God is with us' to enhance the willingness of young men to die for the benefit of the ruling elites, who usually went nowhere near the fighting.

You know, if you eliminate all who have violated any of the 10 commandments, or any of Jesus's alleged teachings, then you'd have a pretty small church At least in terms of the hierarchical power structure.

My latter comments may be somewhat unfair, since you don't exclude those who err through weakness

[mike777]

MikeH again repeats the issues of intolerance and just as important those who bet with no skin in the game,

with more eloquence in his writings.


to enhance the willingness of young men to die for the benefit of the ruling elites, who usually went nowhere near the fighting.


Issues I discussed.

[Scarabin]

 mikeh, on 2012-December-19, 23:54, said:

I appreciate your courtesy and respect your views. However, may I commend to you research into the 'no true scotsman' argument, which, it seems to me, you have just raised, as do so many moderate Xians. You reject the notion that a Xian is anyone who claims to believe in the divinity of christ unless that person shares certain values with you. What gives you special status? Why should I accept you as a true Xian and reject another who claims, as passionately as you, that he believes in christ and that it is your type that are not true Xians?

Do I take it that you reject all those christians who participated in the Crusades? What about the Russians who fought several wars in the 1800's to prctect orthodox christianity?

Or the Spanish priests who destroyed the records of Central and South American religions and histories, in the name of christ?

Or the inqusitors?

Or those who fought in the wars of the reformation?

or who used slogans such as 'For God and Country' or 'God is with us' to enhance the willingness of young men to die for the benefit of the ruling elites, who usually went nowhere near the fighting.

You know, if you eliminate all who have violated any of the 10 commandments, or any of Jesus's alleged teachings, then you'd have a pretty small church At least in terms of the hierarchical power structure.

My latter comments may be somewhat unfair, since you don't exclude those who err through weakness

Whoa Mike, please slow down.

1) I was raised as a Protestant in the 1930's but now claim to be an agnostic. Why ? Because I am not really sure about anything.

2) I sought to convey to you my apology for misjudging you and also that I feel that a definition that includes anyone who claims to be a christian as a christian is too loose. I feel that a value limitation has to be imposed even though this will be subjective. That is based on experience.

3) Who am I to judge? Well, in my autobiography the rest of you are merely extras, and Peter Drucker once said that a man who reaches age 40 with a completely open mind has to be a moron.

If I have to go through history picking out christians I would distinguish between leaders and followers, probably not judging the latter. Thus I could not accept Adolf Hitler as a genuine christian (and I would have doubts about the sanity and critical judgment of anyone who did. I cannot help this.)

I do not think Napoleon was a christian although I feel less strongly - probably because he is more remote. Conversely I think I would accept Marlborough as a christian despite his greed and unscrupulousness. Probably accepting him as a man of his time.

Now I have paid you the compliment of answering your post as accurately as I can. All of us are the products of our culture and affected by emotion and reason.

[mike777]

I do not think Napoleon was a christian although I feel less strongly - probably because he is more remote. Conversely I think I would accept Marlborough as a christian despite his greed and unscrupulousness. Probably accepting him as a man of his time.
--


lets give Napoleon his due:
He was on the field of battle, he did not just post to his blog.
He knew that one can be a hero or leader and not win.
He was a risk taker, with his own human capital.


Fair enough to debate his version of the Golden Rule.

[CSGibson]

 VMars, on 2012-December-19, 23:05, said:

By saying that you judge something as harmless it implies that you are JUDGING it.

I also think that I was being too subtle: It's atheism (the "i" is part of the "-ism" or "ist", not part of the "athe").

Thank you spellcheck.

Of course I was judging. Judging does not imply condescention, I wasn't judging it in the sense of weighing its overall value as an idea, so much as judging what possible negative impact could occur from this idea. We all weigh and measure ideas, or otherwise we are parrots, repeating what we have heard before. But whatever, at this point I judge this tangent to be worthless, so I am going to excercise my judgment and stop feeding this line of thought from here on out.

[Mbodell]

 debrose, on 2012-December-18, 14:00, said:

However, I disagree with the accusations of bigotry made by Cthulhu D and MBodell, and their suggested “substitutions” to demonstrate why Fluffy’s statement was bigotry. I do not equate atheism with race or sexual identity. Saying that I am an atheist describes a choice I have made. It says something about how I think, and perhaps even implies a greater than average degree of rationality.

That said, ascribing characteristics to an individual, simply because they are part of a group in which such characteristics are prevalent, is not something I approve of. As a rule, I abhor all stereotypes and generalizations.

Still, some of them make more sense than others do, and not all are bigotry..

To me, Fluffy’s assertion is actually plausible on the surface. After all, isn’t one of the main reasons men invented gods to get people to “behave?” If there were not so much evidence to the contrary, it might seem logical to accept that people who don’t believe in any god, are less likely to “behave.” Fortunately, there is indeed much evidence to the contrary.

I did not mean to equate atheism with race or sexual identity, but I do think it is useful to see if something that folks might see as harmful stereotypes or generalizations with one group, they might not realize was there when you switch which group is in play. If you wouldn't say, and would be offended by, "Women generally have no morals" or "Asians generally have no morals" then I think you could come around to understand why some (maybe not all, but more than a few) take offense to explicit or implied "Atheists have no morals".

Also, I don't want to put words in your mouth or necessarily say you meant this, but I read the juxtaposition of "I do not equate atheism with race or sexual identity. Saying that I am an atheist describes a choice I have made." to partially imply that distinctions/generalizations/stereotypes made about atheists as a group have more legitimacy than about race and sexual identity because beliefs (like atheism) are choices while the others are fixed and not a choice (to first approximation, ignoring the folks who believe sexual identity is a choice and/or those who believe race is a social construct and therefore can be part of a choice). I realize the bit after that caveats that slightly, but still legitimizes some of those assertions. I disagree with this implication (again, not necessarily implying you are making it, just saying I read it in what was written and have been bothered by it for the last day or so and feel compelled to respond to it) for at least two major reasons:

1. I don't think whether something is chosen or not should effect whether or not an individual should be grouped for stereotype. If there was a pill that magically changed your race or your sexual orientation, such that it became 100% a choice, I still think racism and homophobia would be wrong. The fact that someone can have a sex change doesn't justify sexism. etc.

2. I don't think belief really is a choice, at least not for everyone. I mean it is clear that belief is fluid and changes over time (but then again, for some, so does sexual identity, racial identity, and gender identity). For me personally, I convinced my parents to get me baptized when I was ~10 because I was convinced I wouldn't go to heaven when I died if I wasn't baptized. But a few years after that I moved my beliefs to agnostic and a while after that I shifted to full atheism. I think rational thought and exposure to ideas helped effect a change in my beliefs. However, I'm not sure I actively decided what to believe (in fact during some of that transition I still actively wanted to believe again in my Christian upbringing, particularly around post-death beliefs, but I was not successful in believing what I now perceived as the pleasant fantasy instead of the rationally correct belief). If I wanted to make a choice to believe in the fsm, I really can't. If I try to believe there's a pink elephant in the room, I'm not successful. So at least for some people belief is a little more a reflex or outside of conscious control rather than an explicit conscious choice. So for me, saying I'm an atheist does not describe a choice I've made.

I also think, getting back to the original statement, that there is a special responsibility when you make assertions about groups, especially groups that have an historic context of being mistreated, or having negative stereotypes commonly used, that you restrict them to things that actually are supported by evidence - not merely off the cuff things that seem plausible to you. If someone doesn't do that and repeats a negative prejudice about a group or attributes negative attributes to a group, then I think there is a good chance that the statement in question is an example of bigotry (and I'm intentionally focusing on the statement, *not* on the person making the statement, in my labeling).