This video shows two young Christian girls trying to direct their Hindu friend toward an eternity of bliss in Heaven instead of an eternity of torture in Hell. Isn't that a laudable thing? What could possibly be the problem with that?
The problem is that their faith has blinded them to the possibility that they may be wrong. The problem is that their faith is acting as a barrier to even consider opposing views. The problem is their faith is causing a willful ignorance on their part. The problem is they think this is a good thing. The problem is that society too often tells them that their faith is a good thing too. The problem is their faith is making them stupid obnoxious twits.
I realize that someone is going to respond that not all Christians are like these two girls. That's correct, they're not. A lot, perhaps most, are better than these girls are. But I have met quite a few Christians who are exactly like these girls. The problem isn't that ALL Christians are like that; the problem is that MANY are. And because these people are Christian people listen and nod their approval when they make statements like "this is a Christian country", "we need prayer in schools", "let's get back to God", "people who criticize us are being intolerant".
It is true that I would like to see religious belief disappear from the face of the world. I suppose one could call that intolerance. I don't think so. I believe in the principle of freedom of belief. I believe that people have a right to believe whatever they wish to believe. I believe that is more important than having religious belief disappear from the face of the world. The way I want religious belief to disappear from the face of the world is for people to realize we don't need it. It is a silly belief that is counterproductive in the long run. If sufficient numbers come to that conclusion then Christianity will go the way of Greek and Roman paganism. And I think the world will be a better place.
That wont turn the world into a "Garden of Eden" (intentional irony). But it will remove an obstacle from getting on the road to rationally solving problems the best we can.
NOTE: This video appears to be a joke. As sawaboof points out below it is tagged under "Poe's Law" which says that there is no parody of religious fundamentalism that can be made on the Internet without SOMEONE believing it to be true. In this case, that someone was me. I apologize for the example, but I stand by my comment that I know many people who are EXACTLY like the characters portrayed in the above video. I also stand by the points I tried to make in this blog.
Now that I know how to find tags on YouTube videos I will do my best to not make the same mistake in the future.
Thank you,
DB
If it makes you feel better at all (which it probably won't, because I still feel sick from watching it) I'm pretty sure that whole video was a joke. One of the tags is Poe's Law. :-)
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
I evidently don't look at YouTube enough. It took me 30 minutes to figure out how to show the tags ... I had to ask my son.
I am familiar with Poe's Law and I am guess I am a victim. However, I DO know a lot of people who are EXACTLY like those two girls. Furthermore, if this is acting, then the girls did a very good job ... especially the Indian girl when she was expressing her frustration with the other two's lack of geographical knowledge concerning India.
But unless that tag is a later addition by the girls who have changed their mind in response to all the negative criticism, then ... mea culpa. I apologize for the indignant outrage. I should have known better, and now that I know how to look up tags, it will not happen again. I will leave the blog up because I still believe in the points I was trying to make, and it will serve to humble me in the future.
Thanks,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
If the video isn't, as sawaboof thinks it might be, a joke, then my heart goes out to that poor girl. She was a good sport to be so polite to them.
Also, I take issue with you when you say that
The problem is their faith is making them stupid obnoxious twits.
I don't think you can just assume their faith is to blame. Just from the portion of the video before they started on religion, I got the feeling that they'd be obnoxious twits regardless of faith. Faith does not create stupidity where there was none before.
I will note here that I am a Christian myself. Still, this video made me feel ill. I hate it when people are like that. It's perfectly fine to talk about your faith with someone of a different faith, but it's not okay to tell them they're wrong, or they're going to hell because they don't believe what you believe. That's not what Christianity is about in my eyes. For me, it's not about getting out of going to hell. My faith is about being happy and living life to the fullest.
I agree that religion, when it causes insensitivity, closed-mindedness, hate, violence, etc., is a bad thing. But when you think about the people in the world who have been changed for the better by their faith, who are happy and healthy and loving life, how can you really wish for faith to disappear? There are lots of people in the world who do need their faith, and for many reasons, it doesn't matter if what they believe is right or wrong, so long as they're not using their faith as an excuse to do wrong.
The problem, in my eyes, is that people are stupid and insensitive, and it just shows more clearly in the area of their religion and faith than in other areas of life.
And that's comin' at ya' from yer local redneck hippie.
--
Ooh, ooh, pick me, pick me!!!
Visit my webcomic?
(1) After confirmation of sawaboof's observation, I now believe the video to most likely be a joke. Thus, let my remarks in this response apply to people who are like the characters portrayed in the video.
(2) I believe we agree that in the video the two Christian girls were acting like stupid obnoxious twits. You, however, do not blame their faith at all. How can you not? Can you imagine them acting like that without it? It is their faith that gives them the assurity that they are 100% correct. Because of that, they know that their Indian friend must be wrong. It is their faith that is giving them the where-with-all to act as they do. The way faith is making them stupid is by promoting a willful ignorance. The way it is making them obnoxious is by being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see
(3) I think the major point of my post is that IT DOES MATTER whether what you believe is right or wrong. If God does not exist then faith in God's existence does nothing for you. Any benefit that one is able to achieve by believing a false belief came through that person's own efforts and not from something that doesn't exist. In other words the person could have achieved it without God's help. If the person can achieve that then there is no reason to call on God when they want to achieve something else. That is a benefit.
(4) Other than intentional Charlatans who rip people off in the name of religion -- an annoyance surely, but not the major problem with religion as I see it -- people don't use their faith "as an excuse to do wrong". They do wrong because of their faith. They don't realize they are doing anything wrong. The girls in the video are trying to secure an eternity of bliss for their friend. That is not wrong. The 9/11 hijackers was trying to make this a more righteous world. That is not wrong.
However, what the girls in the video did was disrespect their friends --- which is wrong. What the 9/11 hijackers did was kill 3000+ people who only wanted to live their life the best they could. -- which is wrong.
(5) I think we both hate people like the characters portrayed by the girls in the video. But you claim to be a Christian. Now, from having talked to a large number of Christians I know it is impossible to know what YOU mean by labeling yourself that. However, most Christian creeds do believe in Hell, and that Hell is a pretty bad place.
Suppose you had some friends that wanted to go down a path, but you happened to know that there was dangerous quicksand on that path. Suppose you warned them, but one of your friends said, "No, the quicksand is on the other path". Would it be wrong for you to tell them they are wrong? Would it be wrong to tell them if they keep going on the path they are on they are risking death?
I think the answer here is obviously, "no". So if your faith leads you to believe with certainty that only those who believe as you do are going to avoid Hell, then why is it wrong to threaten your friends with Hell unless they believe as you do? Aren't you really doing them a favor?
The only answer to why it is that you are actually NOT doing them a favor is because you could be wrong. The path they are on could be one that is perfectly fine, and you can't possibly know with any certainty that it isn't.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I shall use your numbers for reference as I respond:
2) There are many, many people in the world who believe they know best and are right. I myself know many of these people, and none of them are Christian. A few are Jewish, but most are atheist. Most simply have a superiority complex of the kind that screams "I'm right, and you're wrong unless you listen to what I say, and it doesn't matter if you have proof I'm wrong or not."
3) I understand and don't contest your assertion that it doesn't matter if we're right or wrong. Yes, I do believe I am right, but (and I will outline what exactly I believe later in this reply) I admit that there is a lot that I am unsure of. The thing with faith, though, is that there are people who really do need it. I will use myself as an example, because I can most easily discuss my reasons for needing my faith. It's called depression, an overwhelming feeling that you're worth nothing, the world would be better off without you, that you're only a bother to everyone around you, and that you are, above all, utterly unloved. If you believe in a God that loves you, and wants only the best for you in life, a God that stays by your side through everything, forgives you when you've done wrong instead of shouting and screaming and condemning you... that can give the strength needed to pull out of that kind of depression. It can help you to believe in yourself. It can help you to be happy. It gives you confidence. It helps you see the good in yourself so you can live life to the fullest instead of sinking away into a dark abyss of despair. God doesn't need to be called on only to achieve something. God is just there, always there, full of love and support and forgiveness. I like to use the analogy of a loving father that doesn't spoil his child, but is never too harsh. A father who is always there, through thick and thin, and who can be confided in and counted on for support.
4) I realize that there are way too many people who don't realize they're doing wrong because of their faith. But there are also many people who don't hold any sort of religious belief that also do wrong without realizing it. Take away all religious belief, and you're likely to see this sort of behavior find other outlets. Also, keep in mind that there are many religious teachings that are good. Those that teach of forgiveness, or patience, of love as opposed to hate... those are good things, and I know a lot of people who have become better, less disrespectful people after coming to some sort of religious belief. It's all a double-edged sword, and I'm perfectly aware of it, but many people don't realize that a lot of the problems are caused by people's personalities. If someone was not already an "I'm right and you're wrong" kind of person (as the girls in this video are, specifically), they will not be content in a religion that pushes that kind of behavior. There is a reason there are so many different Christian denominations, and so many differences between the worship and teachings at each church in a given denomination. People are drawn to what they are comfortable with, and what they are comfortable with stems from their personality.
5) Please keep in mind that not all Christians follow the same creeds. Here is a brief summary of what I believe. I believe in a loving God. I believe that Jesus is God, and that he did indeed die for my sins, so that I could have the loving relationship I have with God. I believe that He is always there for me, with me every step of the way to cheer me on when I'm doing well and pick me up again when I fall. I believe that there is a Heaven and a Hell, but I'm not sure as to what I believe regarding them. I'm aware that much of the Bible is allegorical, metaphoric, and the like. It was written in a time completely different from this day and age, and was geared toward the people living in that time. I can't know much else for certain than what I have already stated. I don't believe so I won't go to Hell. I believe because God has helped me through a terrible time in my life, and is still helping me, because I'm not out of the danger zone yet. I don't believe God will make things easy for me, and I know I have to achieve things myself. He might toss an opportunity my way and offer me protection from certain thing and assurance that I'll be alright, but essentially, I have to depend upon myself. God just gives me the support I need to be able to do that, because He loves me.
I do not support forcing your faith (or even lack of) on anyone else. It is each person's individual choice to decide what is right for them. For all I know, more than one religion may actually be right, and I do indeed have a very jealous God. But my God is right for me. I chose my faith. I have my reasons for believing what I do. I feel that faith should be a personal thing that you can share with others. But above all, it is personal.
As for your example of the paths and the argument about where the quicksand is, if my friend was adamant that they were right, I wouldn't continue to fight them. I'd convince them to take a nice long stick and poke at the ground every step of the way to make sure it's safe, because we've all been certain of something before only to fid we're wrong. Heck, I might even go with them for a bit, as long as they knew clearly that I thought this was the wrong way, to make sure they didn't get into trouble.
It's hard to compare something like quicksand to matters of faith and religion, simply because they are very, very different things. Now, if my friends were doing something incredibly stupid and dangerous, I would do all I could to convince them not to do it, stating the real-life and observable reasons why I was of that opinion, and if they still insisted, warn them to be careful. I can't be their keeper. I can only do so much for someone, and I can only make decisions for myself.
In my opinion, people need to be more open-minded. People need to let others make their mistakes, but be there to offer what suggestions and advice they can. But they can't force anyone to take their side or believe what they do, because everyone needs to be free to choose for themselves.
If you warn someone that they're making a mistake, and they don't listen only to realize you were right, they'd be more willing to listen the next time you have a warning. And when it comes to religious faith, I believe the only way to bring people to what you believe to be the right side is to show them what it's doing for you. Be an example, and if they are curious, they will ask. If they are seeking, then you can give. Sharing is great. It leads to understanding. If someone's having a hard time in life, I'll pray for them and invite them to church, and if they don't want to come, that's fine. I'll admit that I want people to have the faith I have, but that's because it has done so much good for me. I know, however, that everyone must be free to choose. It cannot be forced. You can only be your own keeper.
I hope that all makes sense. I often have trouble conveying what I'm trying to say in words.
And that's comin' at ya' from yer local redneck hippie.
--
Ooh, ooh, pick me, pick me!!!
Visit my webcomic?
Thanks a lot for using my numbers in your response. It allows me to go back and check on what you are responding to. There is a little bit of a problem,however, as we will see.
(2) Unfortunately, everything you write here is a total non-sequitur to anything I wrote.
In my (2) I was responding to your assertion that it was not faith that was making the two Christian girls act stupid and obnoxious. My points were as follows:
(2.1) It would be impossible for those girls to act as they did without their faith.
(2.2) It is their faith that is allowing them to be confident in their view of the world and sure that their Indian friend must be wrong.
(2.3) The way faith is making these girls stupid is by promoting willful ignorance.
(2.4) The way faith is making these girls obnoxious is by allowing them to believe as indicated in (2.2) above. (I left a link to the biblical verse of Hebrews 11:1 which is scriptural support for that belief.
In your (2) you say that in your experience that it is Jews and especially atheists who claim to know everything. Well, I cannot speak for any Jewish people, and I can only speak for a single atheist ... me.
I have never claimed to know everything and I always try to consider everything my the person says. I never ask for proof ... I always ask for evidence. Is the evidence convincing or is it not? For it to be convincing it needs to make sense, and so far as to assertions that God exists ... the evidence presented by theists is woeful on the "making sense" criterion.
(3) Actually my assertion was that it DOES matter if one's beliefs are right or wrong. It is always better to be right.
I am glad that you have overcome your depression. You are to be congratulated on that achievement and I wish you well. But for the purposes of this discussion, your reasoning as for the benefit of believing in God's benevolent existence needs to be examined.
(3.1) The first question to ask, does it make sense from an objective point of view? My assessment is that it does not. For instance, you say:
God is just there, always there, full of love and support and forgiveness. I like to use the analogy of a loving father that doesn't spoil his child, but is never too harsh. A father who is always there, through thick and thin, and who can be confided in and counted on for support.
But God ISN'T there like a father through thick and thin. There are 5,000,000 people who starve to death every year, most are children. Why is God not able to help that. I AM a father and I would do everything within my power to prevent that from happening. Why doesn't God?
One could provide example after example of God NOT being there. It is a part of theism's problem of evil. For the time being I'll stop here. If you want a thorough discussion of the Problem of Evil and how the bible handles it I recommend Bart Ehrman's God's Problem.
(3.2) The next question is to ask, is the God concept REALLY needed?
What exactly did it give you?
It gives you confidence. It helps you see the good in yourself so you can live life to the fullest instead of sinking away into a dark abyss of despair.
Fair enough, but God wasn't by your side. There was nothing there ... at least nothing tangible. Why not sit down and ask yourself some questions such as:
(A) Is it REALLY true that I am worthless?
(B) Is it REALLY true that no one loves me?
(C) Is there something I can do to make myself better?
(D) Depression is a treatable condition, what does my doctor think?
(E) What do I want out of life?
(F) What is truly important to me?
(G) What is preventing me from getting E & F above?
(H) What do I need to change about myself?
(I) How do I go about changing myself?
(J) After I develop a plan how often should I evaluate how well it is working and reassess my goals?
Almost everyone suffers from depression at times and to varying degrees. I think a proactive approach like above can more reliably accomplish the same thing you did with your God belief. It did for me, anyway. If you are interested in learning more about such an approach I would recommend, Stephen Covey's The 7 Habits. By the way Covey is a believer (Mormon) himself, but his book is a good one no matter what your religious beliefs are.
(4) The "religious" beliefs that you claim to be good, are also secular beliefs ... and as I believe that Covey's book which gives rational reasons for living a principle-centered life, are actually much better.
(5) I am well aware of the variety of beliefs that Christians profess. In fact, while discussing their religious beliefs I have come to the conclusion that with 2 billion Christians out there, there are probably 3 billion different sects. That is why I used the authority of official creeds in my response. It is the best I can do.
Thank you for spelling out your particular beliefs. I have considered them, and frankly, they do not meet the "making sense" criterion. I will go into detail on that if and only if you want me to.
Instead let's look at how well they apply to the discussion at hand. You believe in the existence of Hell. But you are not sure what you believe about it. Hmm ... Do you believe it is as bad as the Gospels seem to imply it is? If so it is a pretty bad place. Eternity is a long time. Doesn't it bother you that your friends ... people you care about ... might spend eternity in such a bad place? But yet you seem to be perfectly happy to let them go down a route that is much worse than death. If you think that is because there is a very good chance you are wrong about Hell then I applaud you for your reluctance to talk them out of it. But if you think that there is a very good chance you are wrong .... why do you believe it in the first place?
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
So apparently I didn't make myself as clear as I was trying to be.
2) I trying to show, by pointing out that the people like this who I know are Jews and atheists is that this kind of attitude is found everywhere among all sorts of people. Just because someone's faith becomes an outlet for it does not mean that their faith is making them that way. If they did not have that faith, it would find another outlet.
3) So I misunderstood what you were saying. I apologize. It happens sometimes.
3.1) My analogy isn't perfect, I realize. It's impossible to come up with a perfect analogy, but for me personally, that is what my relationship with God is like. From my view, with my beliefs, God wants people to choose to believe (hence the reason why you can't force it on anyone. It must be a willing choice, or it's not really belief.) and stepping in to fix everything and make it perfect kinda defeats the purpose, because there's solid proof right there. I know I'm not explaining this well, and I apologize. As soon as I manage to come up with the right words to explain it, then I'll come back and re-explain.
I also believe that God works through people. I know many churches where the people are consistently bringing in donations of food, clothing, and money to help those who are starving, those who have to do without. My church family, in particular, though small in comparison to most churches, is putting forth more and more effort to help each month.
We, as human beings, have free will, and we're not perfect, thus the world is not perfect. Blaming it on God (as some people do) and using the state of the world as an example of the nonexistence of God don't sit well with me. People aren't perfect. We mess up and do stupid things all the time, some of those things bigger than others. But if you stop and look at all of the help going to those who really need it from religious groups, can't you think of that as God trying to help? Working through people? That's how I see it, at least.
3.2) Before I found my faith, I did indeed ask myself those questions. On an almost daily basis.
(A)I REALLY believed that I was worthless.
(B)I REALLY believed that I was unloved.
(C)I believed, for a long time, that death was the only way to make myself feel better.
(D)My doctor told me to quit being a crybaby when I tried to broach the subject. As did my parents, but in other words. I still believed that they knew everything at the time, so I couldn't tell myself that they were wrong when they said I was perfectly fine and not depressed. Add into that equation that I have a friend diagnosed with depression whose treatment only made her more depressed. My belief in treatment at all was very little (and for the most part, is, in most cases. Very few people I know have actually been helped by medical treatment, and it was support and love that did the trick.)
(E)I wanted nothing out of life other than to make everyone around me happy, so that they would love me. This made my condition worse, now that I look back upon it.
(F)The only thing that was important to me was earning the love of my family and friends. I needed hope. I needed someone to tell me they were truly glad I was alive. I wasn't getting that.
(G) I wasn't perfect enough for them. I was a failure as a daughter, as a sister, as a friend, and as a human being.
(H) I needed to be perfect. I couldn't. Never-ending cycle.
(I and J) See above.
This was the state of my mind. I start slipping back into it now and then, but now I know better, I recognize the signs, and I get in touch with someone who knows that I was depressed (my family still refuses to believe I ever was. They couldn't tell the difference between fake and genuine smiles.) and talk it out. They tell me what I'm being irrational about. They tell me I'm loved. They often do that even when I'm doing well, which keeps me going.
And I'll add here that my faith is based on personal experiences in which I have physically felt God's presence. I'm not going on the Bible (which I haven't read most of) or what anyone tells me. My faith is based on experiences. I have no proof for these experiences other than I'm alive and I'm so much happier than I was before. It's hard for me to discredit something I experienced when I was still adamantly pushing away the idea of God being real, and then experienced again years later when I was finally coming to my faith. I would not have the people who keep me going and tell me every day that I am loved (because they really mean it, not out of pity or the like) were it not for my faith, because these people were met after praying for weeks and weeks about some decisions. I wasn't going to make these decisions. Everything I had been taught and experienced told me they would be bad decisions. I was prodded to make them anyway by someone who has no tangible form. I have people who support me now, and I would not be where i am now if not for them. And I firmly believe that it was God pushing me into a place where I'd get the help I really needed.
(5) Here's the thing with letting people make their own choices regarding faith. I was pushed from so many different sides to believe so many different things, and in the end, I'm glad that I chose my own road. If you want someone to believe what you believe, you don't force it on them or tell them, in Christianity's case, "You're going to Hell if you don't believe this." You show them what it's done for you and let them come on their own. Forcing people pushes them away.
With my beliefs on Hell, I will admit that I have not read of it in the Bible. I intend to read it, but it's not urgent. I am aware that the Bible most likely cannot be taken literally. And I have heard a lot of different theories on what Hell is really like, from the fire and brimstone version to one where Heaven and Hell are the same place, but perceived differently. Heaven being contentment, perhaps, and Hell being filled with wanting but never able to reach fulfillment of desire.
And I'm not concerned with Hell. That will be later. I am concerned with living life to the fullest, because life is a so short. It's a beautiful thing, and so many people can't see that. No matter the circumstances, rich or starving, a happy life lived to the best of one's abilities is a life well spent. Yes, it's absolutely terrible that people starve to death. I want to see that come to an end. But we're not in a perfect world, and the one thing everyone can strive for is happiness. And, as I've said before, I believe God can help people be happy.
I don't believe there's a good chance I'm wrong. I believe there is a chance that more than one way is right, that more than one set of beliefs holds true. Mine is simply right for me, and perhaps for others, but not everyone. I would like for nothing more than my beliefs to be right for everyone, for everyone to share in my faith, but that simply is not and will never be the case.
And that's comin' at ya' from yer local redneck hippie.
--
Ooh, ooh, pick me, pick me!!!
Visit my webcomic?
Question for you, DB.
Have you ever, personally, had to deal with Depression? I'm not talking about "I'm sad because my grandmother died" grief-based "depression," but actual medication and therapy are required type Clinical Depression? And no, someone else having it doesn't count with this question, either. I'd like to know if you have ever had to battle it.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
At one time I took Welbutrin. I no longer do.
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Did you ever get to the point where suicide actually looked like a good idea? And perhaps even started considering the best way to do it?
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
as always your blog and posts are filled with valuable information. I especially like the link to Bart Ehrman's book.
I read this review of it:
"In this sometimes provocative, often pedantic memoir of his own attempts to answer the great theological question about the persistence of evil in the world, Ehrman, a UNC–Chapel Hill religion professor, refuses to accept the standard theological answers. Through close readings of every section of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, he discovers that the Bible offers numerous answers that are often contradictory. The prophets think God sends pain and suffering as a punishment for sin and also that human beings who oppress others create such misery; the writers who tell the Jesus story and the Joseph stories think God works through suffering to achieve redemptive purposes; the writers of Job view pain as God's test; and the writers of Job and Ecclesiastes conclude that we simply cannot know why we suffer. *In the end, frustrated that the Bible offers such a range of opposing answers, Ehrman gives up on his Christian faith and fashions a peculiarly utilitarian solution to suffering and evil in the world: first, make this life as pleasing to ourselves as we can and then make it pleasing to others.* Although Ehrman's readings of the biblical texts are instructive, he fails to convince readers that these are indeed God's problems, and he fails to advance the conversation any further than it's already come. (Mar.)"
I immediately thought something similar to what you said in this post:
"The "religious" beliefs that you claim to be good, are also secular beliefs ... and as I believe that Covey's book which gives rational reasons for living a principle-centered life, are actually much better."
I have often thought this, recently i must admit that i have been relieved of my own personal prejudice which has assumed for most of my life that living without God is a very depressing life. most of the atheists i have ever met in my life are joyless people, and most are actually quite miserable and depressed. In trying to talk to them about why life is worth living (some were suicidal when i met them, and battled with suicidal thoughts on a regular basis) I would focus on things like family, and how what we do and the choices we make affect our children, and how in that there is enough beauty in life to decide to step out of the crap...
i am sad that i know so many people who live miserable and depressed, who have children but never seem to wake up to the event! i cannot understand how people with children can live in depression and misery! it makes no sense to me...all anyone has to do to find a sense of purpose and worth is to look around at children and try to find a way to make the world a better place for them.
for me, that is enough, but i know many people who have beautiful families and still see no value in themselves, no worth, no reason for living. for those people, the only thing i have been able to reach them with is faith. and i think, ,"if faith makes them care, drives them to live better, more responsibly and ethically, then i have no problem with it," in fact, in order to reach most people, i have to be able to talk to them about some kind of faith, even it is just faith in the future, and faith in the now, faith in the self, that one is capable of doing things differently and better than they have been doing up until this point....in this light, i see faith as necessary for many.
there comes a point though when a person realizes, whether they are an atheist or not, that it isnt about God at all, its really about us. Once we understand how central and important our role is to our world and environment (I mean all environments including home, school, work, planetary, etc.) a personal responsibility is felt that equips one with the capacity to make "good" decisions that benefit ourselves and each other.
and i have to end by saying, for the benefit of those who do have a faith in God, that if God exists, our beliefs do not change that fact. if God exists, and is what everyone says He is, then God works in our lives all the time and isnt sitting around waiting for people to figure it out and find the right church, the right holy book, the right language to pray in, or the right people to listen to. if God is what they say, then why arent we getting busy making His creation better, cleaner and healthier? Why arent we learning everything we can about how to preserve ourselves and our environment, our children? why are we so busy ignoring very big problems and staying focused on a story, a fable. And it is just a story, just like anyone's life becomes a story once they no longer inhabit the earth in bodily form. The question is why aren't people focused on what to do right now?
and here is the flip side of that religious coin that db is focused on, and i agree with you db. It is false assurance that christians and other religious folk have that so long as we believe the right thing, there is no need to do the right thing. its easy to shrug our shoulders and say "its in god's hands, not mine," its easy to pass the buck and play victim forever. now is this a "God problem?" meaning, is it one that is created because of people's belief in God, or is it one that would exist without the concept of God? that is a hard question to answer, but i can see evidence for both answers.
its ironic too because the story of the garden of eden is supposed to point out to humans the significance of our actions and choices. it is supposed to illustrate how god has given us free will. that is the answer to the question, why would a loving god put his creation in the face of temptation? or why would a loving god allow them to be faced with that choice if he knew what they would choose? at least its the answer i always got when i asked anyone at church. "because he didnt want us to be robots, he wanted us to choose to love him, he didnt want programmed servants." well, what does that mean?
the full revelation only comes once a person realizes that we all have free will, and that is it. and with that we have choices. that is it, the end all be all. it is the wonder about what we humans are in relationship to the planet. it is what makes us wonderful and creative beings. we have that no matter what, whether or not God is there. so why dont we just start using it, and our brains?
why dont we just start manifesting what we know is good, what brings us the desired results, which are for most people to secure a happy, healthy and safe place to exist while we enjoy our lives on this planet?
in other words, if religion were removed from the earth, i think we might progress. i think we might figure out that the reason to not do "bad things" is because they make our environment unpleasant, and the human experience becomes unenjoyable.
in many ways, it points to an evolution in the way that humans are thinking. as technology develops, we have more time to question things. the less we have to do to physically survive, the more energy and time we have to spend toward using our imaginations and creating things, including solutions to problems. we can stop what we are doing at any time and study ourselves and think critically. we have centuries and even millenia of collected data to provide us with valuable information about the effects of choices made by humans in the past.
we can become a more evolved species if we learn the real value of making good decisions. that would happen sooner if people stopped worrying about what God is thinking about us and start doing what we know is right. i like how blackout said it to me once, "Why God? Why not just be good, for goodness' sake?" by squabbling about how God wants us to be, many miss the entire point of existence, that we are here, and what we do changes things and people and the world we live in. what we do today dictates the quality of life that humans will experience long after we are gone. can't we have some consideration for them? do we care about them at all? do we even care about our own children? sometimes i really wonder...
what difference does it make if i am going to go to Heaven or Hell, eternal sleep or nothing at all, maybe, if I am driving head on into a bomb field? what if we worried more about the fate of our tangible selves? if some part of us does go on, i seriously doubt we would have done it any damage by deciding to pay attention to how we live and treat others.
i think the problem is that people are Codependent on God. It is in discovering our independence that will allow us to grow. The interdependence that we have with others is the most fundamental and basic parts of being human and which can ultimately solve the problem that people were trying to fix with God. Once we care about our species as a whole, God fades into the backdrop, like the sun, and we can carry on with our work, planting and harvesting, without too much concern for things that we know we can take for granted, that will or will not continue to exist regardless of our own choices. For now we should focus on what we can do, change and impact.
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard
DB asserted that it matters which, if any, religion is right. He argues that "If God does not exist then faith in God's existence does nothing for you. Any benefit that one is able to achieve by believing a false belief came through that person's own efforts". So your bit about the benefits of faith is still on-target. I gotta respect that you can talk about your experience of depression, even if I doubt that imaginary friends are the best answer.
In this case, they do. You didn't skip over the beginning of the video where they refuse to accept that India is in Africa even though Saraa tells them many times that it's in Asia, did you? Their faith had little to do with that assertion.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
... they didn't believe her, did they? Why not? The answer that makes sense to me (other than it was a joke video in the first place) is because she was an infidel and nothing she says is worth listening to. So I think their faith would have had a LOT to do with their refusal to believe.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Or they're just stupid. ;-)
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
and i must admit, it does seem way too ridiculous to not be a joke, but i also know exactly know what you mean about how many people really use that kind of "reasoning," actually i think those kids are pretty brilliant to have the kind of insight that they have (assuming its a joke, of course).
not so funny, here is one that is very, very real, and even scarier for it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAPQ9WihN0&feature=related
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FhqBsyCxao&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM5ILOsHLnw&feature=related
It really pissed me off that they used Sigur Ros in the last one.. funny too, because they chose it because it sounds like they are singing "it's you," but sigur ros is icelandic, and actually sings in their own made up language like an icelandic pig latin or something...
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard
"Queen of the New Age gurus"? WTF? I didn't eve know she was into that until you posted those links (of course, I don't watch TV, let alone daytime TV, so I guess that would contribute to it, but still, when I do my random researching on spirituality, she's still nowhere on that list....).
And what's up with the guy in your first link? "Nothing but regurgitated New Age teachings from centuries old"? What is that even supposed to mean (and for that matter, what's age have to do with it, when he's following a religion that's "only" two-thousand years old)?
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard
"I realize that someone is going to respond that not all Christians are like these two girls."
You are the one who is most like these girls (are pretending to be). Except you are not pretending, and though this blog IS a joke to ME, I am afraid your blind faith does not allow you to get it.
---
"The problem is that [DarwinsBegles' religious bigotry] has blinded [him] to the possibility that [He] may be wrong. The problem is that [DarwinsBegles' religious bigotry] is acting as a barrier to even consider opposing views. The problem is [DarwinsBegles' religious bigotry] is causing a willful ignorance on [His] part. The problem is [He] think[s] this is a good thing. The problem is that society too often tells [Him] that [His religious bigotry] is a good thing too. The problem is [DarwinsBegles' religious bigotry] is making [Him A] stupid obnoxious twit
s"Potential TOS violations cut and pasted entirely from this bigoted rant he calls a Blog.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
You are the one who is most like these girls (are pretending to be). Except you are not pretending, and though this blog IS a joke to ME, I am afraid your blind faith does not allow you to get it.[/quote}
I am always grateful to have my faults pointed out. Let's see how well you do. In the past your observational skills have been somewhat lacking.
[quote=chillbil
wrote:---
"The problem is that [DarwinsBegles' religious bigotry] has blinded [him] to the possibility that [He] may be wrong.
Not at all. I was wrong in thinking this video was serious. But after having the evidence pointed out to me that it was a joke video, I have admitted to the mistake. I leave this post up to remind me that I can be wrong.
The problem is that [DarwinsBegles' religious bigotry] is acting as a barrier to even consider opposing views.
Again wrong. In most if not all my posts I look seriously at other people's arguments. I do my best to consider what it is they have to say. For the most part I do that pretty well. Much better than you in fact, in that I look at everything they say instead of taking snippets out of context.
The problem is [DarwinsBegles' religious bigotry] is causing a willful ignorance on [His] part.
Again wrong. I have taken quite a bit of time looking into religion. I have in my library books by Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, Peter Kreeft, Robert Gundry, Ben Witherington, Alister McGrath, and CS Lewis. All of which I have not only read but taken notes on. All of these people are evangelicals. I have also read and taken notes on religious subjects by more critical scholars such as Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredrickson, Elaine Pagels, Burton Mack, Robert Fink, Israel Finkelstein, Joseph Barr, and John Dominic Crossan.
I don't think willful ignorance is something I can be legitimately accused of.
The problem is [He] think[s] this is a good thing.
Ignorance is excusable, nobody has the time or the inclination to learn about everything. Willful ignorance is never a good thing.
The problem is that society too often tells [Him] that [His religious bigotry] is a good thing too.
First of all, your charge of religious bigotry is unsubstantiated. What you are most likely referring to as religious bigotry is my vocal atheism. Right now there is a big debate within the atheist community over whether or not that is a good thing. I am following it quite closely at the moment. I've yet to make up my mind on the matter, but I am leaning toward the idea that vocal atheism does serve a useful and needed purpose.
The problem is [DarwinsBegles' [sic] religious bigotry] is making [Him A] stupid obnoxious twit
s[sic]"Stupid and obnoxious is in the eye of the beholder. I know who I think is being stupid and obnoxious in this little exchange here. I'll let others make their own judgments
Potential TOS violations cut and pasted entirely from this bigoted rant he calls a Blog.
I'll let the administrators here decide if this is a TOS violation. I don't think so since you are not posting a blog of your own, only responding to mine. But then again you don't do much blogging, do you? Instead of stating what it is that you believe you just like to nitpick at others.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
This is almost ironic.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
"First of all, your charge of religious bigotry is unsubstantiated. What you are most likely referring to as religious bigotry is my vocal atheism. Right now there is a big debate within the atheist community over whether or not that is a good thing. I am following it quite closely at the moment. I've yet to make up my mind on the matter, but I am leaning toward the idea that vocal atheism does serve a useful and needed purpose."
I think you may become a danger to society as a whole if you ever move from "leaning toward the idea" and actually "make up my mind on the matter" as you threaten to. You indecisive luke warm "vocal atheism" as you call the behavior I label bigotry has led you to title the following blogs:
Yet Another Reason I Think that Christianity is Not Such a Good Thing
Another Reason I Think Christianity Is Not Necessarily a Good Thing
Religion .... Even the Moderates can be Wackaloons
Why I Think Christianity Is Ridiculous: Part 3
Why I Think Christianity Is Ridiculous, Part 2
Why I Think Christianity Is Ridiculous: Part 1
I am more decisive than you are, in that I think expressing your Atheism and the rationale behind it IS a VERY GOOD THING. Choosing any group and insulting them, holding them up to ridicule, and other wise encouraging persecution is a VERY BAD THING. The people that do this are called bigots.
Like you, bigots get feelings of superiority by putting down their target group. Generally the need to behave in such an anti social manner is rooted in feelings of inferiority. Better balanced and mature individuals are self assured, and know that reducing others is an inappropriate way of elevating themselves.
Another symptom of your insecurity is taking a discussion of issues and turning it into a personal attack. Which ironically you may think I am doing in this instance. ;-) I'll hold back from taking it as far a making a separate blog (or even two!) about you.
In your first blog (which was a fine perspective on Atheism) you state: "Sometimes I think atheists are the only group left in which it is politically correct to discriminate against." Apparently you changed your mind. Your change makes a good illustration of the principle that we should 'return unto no man evil for evil' and a sample of how infectious evil actions and behaviors can be if we do. By vocally championing your views you, or anyone else, is not guilty of bigotry unless those views are an attack on others. Disagreeing is not attacking, but doing what you have done here is.
Not only are you a religious Bigot (or irreligious bigot if you like) but you lack the empathy to see any of your bigoted harassment and name calling as wrong if they are directed at the group you despise.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
... when you never get above chin deep in the cesspool.
"First of all, your charge of religious bigotry is unsubstantiated. What you are most likely referring to as religious bigotry is my vocal atheism. Right now there is a big debate within the atheist community over whether or not that is a good thing. I am following it quite closely at the moment. I've yet to make up my mind on the matter, but I am leaning toward the idea that vocal atheism does serve a useful and needed purpose."
I think you may become a danger to society as a whole if you ever move from "leaning toward the idea" and actually "make up my mind on the matter" as you threaten to. You indecisive luke warm "vocal atheism" as you call the behavior I label bigotry has led you to title the following blogs:
So far, the level what you "think" hasn't reached credibility on much of anything. Let's look at your evidence. The evidence you give us for my religious bigotry are the titles of 6 blogs I have done. TITLES??? You don't even give links for any interested party could verify the bigotry??
Let's take a look at them (and give links for verification)
Yet Another Reason I Think that Christianity is Not Such a Good Thing
Here
This blog was about Stephen Anderson, a preacher in Phoenix, Arizona who prays that God will strike Barack Obama with a brain tumor. He uses the bible to justify that sentiment.
... And you think that my calling that not such a good thing is bigoted?
Another Reason I Think Christianity Is Not Necessarily a Good Thing
My, my ... that is THIS blog so no link is needed.
I have already dealt with your charge of bigotry here. And nowhere in this do you address my defense ... instead you make up new charges.
Religion .... Even the Moderates can be Wackaloons
Here
This blog deals with the "crackergate" incident that became a well documented internet kerfluffle. A student at a university in Florida objected to Catholics holding religious services rent free on his campus. He and a friend went to the service. He was given a communion wafer, and left with it.
While that was a disrespectful act (which I did criticize) the reaction of the Catholics was ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE WORSE!! The student received death threats and the local Catholic diocese accused him of a hate crime by stealing the ACTUAL body of Christ.
If any group, religious or not tells me that it is their belief that after saying some words, and then eating a cracker it turns into the living body of a dead person, then I think that is wackaloonery to the max. Again that would go for any group, not just religious. To make death threats in support of such wackaloonery is unconsciousable. I stand by that.
I'll let others judge whether or not it constitutes bigotry against religion.
Why I Think Christianity Is Ridiculous: Part 3
Why I Think Christianity Is Ridiculous, Part 2
Why I Think Christianity Is Ridiculous: Part 1
Here
Here and
Here
These are three blogs in which I argue that it makes no sense (3) to believe that God created the universe for mankind; (2) for God to have created us here on earth when what he wants is a relationship with us in heaven; (1) for Jesus to die for our sins.
These are all tenets that the vast majority of Christians accept and after reading over the posts again, I am proud to recommend them to anyone. I think any fair judge would say that those blogs are anti-religion, but not bigoted. Perhaps, I am wrong, but unlike you ... I left links to the blogs so they could check it out if they wished.
I am more decisive than you are, ...
LOL ... you who only criticizes others and seldom takes a position of his own.
... in that I think expressing your Atheism and the rationale behind it IS a VERY GOOD THING.
Like I did here here and here? But these are the very blogs that you use to accuse me of bigotry.
Choosing any group and insulting them, holding them up to ridicule, and other wise encouraging persecution is a VERY BAD THING. The people that do this are called bigots.
I believe that respect for beliefs should be earned. If someone is going to tout ridiculous beliefs and demand respect for them based on nothing more than they believe it ... then perhaps insult and ridicule is needed. It may be person's first realization that not everyone is going to give respect to a belief which is patently ridiculous. It may allow lurkers the opportunity see religion doesn't necessarily have to get a free-ride from criticism in a very in-your-face way. Their is some evidence that it is working. A recent poll conducted in the aftermath of the publication of books by vocal atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett et al. showed that religious belief is way down in America, especially among the youth. I think that is a VERY GOOD THING.
On the other hand, perhaps it is a bad thing. Perhaps it creates a backlash even among people who could possibly been persuaded otherwise. At least that is the claim by many people including some atheists that I follow. In any case, their arguments have caused me to reassess my writing style. I do not plan to be less vigorous in my opposition, but my presentation of the opposition may change a bit.
Now with that out of the way here is a quote from this blog of mine:
That expresses fairly well how I feel about religion. I would like for it NOT to exist. But I don't want to kill it. I want it to ... evaporate. I want people to realize that they do not need religion. I don't want any laws against religion. I don't want any laws against a person holding any belief they want to hold. I want people to think about things and accept or reject on the basis of rational thought. I think that if that becomes the ideal religion will eventually evaporate because ultimately it is NOT rational. There is no call to persecution at all in that blog.
Now, I know that I am in the small minority on that. I also know that my desire is not going to come to fruition in the foreseeable future. I'm fine with that. It doesn't alter what I see as an ideal.
That DOES make me anti-religious (but you could gather that from the first sentence; "I am no fan of religion."), but it doesn't make me a bigot. Bigotry is an unsupportable accusation of dislike. For instance if someone were to use as evidence of an accusation of religious bigotry the blog I just quoted from, that would be an unsupportable accusation of dislike. In fact, someone did do just that ... it was you.
Like you, bigots get feelings of superiority by putting down their target group. Generally the need to behave in such an anti social manner is rooted in feelings of inferiority. Better balanced and mature individuals are self assured, and know that reducing others is an inappropriate way of elevating themselves.
BOOM!! There goes another irony meter.
So you know that I "get feelings of superiority" from this. [sarcasm] And exactly how did you come about your mind reading capabilities?[/sarcasm]
This seems like another unsupportable accusation of dislike.
Another symptom of your insecurity is taking a discussion of issues and turning it into a personal attack. Which ironically you may think I am doing in this instance. ;-) I'll hold back from taking it as far a making a separate blog (or even two!) about you.
(1) Yes, it is ironic isn't it.
(2) You seem to be holding back about making a separate blog about ... anything. Your first blog was not quite two years ago and your last one was a little over a year and half ago. You have written a total of 13 blogs.
I haven't written as many blogs as I would have liked but during the time that you have been here I have written 45 blogs.
Your specialty is NOT blogging. Your specialty is doing what you are doing here ... being internet troll. A person writes a blog and you post annoying and unsubstantiable nitpicks to the point of derailing the blog. Just as you have done here. This blog is about unthinking insensitivity that religious belief can have on some of its followers. You've turned it into whether or not I am a bigot. You've done that without even addressing whether or not my points were valid. Congratulations, you have succeeded ... but at the price of having exposed yourself for what you are. If you enjoy taking that type of beating ... keep posting unsubstantiated claims on blogs that I participate in. I'll do my best to oblige. And unlike you, I will substantiate my accusations with valid evidence.
In your first blog (which was a fine perspective on Atheism) you state: "Sometimes I think atheists are the only group left in which it is politically correct to discriminate against." Apparently you changed your mind. Your change makes a good illustration of the principle that we should 'return unto no man evil for evil' and a sample of how infectious evil actions and behaviors can be if we do. By vocally championing your views you, or anyone else, is not guilty of bigotry unless those views are an attack on others. Disagreeing is not attacking, but doing what you have done here is.
(1) My statement in the first blog was somewhat rhetorical. It was used in conjunction with a statement made by George Bush the first in his 1988 campaign for President ... you know the one he won ... in which he said that atheists should not be considered citizens or patriots. If he would have said that about any other group he most likely would have lost the election.
In actuality there are a lot of groups in which it is OK to discriminate against. For instance, if the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is what it actually claims to be then I think most people would be justified in discriminating against the group.
(2) I do not think it acceptable to restrict a person's right to believe anything they wish to believe. In other words, no laws restricting an individual's right to practice his religion on his own time should EVER be enacted. I LOVE the idea of separation of church and state. Keep the state out of religion and religion out of the state. I would totally object to having the Pledge of Allegiance altered to say "one nation under NO god". I would totally object to having "In NO god, we trust" put on our money. I would not object to having the religious counterparts taken out of the Pledge and our money.
I don't think it is government's business to promote or restrict religion in ANY way. So in that regard I do not think it is right for judicial discrimination of religion. However, I think it is a GREAT thing to express disdain for religion when it tries to intrude upon government. For instance, when it tries to legislate creationism in our public schools then religion should be denounced. When religious pastors violate 501c3 rules (the IRS rules which give churches their tax-exempt status) by using their pulpit to campaign for political candidates, then I am in favor of their tax-exempt status being revoked.
I am not in favor of religious people being fired from their positions solely on the basis of their religious beliefs. However if, for example, a pharmacist refuses to fill a valid prescription for the abortion pill, RU 486 because of his religious belief, then he should be fired. His firing should be predicated on his inability to perform his job (a potentially critical one in small towns) satisfactorily, not his religious belief per se.
As always I will let others judge whether or not that constitutes discrimination.
Not only are you a religious Bigot (or irreligious bigot if you like) but you lack the empathy to see any of your bigoted harassment and name calling as wrong if they are directed at the group you despise.
I take name-calling quite seriously. And by seriously, I mean I don't do it unless there is ample justification to do so. I never call a person anything without trying to substantiate the charge. I did that when I called the Catholics in the "crackergate" episode "Wackaloons". Most recently, I did it here when I implied that you were an "internet troll". And I stand by those accusations.
Words have meanings ... even bad words. If the meaning is appropriate then I have see no problem using them. The difference between you and me is that I give reasons why I think a person meets that criterion. You give out of context snippets that when examined don't say what you imply they say.
Reasoned criticism, however harsh does not qualify as bigotry. Unreasoned criticism does. I'll leave it to readers to judge to whom the term "bigot" most aptly applies.
DB
"I am no fan of religion. I wish there were an outbreak of rationality and it would die. Die not because anybody restricted anybody's right to practice it. But die, because of the realization that it is not needed.
That expresses fairly well how I feel about religion. I would like for it NOT to exist. But I don't want to kill it. I want it to ... evaporate. I want people to realize that they do not need religion. I don't want any laws against religion. I don't want any laws against a person holding any belief they want to hold. I want people to think about things and accept or reject on the basis of rational thought. I think that if that becomes the ideal religion will eventually evaporate because ultimately it is NOT rational."
and
"However, I think it is a GREAT thing to express disdain for religion when it tries to intrude upon government. For instance, when it tries to legislate creationism in our public schools then religion should be denounced. When religious pastors violate 501c3 rules (the IRS rules which give churches their tax-exempt status) by using their pulpit to campaign for political candidates, then I am in favor of their tax-exempt status being revoked."
thanks for pointing this out, i am going to be looking even at closer at religious groups in my state.
while i have spent a lot of time devoted to blogging about religion, i must say, i would be very happy the day it dissolved as a collective belief system. i would still like to see it as an area of study though, for it is an important part of history. then i think about how much i like to see cultural traditions thrive. as an example, i know several Jews who are really self proclaimed atheists, but who participate in the "religious" customs of their families and celebrate the holy days with their families. i understand their reasons for doing so. my point is that "religion" is actually a very vague term and means a lot of different things for people. so it would be hard to say it should totally be eradicated, but i would like to at least see it in some kind of perspective, one that does not hold any particular religious view above any other, after all, for most everyone it is personal.
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard
You may be right that some of the audience for your blogs is incapable of noticing the link to all of your blogs that is in the heading of this and every one of them. I give people more credit.
In each of the blogs in question you pick an individual or church and use a slanted bit of anecdotal 'evidence' to smear a billion or so Christians directly, and indirectly about 85%+ of the human race. I note that you refuse to accept ANY ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE that opposes your views while feeling there is nothing wrong with constantly using isolated cases to prove YOUR prejudiced opinions.
Suppose another blogger, let's call them a Christian so you will have an easier time seeing them as a bigot, used this 'guilt by association' method you specialize in to smear large groups of innocents as you do. Instead of Stephen Anderson he chose Nicholas Gutierrez and titled his slanted blog "Yet Another Reason I Think that Homosexuality is Not Such a Good Thing." Of course that piece of science was just a follow-up on his fair minded "Homosexuality .... Even the less promiscuous can be Disease riddled" which used Bug Parties to smear millions of uninvolved people that happen to be gay as you use "crackergate" to smear a billion also not involved that happen to be Christian.
Of course after his three part "Why I Think Homosexuality Is Perverted" there was no doubt that he was a bigot just as there is no doubt that you are.
This example could be repeated for African Americans where 'white rights activists' are equivalent to your 'vocal atheism' or even turned around on Atheism by using any number of examples where individuals with that belief set have committed idiocy and crimes against humanity then taring all Atheists with that same brush. Naturally YOU would quickly see the fallacy in any of these.
---
"In actuality there are a lot of groups in which it is OK to discriminate against. For instance, if the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is what it actually claims to be then I think most people would be justified in discriminating against the group."
As it is OK to 'discriminate' against any group of criminals. Obviously to anyone but a bigot such as your self the existence of a sub group such as NAMBLA does not give license to discrimination against innocent GLBT simply because all members of the criminal group are gay. Yet you do so repeatedly and then make multi-page rationalizations about why it is OK.
As an Athiest you have implicitly taken on the role of CHAMPION OF REASON over superstition. When you use little but fallacy to accomplish this end that is what makes this mistake of a blog by you so FUNNY.
----
"This blog is about unthinking insensitivity that religious belief can have on some of its followers."
So I am right on topic pointing out how your blind faith in Atheism has made you insensitive and unthinking.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
You may be right that some of the audience for your blogs is incapable of noticing the link to all of your blogs that is in the heading of this and every one of them. I give people more credit.
No ... you are COUNTING on their not being interested enough to go and check out what you claim. You are not respecting the audience. You are making it as difficult as you can to verify what you claim is true. You're not giving credit to people, you're given them obstacles.
In each of the blogs in question you pick an individual or church and use a slanted bit of anecdotal 'evidence' to smear a billion or so Christians directly, and indirectly about 85%+ of the human race. I note that you refuse to accept ANY ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE that opposes your views while feeling there is nothing wrong with constantly using isolated cases to prove YOUR prejudiced opinions.
(1) You don't seem to know what an anecdote is. An anecdote is an unverifiable story such as a person's personal remembrances about famous person. The story must be judged on the credibility of the source. As YOU have shown beyond reasonable doubt you are not credible in sense of the word any anecdotal evidence YOU give is worthless.
(2) I do not rely on anecdotes to any significant extent. I use examples. The difference is that examples are verifiable beyond just my word. I try to leave links for verification. Notice that in your accusations against me ... YOU didn't.
(3) I fully recognize that NOT ALL Christians are terrible human beings. I have been quite clear in that. In fact, I think the vast majority of Christians are good people ... not because they are Christians, but because they are people. The vast majority of people are good people. The point is that biblical doctrine is NOT as so many claim, totally benign and uplifting. The point is that it can easily be used for vile purposes. The examples I use show that not only CAN it be used for vile purpose, but it IS being used for vile purposes.
Quoting Steven Weinberg from memory; "With or without religion we would have good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things. But it takes religion for good people to do bad things."
Suppose another blogger, let's call them a Christian so you will have an easier time seeing them as a bigot, used this 'guilt by association' method you specialize in to smear large groups of innocents as you do. Instead of Stephen Anderson he chose Nicholas Gutierrez and titled his slanted blog "Yet Another Reason I Think that Homosexuality is Not Such a Good Thing." Of course that piece of science was just a follow-up on his fair minded "Homosexuality .... Even the less promiscuous can be Disease riddled" which used Bug Parties to smear millions of uninvolved people that happen to be gay as you use "crackergate" to smear a billion also not involved that happen to be Christian.
Of course after his three part "Why I Think Homosexuality Is Perverted" there was no doubt that he was a bigot just as there is no doubt that you are.
This example could be repeated for African Americans where 'white rights activists' are equivalent to your 'vocal atheism' or even turned around on Atheism by using any number of examples where individuals with that belief set have committed idiocy and crimes against humanity then taring all Atheists with that same brush. Naturally YOU would quickly see the fallacy in any of these.
(1) Thanks for the link to "Bug chasing". For anyone reading this who doesn't have the time or inclination to follow chillbill's link, bug chasing is a practice by certain gay men in which they host sex parties for the explicit purpose of transmitting HIV to uninfected members of the gay community.
It sounds like a horrible practice and deserves total condemnation. IF homosexuals had a sacred document that was extensively accepted by their community advocating such an act then I would be condemning that document. IF a subset of homosexuals used that document as justification of their practice and by using the umbrella of respect afforded to the larger gay community in order to promote that belief then I would condemn that group of homosexuals. IF the moderates among homosexuals condoned DEATH THREATS and accused those who spoke out against the practice of using hate speech then I would condemn them as well. But to my knowledge none of that is true. So I don't.
(2) The analogy you are trying to make could be used against anybody who spoke out against anything. So if we were to take your analogy as it stands now, anybody who speaks against anything is a bigot. It is not the opposition to something that makes bigotry. It is the reasoning behind the opposition. If the reasoning is knee-jerk and not capable of withstanding scrutiny, then it is bigotry. Notice how you scrupulously avoid addressing the reasoning behind my opposition and focus only on the opposition itself. That's one of many reasons I don't hold you in particularly high regard.
"In actuality there are a lot of groups in which it is OK to discriminate against. For instance, if the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is what it actually claims to be then I think most people would be justified in discriminating against the group."
As it is OK to 'discriminate' against any group of criminals. Obviously to anyone but a bigot such as your self the existence of a sub group such as NAMBLA does not give license to discrimination against innocent GLBT simply because all members of the criminal group are gay. Yet you do so repeatedly and then make multi-page rationalizations about why it is OK.
(1) My "multi-page rationalizations" are directed against your multiple UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTIONS, MISREPRESENTATIONS and LIES. It is easy to do what you do. But to sort out the above requires some explaining.
(2) The reason I keep doing that is because you keep making the unsubstantiated assertions, et al. You do that time after time, That is what makes you an internet troll. You have a niche ... good for you. The price you pay is a petty character of no integrity. Is it worth it?
As an Athiest you have implicitly taken on the role of CHAMPION OF REASON over superstition. When you use little but fallacy to accomplish this end that is what makes this mistake of a blog by you so FUNNY.
[sarcasm]Yeah ... one can see your amusement written all over your reply.[/sarcasm]
"This blog is about unthinking insensitivity that religious belief can have on some of its followers."
So I am right on topic pointing out how your blind faith in Atheism has made you insensitive and unthinking.
You haven't pointed out anything about what I said as being:
(1) Blind
(2) Faith
(3) Insensitive
(4) Unthinking
You have merely asserted it, and those assertions have not been substantiated. If we leave those assertions out of your replies then ... hmm, it doesn't look like you've said much of anything. So ... no you haven't been on point.
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
You are so predictably intractable.
----
"You don't seem to know what an anecdote is. An anecdote is an unverifiable story such as a person's personal remembrances about famous person."
Some anecdotal evidence is fallacious due to questionable veracity, but ALL anecdotal evidence, even that which is undisputed, fails because it represents an isolated instance rather than a general rule. You use it, in every case we have visited, to GENERALIZE about the people you hate....
----
"I fully recognize that NOT ALL Christians are terrible human beings."
So why would you call them all 'ridiculous' and say 'even the moderates are wackaloons' if that were true?
Could it be a blatant lie?
---
"The analogy you are trying to make could be used against anybody who spoke out against anything. So if we were to take your analogy as it stands now, anybody who speaks against anything is a bigot. It is not the opposition to something that makes bigotry. It is the reasoning behind the opposition."
Bigots, like you, use specific complaints about an individual or a few members of a group to justify their rants against the entire group that you have decided DESERVE the hate and derision that you cannot help but spew toward them.
If you could STAY SPECIFIC in your criticism, without losing control and fallaciously blaming the innocent members for things the sub-group actually do, then no one could see your hateful prejudice. You did not even make it past writing the title in the specific cases I pointed out without betraying your bigotry toward all Christians.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
chillbill is levelling more charges of bigotry against me, but as before it is accusations and no substantiation.
Instead of going point-by-point (most if not all of which have been answered -- not that answers have any effect on chillbill), I thought I would raise the level of the discussion and give you my ideas on bigotry and explain why it is that I don't think my dislike of religion rises to that level.
To me bigotry does not lie in the dislike of something or someone. Bigotry lies in the reasons why one dislikes it and what one would want done about it.
I'm not a fan of religion. I have been very vocal about that. I wish religion would disappear from the face of the earth. If that is all you know about my feelings toward Christianity then you would be justified in suspecting me of anti-religious bigotry.
However, you would be wrong. Yes ... I want religion to disappear. But the only force that should be used to make that into a reality is the force of logic. Societal restrictions of any type ... formal ones such as legislation, and informal ones such as job discrimination based on religious belief ... would be MUCH MUCH worse than religion. I don't want ANY restrictions on what one is allowed to believe. The only way I want religion to disappear from the face of the earth is by a collective realization that it is not needed.
Now, you may say that what I want is not likely to happen anytime soon. I would agree with you. I fully expect not to get my wish in my lifetime. I can live with that. In fact I would MUCH MUCH rather live with that than have any societal force exerted to make my wishes come true within my lifetime.
I do believe that my wish one day will be realized, however. If it isn't then I think it likely some apocalyptic religious nut who gets himself into a position of power will make Armageddon a self-fulfilling prophecy. But I could be wrong.
Based solely on what I wish would happen to religion, I can be rightfully accused of being anti-religious. That would be an accusation I would not deny. However, I do not think I can be rightfully accused of religious bigotry based on it.
So, the question of my religious bigotry rests on why it is I don't like religion. There are many reasons, far too many to cover in this reply. This will only be an overview.
(1) The Judeo-christian bible is a document written by a primitive, warlike people with no special insights into life. I find the idea advocated by so many people that it is the ideal that we should strive to live our life by is HORRIFIC. Yes, there are SOME good things in the bible, and I believe it is the good things that MOST Christians advocate.
But these same Christians ignore the bad things. There is a WHOLE LOT of bad things in the bible. Things that no right-thinking person nowadays should ever consider. But there is a MINORITY of Christians who are not right-thinking and they DO consider them. They see it as God-given justification to push a horrible agenda.
Examples include restriction of condom use in HIV ravaged Africa, prohibition of gay rights, legislative efforts to enforce creationism into science classrooms, and religious intrusions into matters of state.
(2) The tenets of religion do not make sense. I find the arguments attempting rational justification of religion to be sophomoric, condescending to the point of insulting to my intelligence, and frustratingly well accepted by the general public.
The whole idea of biblical inerrancy is sophomoric. Have these people not read the damn thing? When I point out error after error, invariably someone will say that only fringe fundamentalists believe that. Mainstream Christians hold a more enlightened view, I am told.
Really?? Then why is it that poll after poll consistently show that between 40 to 50% of Americans believe that God specially created man pretty much as he is sometime within the last 10,000 years. Given what we know in science that belief should be as ridiculous as believing that sun goes around the earth.
The response of those "mainstream" Christians who chastise me about arguing against biblical inerrancy is condescending to the point of insulting my intelligence. I keep hearing about "sophisticated" arguments for God's existence. Having someone actually present one of these "sophisticated" arguments is about as rare as hen's teeth. Then when they do the "sophisticated" argument turns out to be ... crap.
Recently, the Wall Street Journal point-counterpoint article in which Karen Armstrong and Richard Dawkins gave their answers to the question of "Where does evolution leave God?"
Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and a vocal atheist. His response was pretty much as one would expect ... evolution is a naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life and as such leaves God with nothing to do. But what I want to do here is talk about Karen Armstrong's answer.
Ms. Armstrong is one of those "mainstream" Christians who is known for making "sophisticated" arguments for God. She is not scientifically naive like the fundamentalists. She accepts modern evolutionary theory as is.
I HIGHLY recommend that you click on the link above and read her words for yourself in order to verify my characterization of her argument. I think you have to read it to believe it.
Ms. Armstrong says that God, as a benign creator does NOT exist. God didn't have us in mind. He doesn't have a divine plan. God "existence" lies in a method of knowing that Ms. Armstrong refers to by the Greek name, "Mythos".
According to Ms. Armstrong, there are two ways of knowing. One is Logos, which corresponds to reasoning, and the best form of reasoning is scientific reasoning. The other way of knowing is Mythos which she ultimately says is not easily put into words, it is best described as a sense of wonder or awe.
That's it. That is her "sophisticated" argument. If that is the case, then I agree ... God exists. I think everybody has had that sense of wonder. The only problem I have with her argument is ... why call that God? That isn't what anybody else in the whole world calls God. It's not something that is capable of making the universe, answering prayers, specifying moral behavior, granting eternal life, or have any other attribute most people would ascribe to God. Using the term "God" in this context is going to invariably lead to confusion. Why not call it .... Oh, I don't know -- how about "A sense of wonder or awe". That way people wont get confused over what it is that you are talking about. The "sophistication" of her argument lies totally in its ability to confuse.
Of course a sense of wonder exists, but calling that God no more means that something that anyone else would call God exists, than calling a dog's tail a leg mean that a dog all of a sudden has five legs.
Ms. Armstrong has played a parlor trick with semantics and is passing it off as something profound. Sorry, but it is condescending and insulting to rational thought. Unfortunately, it seems to be typical of these "sophisticated" arguments that keep hearing exist.
(3) The idea of God is almost certainly wrong. Why would God make a universe for? What does he want from it? The most typical answer I get to that question is that he made the universe for us. Considering the vastness of the universe, how long it has been around compared to how long humanity has been around, I think that is a bit conceited.
But for the sake of argument let's say that is true. Then what did he expect to get out of us being here? What does he want from us? The most typical answer I get to that question is that God wants an everlasting personal relationship with us. Well, isn't that special? But if that's true then why are we here ... and God is there?
If it is the way most theists claim, then our life here on earth distills down to some type of entrance exam into heaven. Religion isn't giving life more meaning. It is reducing it to a cruel joke. If our "purpose" is to spend eternal bliss with God in heaven, then the ONLY important thing about our life here is whether or not it gets us into heaven. Eternity is a very long time. At some point our 100 years of earthly life will become meaningless. If not in a thousand years in heaven, then in a million. If not in million then in a billion. If not in a billion then in a googol. If not in a googol then in a googolplex. But at some point what our earthly life will be no more significant than what you did between 2:00:00 and 2:00:00.0001 AM on the 183rd day of your life.
Since it almost certain that God does not exist, I do not think living one's life as though he did makes much sense. Believing what isn't so generally makes one's life worse not better.
These are some of the reasons I think religion is on the whole a negative thing. I have plenty of others but the post is too long as is. I think my reasoning I've presented here is both sound and sufficient. If it is, then the charge of religious bigotry by chillbill is not warranted despite my vocal opposition to it. I would encourage readers to look at this thread and judge for themselves whose postings sound most like someone who cannot justify their opposition to a subject. In other words, judge for yourselves who is the bigot here.
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Who is to say that he is blinded to opposing views? Who is to say that it is religious bigotry?
Have you clearly examined the facts? Have you clearly examined the facts from an objective source. Objective sources are not written by Christians and Christian scholars they are written by outside observers. Those who say that the victors write history are reading a heavily biases opinion whose objectivity should be seriously questioned.
To seriously question ones faith one does not look to what Christians say about Christians. What Christians say about other religions. To seriously question and examine one's religious views is to examine it from sources not related to Christians.
Some of the sources that I read so many times in debates of religion, morality and ethics revolve around but so and so Christian a "scholar" says such and such. Because he has "scholar" in his name does not make him a "scholar". A scholar looks at all sources and all contexts. A scholar is objective. A scholar who is examining Christianity will not look to what Christians are saying about Christians. The scholar is going to look at what other sources are saying otherwise he is submitting his scholarly endeavours to subjective biases.
The most basic definition of Progressive means move forwarded and advancing. The most basic definition of regressive is tending to return and revert.
have you heard of an organization or newsletter called "free inquiry?" i got it in the mail, i am renting the home of an older european couple. its neat, they have books in french all over the place, they have one bible, but all kinds of books on philosophy, and a lot of stuff that is critical of religion. this "free inquiry" organization is promoting that religion be removed from all government institutions and policies. what i found most interesting was that rather than asking for a small donation, which they do, they are much more interested in "bequests" as donations, where a person can leave a gift out of their will, trust or life insurance policy at the time of their death. it was started in the 1800s and much of the money they are using now they acquired decades ago. i thought of you when i saw it. i set it aside, when i find it again will post more info for you, unless you have already seen it. in that case i will post for your readers.
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard