Rise in atheistic fundamentalism

[directhex]

I'll go and find a white, straight male and ask him about acts of hate that occur against them if you like.

Or doesn't that count?

i got beaten with a plank by some chavs once, for being smarter & richer than them. does that count?

[Rosaline]

Of course it counts, stewart
Point for points, it is likely to be less, of course, and the overall effect will likely be less damaging to their life.

But that was the main point of most of my posts in this thread, the acceptance of each other's lives (*)

And yes, there is such a thing as female privilege, gay privilege, and black privilege. Smaller lists, but equally worth knowing!

(*) Or rather those parts that do not harm others, yadda, yadda, you're probably all sick of reading that, I'm sick of typing the full thing anyhow

[Stewart]

i got beaten with a plank by some chavs once, for being smarter & richer than them. does that count?

Yes, tell me about it.

Unless any of the chavs were black or Asian of course. Lets not get racist.

[Rosaline]

Unless any of the chavs were black or Asian of course. Lets not get racist.

Of course, now I'm going to be the risky one and dare saying the truth...

Being coloured/different/anything doesn't excuse being a prick/violent sod/planker/etc

Frankly, colour has become the elephant in the room of modern society. Due to cultural values and economic circumstances resulting in coloured communities forming, and white/class privilege causing issues with employment and alternate housing, and these areas becoming increasingly run down and poorly looked after, there is now a sad situation. Coloured communities are worse off and crime is a natural result from this. Not because they are coloured, but because of were they live. But because they live in coloured communities, this can never be addressed, lest it be accused of racism.

Ok, off topic, but I tend to ramble around associated areas when in inteligent discussion

[fuddam]

hardcore atheists forcing their views on others?

well, never under the official banner of 'atheism' but under it's pretexts, let's not forget what has happened in communist china, communist russia, and other communist states where belief in a deity has been considered 'unscientific' and dangerous and to be eliminated. talk about persecution........

same old.

yes, the church in various forms has been responsible for loads of persecution through history etc etc.

[G4Z]

hardcore atheists forcing their views on others?

well, never under the official banner of 'atheism' but under it's pretexts, let's not forget what has happened in communist china, communist russia, and other communist states where belief in a deity has been considered 'unscientific' and dangerous and to be eliminated. talk about persecution........

same old.

yes, the church in various forms has been responsible for loads of persecution through history etc etc.

Errrrr. Just no. Churches were/are considered a threat to the dictatorships power, it has nothing to do with being unscientific and nothing to do with atheism.

[Agent]

Exactly G4Z - Its all about power and control there (which arguably is what most religions like to do) which causes two conflicting sides wanting power. Its not about their beliefs at all.

You're example about the church being responsible for various persecution is a good one fuddam. It illustrates the need for religion to keep its grasp over people for it to work successfully.
It wasn't too long back that the church was involved with the slave trade for example. Being gay is/was also a no-no, but these things change as time passes due to public opinion. If the religions didn't change with them then people would leave and / or find another religion which suited their views more.
Yet if the leaders of these religions are truly preaching the word of god, these things wouldn't change - Unless of course god decides that the salve trade is a bad idea after having his Sunday dinner.

Issues like this just cause more splits within the religion itself which then raises the question - which is the (assuming there is for a moment) the word of god? How do you know that the one you're believing in hasn't been corrupted along the way in the same way that kids make mistakes at Chinese whispers?

I know its slightly tongue in cheek, but I feel this illustrates the branches well:



Thats just for one religion and just the major branches. Multiply that by...well...a lot, and you end up with a lot of different words of god. See an issue here?

I'd be interested in some examples you have fuddam that would fall under it's "pretexts", and what advantage you think it would give to atheists. Those that can not be directly tied to people loosing power in the given state, of course.

[Rosaline]

Continuing the off-topic, I thought a little investigation might be in order...

And Stuart Lee's statement that the sort of people who say 'PC gone mad' are usually doing it as a cover to attack minorities is wrong.

People say it as a reaction to the middle class left, who are obsessed with trying to enforce ever more bizare and needless changes in society, almost always without the agreement or support of any sort of minority. Usually because they are so paranoid, obsessed with being PC, and ashamed of their own country and culture, that they take it upon themselves to find fault and take offense with anything that can possibly be in some way twisted to appear un-PC or offensive.

Average Joe is anti-PC these days, not because they are secret racists who see PC as a threat to their views, but because they are sick of having pointless PC 'issues', or non issues in the real world, rammed down their throats by Guardian reading, middle class housewives, who think they are Nelson Mandela.

If they would all go away and die under a rock, you'd find that, actually, the situation improves. Massively.

I entirely agree with you that the major problem with political correctness is those people who make decisions without the input of the minorities they are trying to 'help' - indeed, I actually said so already in this thread

However, as for that being the be all and end all of "political correctness gone mad", I entered that term into google news and found 57 articles:

2 articles did not exist
5 were obituaries, book reviews or other mentions that did not deal with the issue at hand.
8 articles presented aspects on both sides, or were on debatable matters
2 articles may have had a political correctness issue, but mired by Australia's poor treatment of Aboriginals regardless of this
5 articles were on the BBC radio and Fairy Tale of New York issue (generally considered to be political correctness gone mad, but given the stonewall report into the BBC, it is up for debate).
3 articles were about serious matters rather than political correctness gone mad, however the fancy dress in question may have bypassed the health and safety problem
24 articles (including one separate incident mentioned in passing in one article) detail real and sensible acts taken, mainly based upon health and safety risk assessments
8 articles detailed complete and blatant political correctness gone mad

As google news reported 67 articles, it would seem that somehow I missed 10. This may have been identical results being rolled together, I'm not sure, or me skipping a page. Either way, the results of my own survey would not change so significantly as to change my conclusion.

These are my own personal assessment of the articles. The most debatable matters have been separated out were genuine debate (rather than a lack of understanding of other faiths) exists. If you'd like to review my material, I'd be happy to PM my research notes, including URLs for every article, to anyone interested.

I'm not arguing with the fact that the majority acting towards 'correctness' without the minority is not bad - it is in fact a major part of the problem! But the evidence exists that the majority of calls of 'political correctness gone mad' are over the top reactions to sensible decisions. Most of these seem not to relate to religious matters, but issues of risk assessment. Having been involved in organising large, risk-assessed, events on a number of occasions, I can fully understand and support the actions taken.

Edit: I'd just like to say how sad I am for having done this

[JPreston]

Take a listen to Stuart Lee on 'potical correctness' for another take on this issue.

Stewart Lee is 100% correct, in fact I've posted that link myself before. But your own comments in this thread have been such astoundingly misinformed, finger-in-the-ears la-la-la-I-know-it-all waffle that I'm surprised you have even heard of him much less admire his views since you think my comments are so nasty and injurious to the tambourine thumpers. I'd have thought you would at least like to be consistent.

You should watch his '90's comedian' set where he spends about 20 minutes recounting the story of how jesus appeared to him one drunken night to provide him with various orifices to irreverently vomit into, so as not to dirty his mum's carpet - the punchline is the statement that when religious groups send their little flags and icons out into the world they should not complain when other people do not treat them exactly the way that they themselves would like, and that the religious have absolutely no right to tell others what they may or may not say. In fact, are you aware of any of Stewart Lee's work at all other than that one little clip that you link to? That TV series he did after 60,000 xtians signed a petition for him to be prosecuted under medieval blasphemy laws? 'Pause for Thought for The Day', or those 'Aaaaaaah' jesus sketches he did ten years ago? Anything at all ringing even a tiny bell?

To summarise, 'political correctness' is essentially a laudable attempt to institutionalise politeness towards members of 'outgroups' however this in no way extends to religious groups, which people affiliate themselves with entirely through choice despite (or because of ) the fact that they are taught to bomb/behead/beat with brooms people belonging to equivalent, equally arbitrary but supposedly critically different groups.

..let's not forget what has happened in communist china, communist russia, and other communist states.....

fuddam, does atheism=communism?

Being gay is/was also a no-no, but these things change as time passes due to public opinion. If the religions didn't change with them then people would leave and / or find another religion which suited their views more.
Yet if the leaders of these religions are truly preaching the word of god, these things wouldn't change...

Just to point out that Hitchens mentioned in that horsemen video that senior figures in our cuddly, 'moderate' anglican church publicly attributed the recent floods in sheffield and doncaster to god's wrath at homosexuals. The hatred and ignorance within the old testament is still very much a part of today's religions, even those that pretend they are modern and relevant. They do in fact, remain pretty much the same over time in defiance of scientific and cultural advances.

lol, offtopic, i am out

Typical theist debating technique, you make a nonsensical statement that repeats errors previously addressed more than once within this thread, then when this precisely on-topic fact is pointed out to you you pretend that you are being treated unfairly and insulted.

i got beaten with a plank by some chavs once, for being smarter & richer than them.

Are you sure it wasn't because you spammed them with non sequiturs to try and prove a point that even you didn't believe in, for no apparent reason other than to be contrary?

[iranu]

hardcore atheists forcing their views on others?

well, never under the official banner of 'atheism' but under it's pretexts, let's not forget what has happened in communist china, communist Russia, and other communist states where belief in a deity has been considered 'unscientific' and dangerous and to be eliminated. talk about persecution........

same old.

The problem with this argument is that it is baseless. You are equivocating communist persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church as well as the Jewish population (but did not destroy them completely when they could have) with atheism simply because communism has atheism as part of it's ideology. You commit the logical fallacy of a non sequiter or false analogy by doing this. It's akin to saying all atheists must be communists. Communism is not a pretext (I urge everyone to look that word up pretext - Definitions from Dictionary.com) for atheism. Infact that's so laughable and shows your ignorance of the communist ideology and it's development. Either that or you are being deliberately dishonest. It certainly did not start with a bunch of atheists who then decided to produce an ideology that disguised their atheism in a bid for power and the abolition of all religion and the persecution of all religious people. You may also like to know that many Jews were part of the communist uprisings.

What people have to learn is that atheism is not an ideology. It is simply a lack of belief and therefore is secondary to all ideology with regard to how someone acts whether they be humanist/rationalist/communist/buddhist etc. The communists didn't kill because they were atheists, they killed for power brought about by their ideology which was a reaction to the excesses of the Czars and the church and the dismal plight of the peasantry exacerbated by the hardships of the first world war.

What is more the same analogy works for a deist/theist. A belief in god is simply that - a belief. Until a specific doctrine or ideology is attached then a deist/theist is no more open to the question of doing good or bad things in the name of their belief.

A good article here explains this How Many Were Killed by Communists in the Name of Atheism & Secularism? Stalin, Mao, Other Communists Killed Millions on Behalf of Atheism

This is often the false rationale used when religious people want to attack atheism from the moral point of view, but rather than study the reason for the persecution (and there are many) they commit the fallacy which is shear laziness on their part. Common examples will be Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin.

It is actually very easy to see why Christians, their churches (and Jews) were persecuted by Communists (notice no mention of Stalin yet) just as it is easy to see why people with glasses were persecuted under Pol Pot. (Intellectuals in the last case).

Power.

The orthodox church is/was a very powerful organisation. It had a large obedient following, plenty of money, land, was certainly in cahoots with the Russian leaders and more importantly had influence over the populace. It was a barrier to Communist power and therefore a barrier to it's rule and certainly against it's ideology. This is pre-Stalin era. Bare in mind that the idea of freeing the proletariat was the original idea of Communism and was as much about freeing people from the Czars as it was about freeing people from the Orthodox church. The problem with the ideals of Communism is that human nature always gets in the way. (Learn about the Kronstadt rebellion, the sailors that took part and how they were the elite soldiers of the revolution (whilst recruited from peasants) who crushed all the Bolshevik enemies only to become disillusioned, because the regime they got was not what they had fought for).

Stalin's "no man, no problem" solution, which dominated his rule due to his paranoia was bound to be used against Christians, however, the persecution was not carried out totally after he assumed power. So why not? Well because after the German invasion of 1941 Stalin wanted patriotic support to help against the Germans so he revived the Orthodox church. Yes revived! Goes against everything that people spout against Stalin. (And no this is not an excuse for him and his other actions) Obviously this was a means to an ends and the persecution of any Christian who dissented still went on, but that happened to anyone. The number of churches increased from around 500 to 25,000 under Stalin although this was heavily controlled by the state.

Stalin was brought up in the Georgian Orthodox Church, one of the oldest of Christian churches. He aspired to be a priest, probably to please his mother, who sought this vocation for him, (his father was an alcoholic who beat him frequently and wanted his son to be a carpenter) and at the age of 15, he won a scholarship to a seminary in Tbilisi (or Tiflis), the capital of Georgia. He excelled in singing and sang a solo in the local church on the occasion of Tsar Alexander III's birthday. Later he was expelled from seminary for absenteeism. He certainly would have had to renounce his faith in order to join the communist party and we'll never know if he truly renounced his faith.

Atheism isn't taught and is therefore less likely to have ideology attached, infact it's more likely that the ideology has atheism as part of it's make up. Most religion (and we'll add Communism here too because it has similarities)) on the other hand is taught (at the earliest opportunity and alot have spreading the word as part of it's ideology) and this certainly incorporates dogma, accepted practice, etc, god is simply the cherry on the cake, the unbeatable idea because if you go against or question the practices of the religion you are going against the most powerful thing ever. It's a strong motivator and a good way to stop those that might question the practices and hence power, whether that be the Pope or a government based on these teachings. eg. Saudi Arabia.

I would therefore say that religion and it's practice is far more dangerous to the individual than atheism. Warped communism is pretty nasty too.

[Rosaline]

What is more the same analogy works for a deist/theist. A belief in god is simply that - a belief. Until a specific doctrine or ideology is attached then a deist/theist is no more open to the question of doing good or bad things in the name of their belief.

Atheism isn't taught and is therefore less likely to have ideology attached, infact it's more likely that the ideology has atheism as part of it's make up. Most religion (and we'll add Communism here too because it has similarities)) on the other hand is taught (at the earliest opportunity and alot have spreading the word as part of it's ideology) and this certainly incorporates dogma, accepted practice, etc, god is simply the cherry on the cake, the unbeatable idea because if you go against or question the practices of the religion you are going against the most powerful thing ever. It's a strong motivator and a good way to stop those that might question the practices and hence power, whether that be the Pope or a government based on these teachings. eg. Saudi Arabia.

Some good thoughts in your post

Communism is likely to crop up in such debates, as this idea of a strong ideology influencing actions is often linked to it. People can get worked up and impassioned about such things even if the matters in hand are not religious. From an outside perspective, devoid of prior concepts, it would be hard to tell apart some of the acts of religious feud and of the cold war era tensions. The McCarthy-era saw witch hunts, after all

Never mind absolute power, all power tends to corrupt absolutely, in my opinion. Problem is, the alternatives just don't work either

[kasavien]

I've been reading through this thread and found it to be very interesting, some people put forward very well thought out arguments, that put their points across concisely and to the point without causing offence, others just argue.

I've got a point or two to raise and i'll try to put forward a decent point but it may not come across in a good way because i aren't very good at debating.

Up until now i've been sat on the fence and not really agreed with one side more than the other, but after reading the following quote something occurred to me.

Atheism isn't taught and is therefore less likely to have ideology attached, infact it's more likely that the ideology has atheism as part of it's make up. Most religion (and we'll add Communism here too because it has similarities)) on the other hand is taught (at the earliest opportunity and a lot have spreading the word as part of it's ideology) and this certainly incorporates dogma, accepted practice, etc, god is simply the cherry on the cake, the unbeatable idea because if you go against or question the practices of the religion you are going against the most powerful thing ever. It's a strong motivator and a good way to stop those that might question the practices and hence power, whether that be the Pope or a government based on these teachings. eg. Saudi Arabia.

It seems that many of the problems caused by religion occur through a lack of education both of religion itself and general education relating to the scientific world. Expanding on those points a little; firstly it appears to me that in religion, most of the followers are very poorly educated in the religion, for example, many Christians will not be able to quote accurately more than one or two key scriptures, whereas the leaders have a great deal of knowledge but use this and manoeuvre and manipulate this knowledge to control the followers. Secondly many people around the world are not well educated enough to challenge religion and its beliefs because they cannot find any reasonable explanation to things that they cannot explain so they still attribute them to faith/religion/belief.

This second point i include myself in, i don't think i have the knowledge to challenge people when they make a statement about their religion or beliefs. Giving an example, one of my friends tried to explain feng shui to me by saying that it works by altering the way that energy flows through a room and having the right placement of objects produces a good flow of energy and that has a good effect on the people using that room. They backed this up by explaining to me that atoms have energy and that atoms interact with each other so if you change the way that they interact with each other you can change other things. I know this holds some shred of scientific truth, but that as a whole it is wrong but i don't have the knowledge to say why it is wrong, but i couldn't explain in scientific terms exactly why it is wrong, because i aren't well in enough educated in those things.

Now having said all that, playing devils advocate, i think many issues with religion and other beliefs would be solved if people had a better education so that they could make educated decisions about things as opposed to following what other people hold as true, just because the other person is in a position of power or they seem to be more knowledgeable so what they say must be true. The devils advocate part is, perhaps as atheists we should try harder to give people a good balanced education so that they can make educated decisions. Then at least people have a greater knowledge base on which to make decisions of what they believe in as opposed to blindly following what a person in power has told them. I know there are some exceptionally well educated people to be found in all faiths but i am saying that there are many many more people who aren't and they have nothing to base decisions of faith/religion/beliefe on other than what people tell them.

[JPreston]

in religion, most of the followers are very poorly educated in the religion, for example, many Christians will not be able to quote accurately more than one or two key scriptures, whereas the leaders have a great deal of knowledge but use this and manoeuvre and manipulate this knowledge to control the followers. Secondly many people around the world are not well educated enough to challenge religion and its beliefs because they cannot find any reasonable explanation to things that they cannot explain so they still attribute them to faith/religion/belief.

The first point is exactly right, very very few religious people actually read or think their scriptures in any depth at all. In making the argument somewhere above I said that unless you hold (for example) the bible to be perfect and infallible without question (which some people do, ), the act of throwing out the obviously nonsensical bits casts serious doubt on the value of anything that looks vaguely sensible.

Blasphemy! My throwaway statement that 'obviously it is correct to disregard' certain bits of the bible was seized on as being unreasonably rude by someone who therefore presumably either believes that sulky teenagers should be stoned to death, that menstruating women should be sent into the wilderness until their uncleanness passes, and that Egyptian men have penises like donkeys and ejaculate like a horse does, or has no idea that the bible explicitly states these things. It's hard to discuss these things with people who have very little knowledge even of the religious side of the debate. (More of this obvious absurdity at The Brick Testament, Skeptic's Annotated Bible / Quran / Book of Mormon )



On the second point, noone is so well educated as to be able to explain everything scientifically but there really is no need to - "I don't know" is a much more useful philosophy than "goddidit". It seems the theists are requiring that atheists solve every single open question in science (and phrase the solution in language even the theists can understand), and even if such a feat were possible what would it achieve r.e. religion? They still would not accept the complete disappearance of their god of the gaps anyway. I think we are lucky enough - 'praise science' - to live in such a time that we no longer have to say 'goddidit' when thinking about matters that affect our daily survival let alone more metaphysical questions like the origins of life etc.

Furthermore, I don't think any religion seeks to really explain any observed phenomena - starting out by presupposing the existence of a vastly complex and intelligent being does not actually address any questions over the beginning of space and time or evolution of complex life.

[Rosaline]

In reasoned analysis and debate, one tends not to disregard an entire document and declare it to be of no value simply because of literal absurdities, inaccuracies, poor advice and so on. Merit can often still be found once these are stripped away or reinterpreted. It is the religious system that enforces a single literal interpretation.

Analysis of religious texts eventually leave us with the true teachings of the figures within them, freed from misinterpretation for any reason other than the effects of the passing of time. In looking at the historical evidence and how this effects meaning, it becomes clear that certain teachings were an artefact of the era of writing. Today's prophets may well preach a low CO2 emissions lifestyle.

So yes, perhaps certain parts would indeed be correctly disregarded. I concede that point But might I remind you that you also said:

If they did indeed apply rationality to it, they would throw it all out.

To throw out is a strong phrase, associated with disregarding, disposing and ignoring in totality, that no merit at all exists. Application of rationality, however, does not do that at all, as I have just suggested. Rational analysis results in an a rational interpretation, not a destruction.

Would I agree with everything in the rational interpretation, something you believe I must do to consider the idea at all? No, of course not. But I would not then go about dealing with people who believed in these things via a pounding, thumping tirade of determined insistence that they should change their mind. The way many atheists talk comes across very strongly as implying this, with phrases such as "they should throw it all out". Ultimately, it's an issue of implied time scale. One does not challenge beliefs with brief but firm insistence, but rather though slow attrition. Science is powerful not because it's true (although obviously it is), but because when explained from ground up, that truth is not only watertight but testable. Insistence that directly challenging others is acceptable is missing the proven best technique - start outside of their beliefs with the skills they need to understand, and eventually work up to helping them understand within themselves, rather than from on up high - sorry, rather than your personal insistance that they see rationality.

The problem with the religious side of the debate is that it is religious. By definition, religions don't debate, they indoctrinate. What then doesn't help is the dubious quality of some of the sceptic resources, with inappropriate tone visible in places (such as calling the opening for the new testament 'boring') and, far more importantly, being based on the King James version, rather than the original greek. The King James translation is the cause for witches even being mentioned (original was perhaps closer to poisoner), and the nature of the greek language has resulted in many areas of debate over the meaning.

You see, I do know the 'religious' side

Edit: The SAB argues that one does not need to know ancient greek to study the bible. In terms of it's actual meaning, that's a complete falsehood, plain and simple, and that much should be obvious to everyone. Technically, you would require a strong ability in ancient greek and an extremely strong knowledge of the history of the time and the sociopolitical state at the time and times beforehand. However, in terms of what it means to people, yes, the King James version is enough. It has already been established that religions are horrible nasty things, based on control, money and power, and that I strongly agree with. The King James rendition was made for religious reasons, and as such will clearly be a nasty piece in many places, regardless of what the original states. It is widely used, and perhaps questioning aspects of it will raise doubt. If nothing else, it will encourage people to learn ancient greek It must be said, though, any skeptic not also considering alternate translations from the greek is missing a major trick. Not only does this call into doubt the meaning, but it often clearly highlights the religious desire to control thought through selecting certain translations.

[kasavien]

This is perhaps a more to the point version of what i meant.

One does not challenge beliefs with brief but firm insistence, but rather though slow attrition. Science is powerful not because it's true (although obviously it is), but because when explained from ground up, that truth is not only watertight but testable. Insistence that directly challenging others is acceptable is missing the proven best technique - start outside of their beliefs with the skills they need to understand, and eventually work up to helping them understand within themselves, rather than from on up high - sorry, rather than your personal insistence that they see rationality.

I realise it's almost impossible for someone to be well enough educated to have an answer for all questions and i agree that saying 'i don't know' is a perfectly good answer in situations where you don't have an answer. What i was trying to say is that when people have some form of education, it can give them a need to learn more and reason things out so that they no longer accept everything as true just because someone who appears knowledgeable told them so.

Going off topic for a moment, to some extent that's what annoys and saddens me about the media in this country, some people are prepared to accept what the media tells them when the media is only giving some of the facts to put their story across in a particular way to gain sales/viewers etc. Some people aren't prepared to do research so that they gain a balanced point of view. Take the Northern Rock for example, perhaps if the whole situation hadn't been so sensationalised by the media, the mass panic of people rushing to take their savings out wouldn't have occurred and the Northern Rock and British tax payers wouldn't be put at such risk? 20:20 hindsight is a wonderful thing?!

Back to the topic though, this is why i think education is such a key factor for people following a religion, people are much more able to make good decisions when they have something to base the decision on!

[iranu]

It seems that many of the problems caused by religion occur through a lack of education both of religion itself and general education relating to the scientific world. Expanding on those points a little; firstly it appears to me that in religion, most of the followers are very poorly educated in the religion, for example, many Christians will not be able to quote accurately more than one or two key scriptures, whereas the leaders have a great deal of knowledge but use this and manoeuvre and manipulate this knowledge to control the followers. Secondly many people around the world are not well educated enough to challenge religion and its beliefs because they cannot find any reasonable explanation to things that they cannot explain so they still attribute them to faith/religion/belief.

I'm glad that you expanded on my comment with this.

One of the things that always surprises me is how convoluted most religious text is. It reminds me of the European Constitution. It's purposely written to be difficult to understand. This is clever because it allows only those with the intellect to decipher it and because the meaning is not explicit they can chose how to interpret the text. This is very cunning because it allows for maximum manipulation of the people that are being preached to. Now that I come to think of it I think this is why I dislike organised religion, it's someone telling you what the text means rather than reading it and interpreting it yourself. Why isn't god's word more simple?