Atheist movie coming out in New York and Los Angeles

[John Dibble]

This "athiesm" is more antitheism.  People who go around the world advocating with crap like this are no better than evangelicals.

Athiesm should be "don't waste your life thinking about God" not "waste your life trying to prove there is no God."

Well King, I'd love to not give a crap about God but here's the thing - there are people who believe who want to force it down everyone's throats. No, I'm not talking about someone preaching their beliefs on a street corner. That's just words and I don't tend to give a crap about just words.

The ones I'm talking about are the ones that want to teach creationism (their version, of course) in public schools, the ones who want to spend tax dollars on religious monuments, the ones who want to force others to give up their reproductive rights purely based on their religious beliefs, the ones who want to force women to wear burqas and mutilate their genitals in infancy, the ones who want to stone homosexuals to death, the ones who commit heinous acts of terrorism and tyranny in the name of their chosen deities, etc. There are a variety of problems, both great and small, that many of us atheists see religion either causing or exasperating - these are problems that occur in the world we live in, and we happen to care about the world we live in. It would be quite dumb of us to ignore what we see as a problem, don't you think?

[John Dibble]

Yes, and you can advocate against all those horrible things politically.  There is no need for athiest evangelizing or propaganda.

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.

I say it's far better to get as many people as possible to abandon the beliefs that make their actions a problem for the rest of the world, and for that you have to get out there and make the arguments against those beliefs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, this is utterly naive and patently false. Left unchecked many theist groups attain undue amounts of power and influence. Some rule over entire countries and put their religion into law, if you haven't noticed. Oh, sure, disagreements will erupt from time to time, but without something to check them it's not unusual for one group to overpower the others that stand in their way and keep their power for a significant time period.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't care so much about the belief "system", if you can call just not believing in a deity a system - I want them to think rationally based on evidence. Faith runs counter to that in my book, so I discourage it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You suggested solving the problems politically - did it not occur to you that politics quite obviously has the same problem since it often requires you to take sides? Any time you take sides on anything you run the risk of this mentality, but at least atheism doesn't have any kind of dogmatic requirement that we shouldn't like or associate with those who disagree with us. Religion on the other hand often does.

[John Dibble]

The people who kill others out of their religion are not going to be persuaded by the arguments of athiests.

I never claimed that it would be possible to convert everyone, but you can still decrease their numbers, and thereby their effect on the world, given enough time and effort. Also, the degree of zealotry that results in the willingness to hate and even kill members of out groups tends to have a good deal to do with lack of positive exposure to those out groups - staying quiet about our views isn't going to help that.

Dibble, I think you may make atheism out to be a better default position than it really is.  I just don't buy it. There are many people who are just a-holes. They will latch on to whatever belief system (doesn't have to be a theist one), use it to their advantage and make other people's lives miserable.

The people you are referring to are called sociopaths. Their problem has nothing to do with belief systems, but is rather a problem of their innate ability to feel empathy for other human beings and so they are out for only themselves. Dealing with that problem is a different matter.

Let's be clear. Just because sociopaths exist does not mean that all people who do bad in the name of religion or some other system are like that - many are decent people who become indoctrinated into the idea that certain things we'd consider bad are actually good, be it because their deity demands it or for some other reason. They actually believe that they are doing the right thing, that they are doing some greater good. Those people can still possibly change their minds if you can convince them that they are wrong. Additionally, getting people to think rationally makes them less likely to fall for the tricks that sociopaths and tricksters use to gain control over them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't actually disagree with this point - deists who don't claim to have knowledge of what God wants from them don't tend to be unreasonable. Unfortunately, most theists are not deists.

[John Dibble]

Far more people in the last century were killed as a result of nationalism and other (usually related - in practice if not in theory) political ideologies than as a result of religious fervour. Most of the regimes and movements in question were/are avowedly secular and some were/are far more anti-religion than you. You know that, of course (you aren't an idiot), but I think it needs re-stating.

Certainly - I don't deny that many of those regimes were secular. (though it's worth noting not all were) I would say they use some of the same types of methods that some religions used. For example many such regimes have been sustained with cults of personality around their leaders, something actual religious cults often do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I evangelize, but what I evangelize isn't so much atheism so much as a rationalist world view. My atheism is a part of that, but not the whole of it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never made that claim, so please don't try to imply I did. In fact above I pointed out that the problem of sociopaths is not the same problem as religion, giving a clear example that I know that all evil isn't caused by religion.

Also, I won't deny that religion can get people to do good, but since that good could be accomplished by secular means I don't find the bad to be worth it.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[John Dibble]

I didn't say all cases, I said most cases.

Err, sorry, when I said "all cases" I was referring to the cases you were talking about for acceptance, not the cases in which harm is done.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Promotion of views and shoving them down people's throats are not necessarily the same thing. A free society ought to encourage people to promote and state their views so that healthy debate can occur.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Atheists have plenty of good reasons to promote their views, you just may not particularly agree with those reasons. I think this article explains how many atheists generally feel about the subject, if you're interested:

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/PromoteAtheism.htm

And if you've got 15 minutes, this video also might give some perspective:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAuFJKQh83Y

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't seem to find those polls - I would be interested in seeing them if you can find them.

On that note, I know that some comparisons of living standards show that countries that are less religious tend to be better off. (your own country being reported as the least religious)

http://www.gadling.com/2007/08/23/least-religious-countries/
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/15/interactive-infographic-of-the-worlds-best-countries.html

[John Dibble]

So North Korea over Bhutan.  Are you quite sure?

Indeed, even North Korea over Iran.  Are you really quite sure?

I wouldn't exactly consider North Korea a good example of a secular country. It's kind of in a weird place - sure, it's not officially their religion, but worship of Kim Jong-Il seems to be actively promoted by the state. And I'm not talking like celebrity worship. In North Korean schools they literally teach that his birth was marked by a double rainbow and a bright star in the sky and that apparently he does not defecate or urinate like a normal human being. They make the man out to be a demi-god - it's why many consider North Korea the world's largest cult.

http://www.11points.com/news-politics/11_craziest_kim_jong-il_moments

In addition, North Korea is officially atheist, and as such can't be considered secular. They also have a number of state controlled religious organizations, which an actual secular government could not have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_North_Korea

[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.

I think that is a fair outlook on things.  However, I am not sure it that needs to be framed in the religious context.  You can replace those deities with a host of other words and still have it be correct.

Yes, you can replace the deities in some cases - but there's a significant number of cases where you can't, and in some cases where you can the belief in the deity worsens things. For instance, someone may dislike gays, but they wouldn't necessarily find justification to stone gays if they didn't have the religious dogma.

As to framing it in a religious context, I only frame it in a religious context when religion is involved.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, my argument is not that religions are all the same. My argument has to do with the similar feature they all seem to share - the belief in something for which there is no evidence, or faith as it is otherwise known.

As I have said before, beliefs inform actions, and generally speaking it would seem to me that if you take actions based on false beliefs you're more likely to do harm, be it to yourself or to others. On the other hand, taking actions based on true beliefs would generally prove to be positive. (unless for some reason you're trying to do harm, in which case you'd probably cause more harm if you do it on true beliefs, but I would like to think most people don't want to do harm) Evidence based approaches, such as the scientific method, are far more likely to tell you whether or something is true or not. Faith on the other hand can't boast that, and there are many people who reject evidence when it contradicts their faith, so I find that faith based actions are more likely to be based on beliefs that are false and therefore more likely to cause harm.