Comments on: Filth-Based Initiatives http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/filth-based-initiatives.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Wed, 7 Jan 2009 05:49:27 +0000 By: EnigmaOfSteel http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/filth-based-initiatives.html#comment-671 EnigmaOfSteel Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:23:39 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/filth-based-initiatives.html#comment-671 At a certain level all the religious, whether moderate or fundamentalist, have culpability in contributing to an environment where it is acceptable to appeal to and make decisions based on supernatural forces. I would not suggest that we paper over this fundamental difference, simply because the religion is practiced in moderation. On the other hand, we need to be careful on how we lay blame for the ills of the world. And we need to determine what is to be accomplished, understanding that irrationality and evil are spread in good measure, regardless of position on the supernatural. I spent some time a few years back in an x-Soviet satellite country, and got to see the horrible mess and legacy of a failed ideology. I happened to be reading a volume of "The Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn at the time, which made the experience hit home. Approximately 30 to 40 percent of the population was marched off to gulag in the russification of this country, many never to return. The human race seems strangely pre-disposed to potentially destructive ideologies, religion being just one of these many problematic forces. That said, the reason I consider religion of special significance in terms of how it can foster irrational thoughts and potentially dangerous actions, is the supernatural component. This makes it different from other ideologies. Consider that we all have discussions and arguments on various topics, and even if there is no agreement, the discussion can involve rational give and take based on the evidences. How is this to happen when the topic is religion, and faith is considered a legitimate substitute for reason? Where one side is using as evidence a supernatural force not of this world and not accountable to reasoned argument. What am I to say to the guy who wants to blow up a plane, if his god has told him to do it? Why would he take my opinion over the supreme creator of the universe? Hence the special problem with the supernatural and religion. As Adam mentioned, we have things to do in this world and people to work with. I think if we keep in mind that the religious are not a monolith, then we will be most effective in responding to the challenges and implementing change. At a certain level all the religious, whether moderate or fundamentalist, have culpability in contributing to an environment where it is acceptable to appeal to and make decisions based on supernatural forces. I would not suggest that we paper over this fundamental difference, simply because the religion is practiced in moderation. On the other hand, we need to be careful on how we lay blame for the ills of the world. And we need to determine what is to be accomplished, understanding that irrationality and evil are spread in good measure, regardless of position on the supernatural.

I spent some time a few years back in an x-Soviet satellite country, and got to see the horrible mess and legacy of a failed ideology. I happened to be reading a volume of "The Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn at the time, which made the experience hit home. Approximately 30 to 40 percent of the population was marched off to gulag in the russification of this country, many never to return. The human race seems strangely pre-disposed to potentially destructive ideologies, religion being just one of these many problematic forces.

That said, the reason I consider religion of special significance in terms of how it can foster irrational thoughts and potentially dangerous actions, is the supernatural component. This makes it different from other ideologies. Consider that we all have discussions and arguments on various topics, and even if there is no agreement, the discussion can involve rational give and take based on the evidences. How is this to happen when the topic is religion, and faith is considered a legitimate substitute for reason? Where one side is using as evidence a supernatural force not of this world and not accountable to reasoned argument. What am I to say to the guy who wants to blow up a plane, if his god has told him to do it? Why would he take my opinion over the supreme creator of the universe? Hence the special problem with the supernatural and religion.

As Adam mentioned, we have things to do in this world and people to work with. I think if we keep in mind that the religious are not a monolith, then we will be most effective in responding to the challenges and implementing change.

]]> By: Ebonmuse http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/filth-based-initiatives.html#comment-571 Ebonmuse Thu, 06 Apr 2006 20:25:04 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/filth-based-initiatives.html#comment-571 <blockquote>Adam, have you received any hate mail at your site(s) (Ebon Musings and Daylight Atheism)?</blockquote> Surprisingly, no. I do get the occasional "repent and come to know the love of Jesus or he'll throw you into the lake of fire"-type e-mail, and then of course there's J.P. Holding, but I've never gotten any mail that contained any outright threat. I suppose I've been fortunate in that respect. <blockquote>Some of the Christians here were so “shocked” that I said that it was a pity that “Christians” had to resort to threats. Why there was no proof that it was Christians! Why they must just be calling themselves Christians!</blockquote> Right. And Pat Robertson was just acting as an atheist operative when he called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, one supposes. <blockquote>Lets not get carried away with the Christian bashing, else the accusation that atheists are all angry may appear true. My wife is a Christian, and isn't the things being stated in these messages.</blockquote> That's absolutely true, and we should keep it in mind and not be indiscriminate in our condemnations. There are plenty of moderate and liberal Christians (and Muslims, and so on) who are moral people and who, by themselves, are not doing any harm. And we should recognize this and work with them; we're going to have to, if we want to bring about any substantial social change any time soon. The problem, as BWM and many others have observed, is that the religious moderates do aid the fanatics in one significant way - namely, by creating an environment in which faith is considered an acceptable method of guiding public policy and in which any belief or practice stemming from religion is considered beyond criticism. As well-intentioned as they may be, the moderates have created an atmosphere in which the zealots can breathe, and this is something that needs to be reversed. We all have to emphasize that reason and the common good is the only acceptable way of making decisions that affect others, and that all beliefs, including religious beliefs, are up for criticism and debate. If we can foster this environment of free inquiry under the umbrella of liberty, it will suck the oxygen right out of the fundamentalists' lungs, but it's going to take a lot of hard work.

Adam, have you received any hate mail at your site(s) (Ebon Musings and Daylight Atheism)?

Surprisingly, no. I do get the occasional "repent and come to know the love of Jesus or he'll throw you into the lake of fire"-type e-mail, and then of course there's J.P. Holding, but I've never gotten any mail that contained any outright threat. I suppose I've been fortunate in that respect.

Some of the Christians here were so “shocked” that I said that it was a pity that “Christians” had to resort to threats. Why there was no proof that it was Christians! Why they must just be calling themselves Christians!

Right. And Pat Robertson was just acting as an atheist operative when he called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, one supposes.

Lets not get carried away with the Christian bashing, else the accusation that atheists are all angry may appear true. My wife is a Christian, and isn't the things being stated in these messages.

That's absolutely true, and we should keep it in mind and not be indiscriminate in our condemnations. There are plenty of moderate and liberal Christians (and Muslims, and so on) who are moral people and who, by themselves, are not doing any harm. And we should recognize this and work with them; we're going to have to, if we want to bring about any substantial social change any time soon.

The problem, as BWM and many others have observed, is that the religious moderates do aid the fanatics in one significant way - namely, by creating an environment in which faith is considered an acceptable method of guiding public policy and in which any belief or practice stemming from religion is considered beyond criticism. As well-intentioned as they may be, the moderates have created an atmosphere in which the zealots can breathe, and this is something that needs to be reversed. We all have to emphasize that reason and the common good is the only acceptable way of making decisions that affect others, and that all beliefs, including religious beliefs, are up for criticism and debate. If we can foster this environment of free inquiry under the umbrella of liberty, it will suck the oxygen right out of the fundamentalists' lungs, but it's going to take a lot of hard work.

]]> By: andrea http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/filth-based-initiatives.html#comment-558 andrea Wed, 05 Apr 2006 19:21:23 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/filth-based-initiatives.html#comment-558 I would say that both sides are guilty of "circling the wagons" when either "creepy atheists" or religious zealots are mentioned. Neither side is willing to step up to the plate and say "they're crazy" and therefore appears to tacitly accept whatever they do because "we" don't want to bash our own. I would say that both sides are guilty of "circling the wagons" when either "creepy atheists" or religious zealots are mentioned. Neither side is willing to step up to the plate and say "they're crazy" and therefore appears to tacitly accept whatever they do because "we" don't want to bash our own.

]]> By: EnigmaOfSteel http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/filth-based-initiatives.html#comment-556 EnigmaOfSteel Wed, 05 Apr 2006 19:04:11 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/filth-based-initiatives.html#comment-556 I am not advocating that we ignore the beliefs of non-fundamentalist. As atheists, we have a position regarding the supernatural, and when appropriate we should put this position forward. What I am advocating is taking into account both beliefs and actions. While I think many atheists are by nature rational - not all are. For example, there is a type of atheist I have encountered who uses it as a cover to engage in bad behavior, through the linking of atheism with an extreme moral relativism. For lack of a better term, I call them "creepy atheists". There are also religious people who, while they believe in various gods and associate theological constructs, are also just plain nice, involved with feeding the poor, concerned about the environment, and other such things. Guess who I actually have more in common with? Guess who I want to hang out with? We are not only defined by atheism - it's the same with peoples actions. I am sure we all have many concerns, and atheism, as important as it is, is only one of them. I am simply advocating taking into account all the concerns before deciding on a course of action. Some in the religious community turn atheists into caricatures - we don't want to be guilty of the same. I am not advocating that we ignore the beliefs of non-fundamentalist. As atheists, we have a position regarding the supernatural, and when appropriate we should put this position forward.

What I am advocating is taking into account both beliefs and actions. While I think many atheists are by nature rational - not all are. For example, there is a type of atheist I have encountered who uses it as a cover to engage in bad behavior, through the linking of atheism with an extreme moral relativism. For lack of a better term, I call them "creepy atheists". There are also religious people who, while they believe in various gods and associate theological constructs, are also just plain nice, involved with feeding the poor, concerned about the environment, and other such things. Guess who I actually have more in common with? Guess who I want to hang out with? We are not only defined by atheism - it's the same with peoples actions.

I am sure we all have many concerns, and atheism, as important as it is, is only one of them. I am simply advocating taking into account all the concerns before deciding on a course of action. Some in the religious community turn atheists into caricatures - we don't want to be guilty of the same.

]]> By: Unbeliever http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/filth-based-initiatives.html#comment-555 Unbeliever Wed, 05 Apr 2006 18:59:08 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/filth-based-initiatives.html#comment-555 One phrase stood out for me in this post: "...we want to see justice done and people happy..." This is the essence of what we atheists are about. The problem is that Christians (most but not all) want to see God's justice done and God happy. People are irrelavent to that goal. If God is happy and everyone is suffering, then things are as they should be. That means that if you feel that you are doing what makes God happy, then no other rules should apply to your behavior. God's happiness is a blank check to treat others any way you want. This, ultimately, is the greatest danger of religion and theism. There is only one person that matters, God, and unfortunatley, he doesn't really exist. One phrase stood out for me in this post: "...we want to see justice done and people happy..." This is the essence of what we atheists are about. The problem is that Christians (most but not all) want to see God's justice done and God happy. People are irrelavent to that goal. If God is happy and everyone is suffering, then things are as they should be. That means that if you feel that you are doing what makes God happy, then no other rules should apply to your behavior. God's happiness is a blank check to treat others any way you want. This, ultimately, is the greatest danger of religion and theism. There is only one person that matters, God, and unfortunatley, he doesn't really exist.

]]> By: BlackWizardMagus http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/filth-based-initiatives.html#comment-554 BlackWizardMagus Wed, 05 Apr 2006 17:45:33 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/filth-based-initiatives.html#comment-554 I used to think like that; that it was the fundamentalists only and that we should just ignore them because most christians (or muslims) aren't like that, etc. And that's not entirely wrong. However, I've realized that that is just a smokescreen. Fundamentalists don't come out of nothing; they come out of the moderate mainstream. They learn from them, use what they say, use the same holy book, etc. I don't want christian bashing either, but all these fire-and-brimstone types don't exist in some alternate universe to most christians; they are affiliated with them, often attend the same churches and live in the same neighborhoods. It is that feeling of comfort and safety and uniformity that lets them do what they do. And also, it is the liberal christians who should, first and foremost, be upset with the fundamentalists, but usually are not. Some give lip service, then work right along side them come an election. And these same liberals are, in some ways, more threatened than atheists; they are the ones who are stuck in the middle. They obviously can't connect totally with atheists, but then again, many of their own brethren won't accept their interpretation either. They are in limbo. This becomes clear in elections; maybe a certain church doesn't exactly want free abortion and gay marriage, but if they go for the conservative party, they know that they will have a more fundamentalist version of their own religion shoved onto them. Again, I don't advocate attacking christians or their beliefs wholesale, but I have realized that the "moderate-not-fundamentalist" defense is just telling us to pull a weed and leave the roots. We need to pressure theists who agree with us in some manner that they need to worry less about saving our souls and more about stopping the hatefilled brothers they deal with. I used to think like that; that it was the fundamentalists only and that we should just ignore them because most christians (or muslims) aren't like that, etc. And that's not entirely wrong. However, I've realized that that is just a smokescreen. Fundamentalists don't come out of nothing; they come out of the moderate mainstream. They learn from them, use what they say, use the same holy book, etc. I don't want christian bashing either, but all these fire-and-brimstone types don't exist in some alternate universe to most christians; they are affiliated with them, often attend the same churches and live in the same neighborhoods. It is that feeling of comfort and safety and uniformity that lets them do what they do. And also, it is the liberal christians who should, first and foremost, be upset with the fundamentalists, but usually are not. Some give lip service, then work right along side them come an election. And these same liberals are, in some ways, more threatened than atheists; they are the ones who are stuck in the middle. They obviously can't connect totally with atheists, but then again, many of their own brethren won't accept their interpretation either. They are in limbo. This becomes clear in elections; maybe a certain church doesn't exactly want free abortion and gay marriage, but if they go for the conservative party, they know that they will have a more fundamentalist version of their own religion shoved onto them.

Again, I don't advocate attacking christians or their beliefs wholesale, but I have realized that the "moderate-not-fundamentalist" defense is just telling us to pull a weed and leave the roots. We need to pressure theists who agree with us in some manner that they need to worry less about saving our souls and more about stopping the hatefilled brothers they deal with.

]]> By: EnigmaOfSteel http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/filth-based-initiatives.html#comment-553 EnigmaOfSteel Wed, 05 Apr 2006 17:25:51 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/filth-based-initiatives.html#comment-553 Lets not get carried away with the Christian bashing, else the accusation that atheists are all angry may appear true. My wife is a Christian, and isn't the things being stated in these messages. Nor are the people I've met at the Lutheran church she attends. This church belongs to the Missouri Synod, which is the more liberal wing of the Lutheran church. The pastor is female, and there is a gay guy who gives communion, and holds hands with his significant other. None of the congregants seem to have a problem with this. The pastor gave a sermon two weeks ago against intelligent design. While misguided about the supernatural, they are nevertheless good people, who have many of the same concerns as atheists. I have often said to my wife that if this church would just cut out the supernatural part - I would be there every Sunday! Lets not get carried away with the Christian bashing, else the accusation that atheists are all angry may appear true. My wife is a Christian, and isn't the things being stated in these messages. Nor are the people I've met at the Lutheran church she attends. This church belongs to the Missouri Synod, which is the more liberal wing of the Lutheran church. The pastor is female, and there is a gay guy who gives communion, and holds hands with his significant other. None of the congregants seem to have a problem with this. The pastor gave a sermon two weeks ago against intelligent design. While misguided about the supernatural, they are nevertheless good people, who have many of the same concerns as atheists. I have often said to my wife that if this church would just cut out the supernatural part - I would be there every Sunday!

]]> By: Quath http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/filth-based-initiatives.html#comment-552 Quath Wed, 05 Apr 2006 17:18:04 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/filth-based-initiatives.html#comment-552 I debate Christians from time to time on web boards. I think it should be noted that a lot of these hate-writers probably represent a minority in Christianity. I have been told some very nasty things when debating. For example, I have had Christians brag about how they will laugh up in heaven when they see me suffering in hell. While I can accept that some Christians will be very hate filled and delight in suffering, what shocks me is that very few more moderate Christians condemn them for their view. The rare few that do are usually condemned for not being a true Christian or in league with Satan. It is also rare to see other Christians defend these Christians. I debate Christians from time to time on web boards. I think it should be noted that a lot of these hate-writers probably represent a minority in Christianity. I have been told some very nasty things when debating. For example, I have had Christians brag about how they will laugh up in heaven when they see me suffering in hell.

While I can accept that some Christians will be very hate filled and delight in suffering, what shocks me is that very few more moderate Christians condemn them for their view. The rare few that do are usually condemned for not being a true Christian or in league with Satan. It is also rare to see other Christians defend these Christians.

]]> By: andrea http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/filth-based-initiatives.html#comment-551 andrea Wed, 05 Apr 2006 14:28:29 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/filth-based-initiatives.html#comment-551 It’s my take that the hatred is simply stupidity and mostly fear. They are so afraid of being damned themselves that they must try to instill fear in everyone else. How else could they stand to see happy people who aren’t them? It’s an animalistic reaction. To put it bluntly, most religious people in my experience are not sentient beings at all. Being from central Pennsylvania, I got to see the fall out from the Dover decision close up and am on some local forums about it. Some of the Christians here were so “shocked” that I said that it was a pity that “Christians” had to resort to threats. Why there was no proof that it was Christians! Why they must just be calling themselves Christians! Of course, this is said while ignoring direct quotes that show just how “loving” Christians are, like dear Ann Coulter’s calling for rat poison to be given to Supreme Court Justices and Rev. Roberts threatening everyone in Dover who dared not to vote his way. And you’re right, Adam, that hell and many Christians attitude are simply revenge fantasies. Just the ravings of cowards who want God to be the bully for them. It’s my take that the hatred is simply stupidity and mostly fear. They are so afraid of being damned themselves that they must try to instill fear in everyone else. How else could they stand to see happy people who aren’t them? It’s an animalistic reaction. To put it bluntly, most religious people in my experience are not sentient beings at all. Being from central Pennsylvania, I got to see the fall out from the Dover decision close up and am on some local forums about it. Some of the Christians here were so “shocked” that I said that it was a pity that “Christians” had to resort to threats. Why there was no proof that it was Christians! Why they must just be calling themselves Christians! Of course, this is said while ignoring direct quotes that show just how “loving” Christians are, like dear Ann Coulter’s calling for rat poison to be given to Supreme Court Justices and Rev. Roberts threatening everyone in Dover who dared not to vote his way.
And you’re right, Adam, that hell and many Christians attitude are simply revenge fantasies. Just the ravings of cowards who want God to be the bully for them.

]]> By: Archi Medez http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/filth-based-initiatives.html#comment-550 Archi Medez Wed, 05 Apr 2006 02:58:01 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/filth-based-initiatives.html#comment-550 We need to continue to expose this vitriolic hate which some Christians and Muslims project at non-believers (and each other!). In the U.S., it appears to be mostly Christians who are hating atheists; Christians hate atheists more than they hate any other group (atheists are hated more than homosexuals and are hated far more than Muslims). Adam, have you received any hate mail at your site(s) (Ebon Musings and Daylight Atheism)? Another suggestion: I know the skepticsannotated site has long lists for intolerance in both the Bible and Koran. It might be useful to have a list of insults from the Bible. Maybe we should compile one. (I do have something like this for the Koran, but it is not yet complete and I haven't sorted through the Biblical insults yet). I guess it would be important to distinguish, in compiling such a list, between insults purely having to do with belief, vs those that insult non-believers for some additional reasons. We need to continue to expose this vitriolic hate which some Christians and Muslims project at non-believers (and each other!). In the U.S., it appears to be mostly Christians who are hating atheists; Christians hate atheists more than they hate any other group (atheists are hated more than homosexuals and are hated far more than Muslims).

Adam, have you received any hate mail at your site(s) (Ebon Musings and Daylight Atheism)?

Another suggestion: I know the skepticsannotated site has long lists for intolerance in both the Bible and Koran. It might be useful to have a list of insults from the Bible. Maybe we should compile one. (I do have something like this for the Koran, but it is not yet complete and I haven't sorted through the Biblical insults yet). I guess it would be important to distinguish, in compiling such a list, between insults purely having to do with belief, vs those that insult non-believers for some additional reasons.

]]>