Atheist movie coming out in New York and Los Angeles

[King]

Utterly naive. Do you think that someone who believes he's going to get an eternal reward from the supreme being for killing his enemies gives a damn about politics? And then there's some issues like the Westboro Baptist Church that you wouldn't necessarily want to solve politically - I mean sure, we could politically repeal the First Amendment to take away their free speech, but that wouldn't be acceptable.

Do you really believe those people to be common among faiths?  The WBC, for example, is a small time cult made entirely of Phelps family.  They scream loudly, sure, but they aren't really an issue. 

To continue with that example tied in with the first amendment, if there wasn't an idea of "inherent evil" associated with their views and we just let them scream their heads off but ignore them (as we pretty much already do), there would be no conflict with their right to free speech politically.

As for the rest of your posts,  I don't really see theist groups gaining power because their beliefs went unchecked.  Groups like the Taliban or Muslim Brotherhood gain power through military force or promises of economic benefit.  The religion that ties them together is always secondary in their rise.  Al pretty much expresses this in the above post; and far more eloquently.


You even say that your main goal is rationalist thought and that atheism is a simply a side view.  I think it's possible to educate a generation of rationalists without forcing them to abandon their religious beliefs right away. 

Perhaps they will come to your conclusion on God on their own, or maybe their children or grandchildren will.  That is pretty much how we all got to this position. I doubt anybody here is in a third generation of atheism.  If not your parents then your grandparents probably have at least some religiousness.

[John Dibble]

Is it though? For that minority of regimes (and movements; let's also avoid the trap of assuming that terrible things are only carried out by governments) that were not secular, how important was their religious nature to the political murder that they were responsible for? Generally not at all; or about as relevant as the fact that the Nazis were German Nationalists.

Political murder? Well, yeah, in that case it's secondary. But is all of it political? Is it political when Iran stones someone for adultery or homosexuality? You might argue the leaders do it to politically placate the masses, but if the religion of the masses didn't demand it would they still do it?

And speaking of the Nazis, where do you think the anti-semetism that they used to get to power came from?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The particulars of a religion can make people inclined to do things - belief informs actions. If you believe that God wants you to kill witches, and therefore killing witches is good, what do you think you'd be inclined to do if you thought your neighbor a witch?

As to it being something humans do, to an extent I agree - I think it's primarily a social thing. We like the tradition, the ceremony, the getting together, etc. I'm fine with that for the most part. I just wish we could throw out the dogma that makes people think irrational things that may cause harm.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I mentioned before, religion isn't necessarily the root of every problem. I know that. But in some cases it's still part of the problem - it exacerbates it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To be clear I'm not trying to oversimplify history. I'm not trying to say religion is the root of all our problems - there are many other causes for problems in our world.

Do you really believe those people to be common among faiths?

Common? Depends on the region you're in and the religion you're talking about, I suppose. But here's the thing - right now they are common enough to cause significant problems.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They are an issue for the family of those whose funerals they protest.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, guess what - that idea exists. We can talk of worlds where such an idea doesn't exist, but we don't live in one. Also, it's not exactly easy for people whose loved one just died to ignore someone saying horrible things about that person. It's something people want to deal with, even if the WBC is within their rights. If stifling their speech by law or force isn't an option, changing their minds is pretty much your only chance at improving the situation. If you aren't willing to evangelize the ideas that would counter theirs, then it's highly unlikely you'll see any improvement at all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The religion or ideology that ties them together DOES JUST THAT. Without it do you think that they would have the coherency to get into power and stay there?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who said anything about forcing them? I'm talking about convincing them - that's quite different. And who said anything about "right away"? Conversion from one belief system to another doesn't happen overnight - it's a process.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps, but there are many who would find themselves at great difficulty to come to that conclusion. Why? Because their parents teach them their religion from such an early age that it's difficult for them to think any way that opposes what they were taught to think, and they never get any exposure to contradictory ideas until much later if ever. Those that do eventually get exposed to atheists often have horribly wrong misconceptions about them - if we don't do any kind of evangelizing how exactly would they ever know what they are wrong about?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is completely irrelevant to whether or not we should consider religion a problem.

[patrick1]

Some of my general scattered thoughts on the interesting exchanges above:

1. I think the goal of a rationalist society is a fiction and fool's errand. That has no bearing to the central thrust of what we are talking about, but it seems on some atheists' agenda. I also think that it is a false dichotomy that atheist=rational, theist=irrational. Ive met plenty of people on both sides who are not wrapped too tight.

2. The atheist, irreligious or whatever the preferred self appellation viewpoint is not exactly a new phenomena. The track record of societies that impose or seek to eradicate religion has been poor from the drop.

Further, I tend to think that a religious or atheist's individuals actions have far more to do with their individual makeup and conditioning than their dogma. Theism is such a broad and because of that meaningless term. Is it only the monotheist who deserve to be talked out of their folly?

[John Dibble]

1. I think the goal of a rationalist society is a fiction and fool's errand. That has no bearing to the central thrust of what we are talking about, but it seems on some atheists' agenda. I also think that it is a false dichotomy that atheist=rational, theist=irrational. Ive met plenty of people on both sides who are not wrapped too tight.

I don't think I meant to imply that all religious people are always irrational and all atheists are always rational. Nobody is 100% rational all the time. (Except for me, because that's what the disembodied voice tells me, and if you disagree I'll cut you. Not that I want to, but the voice really doesn't like it when people disagree - I think it's because his parents didn't hug him enough as a child, and, well, you know, the whole not having a body thing.)

As to a rationalist society being a fool's errand, I disagree. I would say that in first world societies, where people get greater exposure to education and the idea of free thinking, rational thinking has increased greatly. Will we ever get 100%? No, as I said nobody is rational 100% of the time, but increasing the amount of rational thinking should still be a goal to aspire to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The religious, the Chosen or whatever the preferred self appellation viewpoint is not exactly a new phenomena. The track record of societies that impose or seek to eradicate non-believers and heretics has been poor from the drop.

...

Here's the thing - the vast majority of the modern atheist movement isn't trying to impose our beliefs on others. We're not trying to use brute force to get people to give up their beliefs, hell we're not even trying to have atheism democratically put into law. Don't confuse the modern atheist movement with the regimes you're talking about - the methods and ideologies in question are very different, and it's disingenuous of you to try to act like the two are the same.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In terms of personality, I'd agree with the point of individual makeup. Core personality isn't something readily changed.

But on the matter of actions based on conditioning, isn't having a religious upbringing part of one's conditioning? Even converting later in life and spending years in a faith is part of one's conditioning. The dogma of a person's religion is undeniably part of their conditioning. Someone conditioned to believe that gays are evil is probably going to act in a manner that reflects that when the topic comes up, wouldn't you agree?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What? That's like saying the word human is a meaningless term - I mean, that applies to more people than theism does, so it's even more broad, right? That theism describes a very broad number of people does not mean the word is meaningless. Actually it's quite specific about one thing, and it's only a problem if you take it to mean more than that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. Did I or any other atheist here ever imply otherwise? It's just that for most of us monotheists are the ones we deal with most often, so it's in the context of them that the conversation tends to go to.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Dibble, even if one were to accept the idea that religion in general is a problem, you haven't shown that secularism in general or atheism in particular are solutions.

[patrick1]

"Don't confuse the modern atheist movement with the regimes you're talking about - the methods and ideologies in question are very different, and it's disingenuous of you to try to act like the two are the same."

The above is why you get pushback. Not all religious, religions etc are made alike either. In the belief that you are rightly guided, one makes several of the same errors that true believers make.
The starting point that your movement seems to have is that your side is rational and others are irrational fools.  Neither side has any concrete proof on their side so I think it foolish for some Christian to mock an atheist and vice versa.

[John Dibble]

Dibble, even if one were to accept the idea that religion in general is a problem, you haven't shown that secularism in general or atheism in particular are solutions.

I think it's well demonstrated by history that living conditions and respect for human rights tend to be better in secular nations that don't try to force a religion or ideology down the throat of their populace when compared to those that do try that. Or am I missing something?

The above is why you get pushback. Not all religious, religions etc are made alike either. In the belief that you are rightly guided, one makes several of the same errors that true believers make.

This is a straw man. I did not claim all religions are exactly the same - they aren't, that's just an obvious fact and I didn't think it needed to be said. Some religions don't tend to try to insert themselves into government or force themselves on others, and you'll find that we atheists tend to leave them be, even if we find them irrational. I mean seriously, how often do you hear atheists gripe about Buddhism or Shintoism?
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The starting point of our movement is this - there are people who want to force their religious beliefs on others, to one degree or another. These people are doing this when there is no evidence for their beliefs, and in some cases there is evidence that contradicts those beliefs.

Our movement doesn't need proof for our side because we aren't trying to force people to be atheists - all most of us really want is for governments to be secular and society to not treat us like trash because we don't have religion.


As to it being foolish of a Christian to mock atheists, their own holy book does that:

Psalm 14:1 - "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

Psalm 53 says pretty much the same thing. With this in mind, do you think it foolish for Christians to treat what is supposedly the word of their lord as fact?

[The Mikado]

It's just because (real) Buddhists are so far away from the West that people idealize them.  A Theocracy like Bhutan is not a pleasant place no matter what the faith is, and if Tibet were still around as an independent country, the vapid idiots with "Free Tibet" merchandise would be calling it another Saudi Arabia.

[King]

Buddhism like all religions makes some interesting points but is never at any time correct in more than 30% of it's beliefs and is not practical to follow for everything.  Buddhist theocracy Mikado describes tends to play out like masked Hinduism and it's no coincidence that places like Bhutan are in regions where Hindu influence and interaction is possible.

[patrick1]

This is a straw man. I did not claim all religions are exactly the same - they aren't, that's just an obvious fact and I didn't think it needed to be said. Some religions don't tend to try to insert themselves into government or force themselves on others, and you'll find that we atheists tend to leave them be, even if we find them irrational. I mean seriously, how often do you hear atheists gripe about Buddhism or Shintoism?
 

The starting point of our movement is this - there are people who want to force their religious beliefs on others, to one degree or another. These people are doing this when there is no evidence for their beliefs, and in some cases there is evidence that contradicts those beliefs.

Our movement doesn't need proof for our side because we aren't trying to force people to be atheists - all most of us really want is for governments to be secular and society to not treat us like trash because we don't have religion.

So basically, it is the actions done in God's name that is the what you have issue with?

[John Dibble]

So basically, it is the actions done in God's name that is the what you have issue with?

If someone wishes to act in the name of God, Allah, Zeus, Ra, Amaterasu, Baʿal, or any of the other hosts of deities that people have worshiped throughout history and it does no undue imposition on others who disagree with them then I have little problem outside of thinking they would have better uses for their time. It's when they do cause undue imposition that I have a problem, regardless of whether or not it's done in someone's name.

...unless it's for Thor, then it's ok.

[CatoMinor]

...unless it's for Thor, then it's ok.

don't forget about the Titan Atlas (God of War style Atlas)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Dibble, even if one were to accept the idea that religion in general is a problem, you haven't shown that secularism in general or atheism in particular are solutions.

I think it's well demonstrated by history that living conditions and respect for human rights tend to be better in secular nations that don't try to force a religion or ideology down the throat of their populace when compared to those that do try that. Or am I missing something?

You haven't shown that secular societies are less apt to force their beliefs upon others than religious societies are.  There are plenty of examples to be found in history of religious societies that are tolerant and of secular societies that are intolerant.  Nor do I see any evidence that when it comes to intolerant societies that there is any noticeable difference in the methods that have been used to be intolerant.

[John Dibble]

Dibble, even if one were to accept the idea that religion in general is a problem, you haven't shown that secularism in general or atheism in particular are solutions.

I think it's well demonstrated by history that living conditions and respect for human rights tend to be better in secular nations that don't try to force a religion or ideology down the throat of their populace when compared to those that do try that. Or am I missing something?

You haven't shown that secular societies are less apt to force their beliefs upon others than religious societies are.  There are plenty of examples to be found in history of religious societies that are tolerant and of secular societies that are intolerant.  Nor do I see any evidence that when it comes to intolerant societies that there is any noticeable difference in the methods that have been used to be intolerant.

Well, I used the words "tend to be better" to indicate a general inclination and not an absolute, and I put another pretty important qualifier on the secular nations part. I am perhaps making an assumption that most of the people here are at least somewhat educated on the status of the world and the countries in it, so perhaps I don't feel a full demonstration is necessary. Also, a secular nation by definition does not lawfully try to force people to follow a religious creed, otherwise it's not secular - I'd think that obvious, but again maybe I assume too much.

Just so we're clear on something before I take more time on answering you, are you actually disagreeing that secular societies tend to be better or are you just playing devil's advocate?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think we are using secular in different ways.  You are focusing upon "government" and I focusing upon "society"  For example, the United States has had a secular government for some time now, but it is still a religious society, and likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future.

But even considering just governmental forms and not the broader society, considering that the dominant forms of secular government in history have been dictatorships and oligarchies, I'd say that your case is not proven.

[John Dibble]

But even considering just governmental forms and not the broader society, considering that the dominant forms of secular government in history have been dictatorships and oligarchies, I'd say that your case is not proven.

And again, I note the qualifier that includes ideology. Secularism is but one piece of the puzzle. Lack of the government trying to force a religion on you is helpful, but I don't think I claimed it to be everything.

[The Mikado]

I'm not sure why Dibble feels the need to evangelize his atheism.  My lack of religion is a personal choice of mine, and while I do admit that I appreciate recognition that the non-religious are just as American and normal as anyone else (Obama recognizing "those of no faith" in his Inaugural was a real heartwarmer for me and one of the last times I felt something warmer than "he's doing the best he can" about poor Barry), I don't feel the need to want to change anyone else's opinion. 

[they don't love you like i love you]

This movie is running at a miserable 12% on Rotten Tomatoes, and bombed this weekend making only about $2000 a theater. It made about as much per theater as Bridesmaids despite that movie being out almost two months and in 500x as many theaters. It's going nowhere.

[Gustaf]

Dibble, am I to understand that everyone who disagrees with you on everything need to be educated to see the light, or is it only those who disagree with you on religion?

See, I do think that you mean well with your beliefs, I just don't think they're very realistic. Most people find the beliefs of other people to range from misinformed to stupid to insane (as long as they're not identical with their own). And most people hold such beliefs themselves.

If we are to get along in the world, we need to accept these differences and not try to get everyone to conform to a specific mindset. Because in most cases they don't do all that much active harm.

Some people believe in God, some in class warfare and some in a completely unfettered free market. Some are afraid of flying, some like Pokemon. Some like rap and others like heavy metal. Some people can't watch black-and-white movies or movies with subtitles because they are boring. There is plenty of idiocy in the world according to most people.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

But even considering just governmental forms and not the broader society, considering that the dominant forms of secular government in history have been dictatorships and oligarchies, I'd say that your case is not proven.

And again, I note the qualifier that includes ideology. Secularism is but one piece of the puzzle. Lack of the government trying to force a religion on you is helpful, but I don't think I claimed it to be everything.

But you still haven't shown that the difference between secularism and religiosity has anything to do with how intolerant a government or society will be of other belief systems.

[John Dibble]

Dibble, am I to understand that everyone who disagrees with you on everything need to be educated to see the light, or is it only those who disagree with you on religion?

Everything? No. Only religion? No. It depends on a number of different factors:

1. How much I care about the issue.
2. The degree am I certain I'm right about my positions on the issue.
3. The degree to which the issue in question is fact based vs opinion based.

For instance, I used to be very passionately against government run healthcare. Not so much any more. After debating and debating my certainty level isn't the same, and I accept that there are problems with both systems. The problems are not necessarily objectively worse in one system compared to another, and whether one feels that the problem in one system are worse than in another is opinion based. I haven't necessarily changed my opinion, but I no longer feel the need to get involved in long, drawn out debates on the subject.

Is that helpful?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm aware that most people have beliefs that aren't founded in reality, and I don't discount myself from being part of that group.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree - acceptance in all cases is not what we need. Tolerance however is often necessary. Again, I'm not advocating forcing anyone to change their mind, I'm advocating peacefully debating the issue.

But you still haven't shown that the difference between secularism and religiosity has anything to do with how intolerant a government or society will be of other belief systems.

Again, before I continue any further, could you answer this question?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[afleitch]

On the issue at hand, I will say that I am atheist if asked, or if it is relevant to the conversation. If challenged then I will defend it and through defending it I may end up 'promoting' it. That's exactly what I do if people ask me anything to do with my Toryism. However despite what some think, I don't wear it on my sleeve. I do however challenge ignorance and inference, which may be perceived by others as 'anti-religious' atheist posturing. I can make the exact same argument for say evolutionary theory which I made a few years ago when I had a faith and have the same people say I'm doing this 'because of my atheism' rather than to support the scientific consensus. However a few years ago those same people argued I was arguing from the 'scientific consensus.' That sort of thing annoys me.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, I'm disagreeing that secular societies are better than religious ones.  Not that there aren't some secular societies that are better than some religious ones.

In particular, I disagree with your apparent premise that secular societies tend to be more tolerant than religious ones.

[afleitch]

Yes, I'm disagreeing that secular societies are better than religious ones.

By defnition that means you support (using modern definitions) societies based on religious (usually one religion) principles enshrined in law over secular societies that do not have religiously inspired law.

So Iran over Denmark. Are you quite sure?

[Gustaf]

Dibble, am I to understand that everyone who disagrees with you on everything need to be educated to see the light, or is it only those who disagree with you on religion?

Everything? No. Only religion? No. It depends on a number of different factors:

1. How much I care about the issue.
2. The degree am I certain I'm right about my positions on the issue.
3. The degree to which the issue in question is fact based vs opinion based.

For instance, I used to be very passionately against government run healthcare. Not so much any more. After debating and debating my certainty level isn't the same, and I accept that there are problems with both systems. The problems are not necessarily objectively worse in one system compared to another, and whether one feels that the problem in one system are worse than in another is opinion based. I haven't necessarily changed my opinion, but I no longer feel the need to get involved in long, drawn out debates on the subject.

Is that helpful?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm aware that most people have beliefs that aren't founded in reality, and I don't discount myself from being part of that group.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree - acceptance in all cases is not what we need. Tolerance however is often necessary. Again, I'm not advocating forcing anyone to change their mind, I'm advocating peacefully debating the issue.

But you still haven't shown that the difference between secularism and religiosity has anything to do with how intolerant a government or society will be of other belief systems.

Again, before I continue any further, could you answer this question?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't say all cases, I said most cases. I think actively promoting one's views, shoving them down peoples' throats is generally speaking a bad idea. Certain religious people can at least claim that they have to because people will go to hell if they fail. But atheists don't really have any particularly good reason to do so, even given their own beliefs.

As to the discussion at hand, from what I recall of opinion polls made in Europe, religious people are more tolerant than non-religious people (except for when it comes to homosexuals, for obvious reasons).