So I was Reading The Book Of Luke... Vol. Jesus Christ Is Amazing.

[its that dude]

Originally Posted by Adrian1221

Im not even going to quote what you said and go back and forth,to basically summarize your post you are admitting an willing to go out of your way and ridicule anyone who believes in what they believe in if its wrong according you.

You just stated that you have no problem for people to use faith to better themselves, then you say that you will ridicule anyone for doing just that. Just let them live. You're really going on a crusade to attempt to humiliate others and provoke them.

You want to call out people until they give you firm proof? Then I guess you will spend the rest of your life doing that, because you keep miss the whole point over and over that sometimes faith is all you can go on and if thats wrong with you, okay, its not for everyone. But to call them out on it is completely wrong. Why? because nothing good ever comes out of it except and over inflated ego.

If someone says something that I disagree with, I'll say something if I feel like it.  People can use faith to better themselves, but don't use it to "disprove" science, spread lies, or take away other people's rights.  You can have your faith, but don't overstep the boundaries.  Stop saying the Bible is infallible and was written by God.  No amount of faith will change the fact that it was written by man, after centuries of being passed down orally, that there are many contradictions in it, and that it promotes hate.  This is a fair point to criticize Christians on.  If they feel that they are being disrespected by being shown the truth, their faith was too weak and superficial.  

I'm not actively waiting for proof that God exists.  That has about as much chance as Zeus coming down from Mount Olympus and striking me with lightning.

 We know many people's faiths are weak.  They were just brought up that way by their parents.  We're trying to show them that it's okay to not believe in God or the ridiculous claims that his believers make.  It's a great joy knowing that person will no longer waste their life worshiping an imaginary figure.  

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by ItsGettinHot

Religious people - 1

Aspiring scumbags - 0

For you to seriously cross out my response to Meth (obviously didn't read it) and bring up something from a completely other thread proves you're a troll.

Unless you can explain to me what that thread has to do with this or that post you quoted. You seriously want to do the point for point nonsense. You keep score? Seriously?

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by ItsGettinHot

Religious people - 1

Aspiring scumbags - 0

For you to seriously cross out my response to Meth (obviously didn't read it) and bring up something from a completely other thread proves you're a troll.

Unless you can explain to me what that thread has to do with this or that post you quoted. You seriously want to do the point for point nonsense. You keep score? Seriously?

 

[knowledgethefoundation]

A human being wrote that book right?

 

[knowledgethefoundation]

A human being wrote that book right?

 

[Methodical Management]

Lemme dumb is down for him

See where I'm going with this? Or do I need to dumb it down a little further for you.
These are just flagrant rule violations.   
I keep seeing people say "oh, but religion's not a fixed, protected category like race, gender, or ethnicity."  Neither is being a Lakers fan.  Is it acceptable to go around calling Lakers fans stupid at every opportunity?  Not on this forum, at least.  "Oh, you're an APPLE fan?  Macs are for sheep."  "You live in DETROIT?  Oh my god, kill yourself.  Or, better yet, just stick your head outside the window for 30 seconds and let someone else do it for you. LOLOLOL"

What this boils down to is that you guys think you have the right to insult and harass people who don't believe what you believe.  I don't agree with that. 

Dr. King's courage inspired a tremendous good. Not his religious faith, maybe I'm assuming and you meant his faith in mankind to live civily together. Many before him held the same stance.

That's not supported by his writing, his interviews, his sermons/speeches, by the accounts of his family and colleagues, or by pretty much any serious treatment of his life and work.  I've studied Dr. King more than most and it's patently obvious that his faith was central to his work - and his ability to apply internal leverage by highlighting the incongruities between racism and Christianity proved enormously powerful.  Similarly, anyone who's so much as read the Autobiography of Malcolm X knows just how central his faith was to his own activism.  Faith-based movements have had the effect of attacking and eroding inequities in our society (including scientific racism,) just as it could be argued that secular influences have made religious groups more egalitarian.  
It's a mistake to assume that cultural change is inherently secular, that only secular beliefs can jar religion from its ancient moorings.  Belief systems adapt to the sociocultural environment.  That goes for the secular/scientific as well as the spiritual/religious. 

Seeing as it wasn't actually science that was being used to justify racism. Just racist scientists with a strong bias that attempted to look to science to justify their racist beliefs. Eugenics is pseudoscience, measuring the size of skulls is not science. I was just watching part of The Power Of Illusion documentary couple days ago that covered this. You can't call that a black mark on science when the people at fault were a select few scientists with a racist agenda.
What is now deemed "pseudoscience" was once science proper.  
If you trace the ideological evolution of racism, you'll find that secularism and "the Enlightenment" actually had the effect of facilitating the spread of racist ideology.  The problem with science - as you see it, as a singular mode of thought that seeks nothing less than universal hegemony and the replacement of all local explanations in establishing a universal truth - is much the same as the problem with monoculture.  Diversity has the effect of creating firewalls.  If you have 1,000 different varieties of corn, you're less prone to famine and the collapse of the global food system than you are if you only use ONE patented variety.  Christian racism could be Christian racism.  It could be contained more easily than the brushfire/holocaust of scientific racism.  

I mentioned, before I left, George Frederickson's A Short History of Racism.  I'd like to quote a relevant passage, as he does a good job of explaining how the Enlightenment and its rebuke of Christian universalism and its emphasis on the soul and the afterlife, paved the way for contemporary racism:

On a popular level the great curses served to make it easier for Christians to treat other human beings as less than human.  Europeans might seek to affirm their status and self-worth through the allegation that the blood in their veins was superior to that of people descended from Jews, or because the color of their skin made them the natural masters of Africans.  And they could find passages of the Bible that seemed to confirm their prejudices.  But to achieve its full potential as an ideology, racism had to be emancipated from Christian universalism.  To become the ideological basis of a social order, it also had to be clearly disassociated from traditionalist conceptions of social hierarchy.  In a society in which inequality based on birth was the norm for everyone from king down to peasant, ethnic slavery and ghettoization were special cases of a general pattern – very special in some ways – but still not radical exceptions to the hierarchical premise.  Paradoxical as it may seem, the rejection of hierarchy as the governing principle of social and political organization, and its replacement by the aspiration for equality in this world as well as in the eyes of God, had to occur before racism could come to full flower. 

I'm not categorically attacking science by any means, but you have to understand that science, in practice, is hardly objective and it continues to create rationalizations for social inequality.  It's fine to call such attempts an abuse of science - just understand that you could describe the homophobia of conservative Christians in the same way.  
It used to be the case that people could use science to attack LGBT citizens under a very similar rationale you're using to attack religious adherents.  That is to say, "it's a belief system and something you can change.  It's not fixed like race or gender.  People CHOOSE to be ignorant to their biology.  They're confounding the sexual reproduction that propagates our entire species and perverting the natural order."  Studies were produced to demonstrate that you can't be born gay, etc.  Even now, many LGBT activists take umbrage with attempts to "naturalize" sexual orientation because they feel it is one's right TO choose as they see fit.  

As Steven Seidman writes in Difference Troubles: Queering Social Theory and Sexual Politics,

“I came to view science as a powerful practical-moral or social force.  I learned that science’s claim to truth carried a social authority that made it productive of forms of personal and social life.  Its power lay not only in its capacity to rationalize the denial of moral legitimacy for same-sex desire or to justify the denial of civil rights or claims to social inclusion.  Through its cultural and institutional authority, science could inscribe in our bodies and minds a sexual/social regime – one that made desire into an identity, one that made gender preference into a master category of sexual and social identity, one that made hetero/homosexual identities mutually exclusive, and one that purified a heterosexual life while polluting a homosexual life.

 

[Methodical Management]

Lemme dumb is down for him

See where I'm going with this? Or do I need to dumb it down a little further for you.
These are just flagrant rule violations.   
I keep seeing people say "oh, but religion's not a fixed, protected category like race, gender, or ethnicity."  Neither is being a Lakers fan.  Is it acceptable to go around calling Lakers fans stupid at every opportunity?  Not on this forum, at least.  "Oh, you're an APPLE fan?  Macs are for sheep."  "You live in DETROIT?  Oh my god, kill yourself.  Or, better yet, just stick your head outside the window for 30 seconds and let someone else do it for you. LOLOLOL"

What this boils down to is that you guys think you have the right to insult and harass people who don't believe what you believe.  I don't agree with that. 

Dr. King's courage inspired a tremendous good. Not his religious faith, maybe I'm assuming and you meant his faith in mankind to live civily together. Many before him held the same stance.

That's not supported by his writing, his interviews, his sermons/speeches, by the accounts of his family and colleagues, or by pretty much any serious treatment of his life and work.  I've studied Dr. King more than most and it's patently obvious that his faith was central to his work - and his ability to apply internal leverage by highlighting the incongruities between racism and Christianity proved enormously powerful.  Similarly, anyone who's so much as read the Autobiography of Malcolm X knows just how central his faith was to his own activism.  Faith-based movements have had the effect of attacking and eroding inequities in our society (including scientific racism,) just as it could be argued that secular influences have made religious groups more egalitarian.  
It's a mistake to assume that cultural change is inherently secular, that only secular beliefs can jar religion from its ancient moorings.  Belief systems adapt to the sociocultural environment.  That goes for the secular/scientific as well as the spiritual/religious. 

Seeing as it wasn't actually science that was being used to justify racism. Just racist scientists with a strong bias that attempted to look to science to justify their racist beliefs. Eugenics is pseudoscience, measuring the size of skulls is not science. I was just watching part of The Power Of Illusion documentary couple days ago that covered this. You can't call that a black mark on science when the people at fault were a select few scientists with a racist agenda.
What is now deemed "pseudoscience" was once science proper.  
If you trace the ideological evolution of racism, you'll find that secularism and "the Enlightenment" actually had the effect of facilitating the spread of racist ideology.  The problem with science - as you see it, as a singular mode of thought that seeks nothing less than universal hegemony and the replacement of all local explanations in establishing a universal truth - is much the same as the problem with monoculture.  Diversity has the effect of creating firewalls.  If you have 1,000 different varieties of corn, you're less prone to famine and the collapse of the global food system than you are if you only use ONE patented variety.  Christian racism could be Christian racism.  It could be contained more easily than the brushfire/holocaust of scientific racism.  

I mentioned, before I left, George Frederickson's A Short History of Racism.  I'd like to quote a relevant passage, as he does a good job of explaining how the Enlightenment and its rebuke of Christian universalism and its emphasis on the soul and the afterlife, paved the way for contemporary racism:

On a popular level the great curses served to make it easier for Christians to treat other human beings as less than human.  Europeans might seek to affirm their status and self-worth through the allegation that the blood in their veins was superior to that of people descended from Jews, or because the color of their skin made them the natural masters of Africans.  And they could find passages of the Bible that seemed to confirm their prejudices.  But to achieve its full potential as an ideology, racism had to be emancipated from Christian universalism.  To become the ideological basis of a social order, it also had to be clearly disassociated from traditionalist conceptions of social hierarchy.  In a society in which inequality based on birth was the norm for everyone from king down to peasant, ethnic slavery and ghettoization were special cases of a general pattern – very special in some ways – but still not radical exceptions to the hierarchical premise.  Paradoxical as it may seem, the rejection of hierarchy as the governing principle of social and political organization, and its replacement by the aspiration for equality in this world as well as in the eyes of God, had to occur before racism could come to full flower. 

I'm not categorically attacking science by any means, but you have to understand that science, in practice, is hardly objective and it continues to create rationalizations for social inequality.  It's fine to call such attempts an abuse of science - just understand that you could describe the homophobia of conservative Christians in the same way.  
It used to be the case that people could use science to attack LGBT citizens under a very similar rationale you're using to attack religious adherents.  That is to say, "it's a belief system and something you can change.  It's not fixed like race or gender.  People CHOOSE to be ignorant to their biology.  They're confounding the sexual reproduction that propagates our entire species and perverting the natural order."  Studies were produced to demonstrate that you can't be born gay, etc.  Even now, many LGBT activists take umbrage with attempts to "naturalize" sexual orientation because they feel it is one's right TO choose as they see fit.  

As Steven Seidman writes in Difference Troubles: Queering Social Theory and Sexual Politics,

“I came to view science as a powerful practical-moral or social force.  I learned that science’s claim to truth carried a social authority that made it productive of forms of personal and social life.  Its power lay not only in its capacity to rationalize the denial of moral legitimacy for same-sex desire or to justify the denial of civil rights or claims to social inclusion.  Through its cultural and institutional authority, science could inscribe in our bodies and minds a sexual/social regime – one that made desire into an identity, one that made gender preference into a master category of sexual and social identity, one that made hetero/homosexual identities mutually exclusive, and one that purified a heterosexual life while polluting a homosexual life.

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by Method Man

Dr. King's courage inspired a tremendous good. Not his religious faith, maybe I'm assuming and you meant his faith in mankind to live civily together. Many before him held the same stance.

That's not supported by his writing, his interviews, his sermons/speeches, by the accounts of his family and colleagues, or by pretty much any serious treatment of his life and work.  I've studied Dr. King more than most and it's patently obvious that his faith was central to his work - and his ability to apply internal leverage by highlighting the incongruities between racism and Christianity proved enormously powerful.  Similarly, anyone who's so much as read the Autobiography of Malcolm X knows just how central his faith was to his own activism.  Faith-based movements have had the effect of attacking and eroding inequities in our society (including scientific racism,) just as it could be argued that secular influences have made religious groups more egalitarian.

I'm not denying that his faith in christianity motivated and compelled him to do what he did. I'm saying that his faith in it shouldn't be looked at as something inspiring. You don't say look at what King did and that was all cuz of his faith in GOD and/or the bible. The bible has historically many view points, ideas that led ppl to do some stupid and atrocious things. You got ppl looking at the bible to justify slavery, which it doesn't condemn. When you can use the the bible to support any viewpoint, it actually supports no viewpoints. So yeah, King may have said his faith in his religion prompted him to do what he did but it does not take faith to do what he did.

I'm also not denying what faith based movements can do. If you look at it on all sides you'd know they can do just as much bad as they can do good. It's a merely a tool. One that history shows humans will misuse and abuse given the chance. Books of the bible were written just so Constantine could keep his reign in Rome going. Hitler was a christian.

It's a mistake to assume that cultural change is inherently secular, that only secular beliefs can jar religion from its ancient moorings.  Belief systems adapt to the sociocultural environment.  That goes for the secular/scientific as well as the spiritual/religious.
But what is fueling the sociocultural environment or causing it to change in order for religion(s) and belief systems to adapt? I'd say part of it stems from secular ideas.

Seeing as it wasn't actually science that was being used to justify racism. Just racist scientists with a strong bias that attempted to look to science to justify their racist beliefs. Eugenics is pseudoscience, measuring the size of skulls is not science. I was just watching part of The Power Of Illusion documentary couple days ago that covered this. You can't call that a black mark on science when the people at fault were a select few scientists with a racist agenda.
What is now deemed "pseudoscience" was once science proper.  
Granted but that's only due to the majority and those in power calling the shots. I shouldn't have said a "select few" since many others backed it or ignored it but it became extremely popular at the time from prominent scientists. Unfortunately, not many scientists spoke against it or spoke up at all. If they did they'd be belittled, discredited, looked down upon, and even ostracized.

It was pseudoscience then just as much as it is now even if they thought otherwise. A running fad at the most.

If you trace the ideological evolution of racism, you'll find that secularism and "the Enlightenment" actually had the effect of facilitating the spread of racist ideology. 

A lot of times ppl take good ideas and warp them in to belief systems. I'm not defending secularism as if someone hasn't or couldn't use it for bad reasons.

It used to be the case that people could use science to attack LGBT citizens under a very similar rationale you're using to attack religious adherents.  That is to say, "it's a belief system and something you can change.  It's not fixed like race or gender.  People CHOOSE to be ignorant to their biology.  They're confounding the sexual reproduction that propagates our entire species and perverting the natural order."  Studies were produced to demonstrate that you can't be born gay, etc.  Even now, many LGBT activists take umbrage with attempts to "naturalize" sexual orientation because they feel it is one's right TO choose as they see fit. 
I just can't agree with this comparison when you look at the reasons for why people blindly believe in certain things. Even if homosexuality were a choice I wouldn't even see it in the same light as theists and the reasons for why they choose to believe in a higher power and then what is done with those beliefs.

If someone is born male and chooses to wear a dress and make up to work, I don't think I have the right to harass and "educate" them.  It doesn't bother me.
I just don't see that going on in these religious threads. If atheists, secularists were going around doing something akin to this I'd disagree with it as well. Not that I've been reading every single atheist reply in all of these threads to voice my displeasure with how they handled a back n forth.

Similarly, I don't see why it's such a big problem that someone else believes in an afterlife or a divine creator.
That by itself isn't a problem at all. If that was the only thing being discussed it wouldn't go far when it comes to the questions that arise.

Just as you're not going to "blame science" for the actions of a select few bigots who choose to APPLY science in a racist fashion, I don't see why I should "blame religion" for the actions of bigots who choose to APPLY religion in racist fashion.
No that's fine. I'd just like regulation in the matter. If all religious ppl kept their beliefs personal this wouldn't be an issue in the least.  I'm not intolerant of religion. I just don't see a problem in discussing/arguing about it.

 Some of you are hailing secular humanism, and if that's fine, but just understand that a nihilist could come in here and completely ridicule you for your "meaningless" notions of right and wrong. 
I would love for that to happen. I'd acknowledge their point but I'd endlessly enjoy talking about why I think morality is important. Wouldn't be offended at all. Even if it got to the point I didn't have the best answers in the discussion. Bring on the egoists as well.

You can try to defend it by claiming that morality represents a cultural adaptation that allows us, as social creatures, to live cooperatively and that this practice improves our survival odds... but it's a slippery slope.  Eventually, you're going to be confronted with moral beliefs you hold that represent personal beliefs shorn of "objective" function.  Surely we can imagine situations in which the "golden rule" seems maladaptive in a strictly utilitarian sense.
  I'm not claiming that I have all the answers because I adhere to one train of thought.

Imagine if you volunteered at a homeless shelter and a pack of college kids fresh out of philosophy class showed up to insult you for caring and set about hive fiving each other for quips about the futility of your misguided sense of kinship and morality.  How would you feel?  

Not bad or disrespected or offended. Aint like many would end up with doctorates in that field for them to understand their own futility in doing that. I mean personally I find nihilism laughable at times. It doesn't have much to offer but of course a nihilist would say there's no meaning in other philosophies that do offer something. I like to talking about this stuff and understanding other ppl's reasoning for their beliefs, principles, ideals, etc. Once engaged in the discussion I don't see the problem giving my opinion on it.

Someone could make virtually the same case about your concept of morality and consider it their job as a good missionary nihilist to disabuse you of such primitive constraints and cast aside the shackles of your fetishistic devotion to the imaginary totems of right and wrong. 

Perhaps some people would prefer to do what they feel is right because it makes their lives feel meaningful.  They find joy in helping others and attempting to make the world better for future generations.  That comes down to a matter of belief.  Do you think you have a right to believe in secular humanism as opposed to nihilism? 

Well that's interesting. I'd find it rather hypocritical for a nihilist to do that don't you? I'd never did agree with the thought that if you indeed discovered the right way to live or the meaning of life that you'd be compelled to spread it and make sure everybody else followed it too. If they did though, I'd be just s much against that as I would to atheists trying to do it.

Atheists/Humanists/Secularists aren't forcing theists to be them, at least not in these threads. I'm not even arguing whether or not we're forcing our beliefs on others since I don't think that's been the case in these threads. I've gathered a good amount of stuff to research and new things I haven't come across from both sides of the argument despite that I'm on one side.

Again, many people blindly reiterate scientific "facts" they've heard without applying any critical thought whatsoever.  In today's world, The Bell Curve is influencing far more racists than the Hamitic curse. 

It's a little frightening to me that, KNOWING the pitfalls of dogmatic zealotry and absolutism, some of you utterly fail to think critically about your own actions and beliefs.

I can't account for the others but I do. I'm not just regurgitating things after reading the title. Can't say my actions have been mirroring those same pitfalls but I'd implor my fellow atheists to reflect on what they've posted in these threads and critically think about their stance regardless if the discussion gets heated.

1. It isn't science alone that corrects science.  Science doesn't conduct itself.  Humans create science.  Therefore, everything that influences people influences the "science" we produce.

Yes. I didn't intend to imply science was some sentient process or program capable of self-correcting itself and yes those humans that have created this useful process should be mindful of how much faith they put in to it and recognize when something is being misrepresented as science.

2.  Attempts to "drag" people kicking and screaming generally cause retrenchment and resentment. 
With time, those feelings will subside or they'll die of old age angry at that. I'm not trying to make it out to be some crusade but that's how it is when things change. That's how it is whether things change for the good or the better. Of course I see it as a good change.

Missionaries thought they were being kind by disabusing indigenous people of their "superstitious," fetishistic beliefs.  Their attempts to "civilize" aren't all that different from yours in a way.  They didn't just bring Christianity.  Missionaries brought with them various technological innovations.  They started damming rivers, which caused tremendous ecological damage we're still attempting to counteract.  They brought different medical practices and techniques.  They brought different tools (and weapons.)  Half of the dual mandate was to "uplift" people from a condition of "savagery."  Everyone was held up to a single Eurocentric standard.  Anything that deviated from this standard was decried as irredeemably backward.


There's a difference between cross-cultural exchanges, cultural assimilation, and cultural annihilation.  Is it necessary to annihilate difference to ensure compatibility?   We have so much common ground to build on together.  I'd be a failure as an activist if ignored opportunities to form coalitions across religious/spiritual lines.

I'm not sure all atheists would agree that the goal is some future where religion is completely abolished. That we'd systematically go about stripping ppl of their right to religion in favor of the realization that your life is finite or at least I don't think that's the plan. People can go ahead and tithe, pray, worship, etc. it just should have it's place, be regulated imo. Not reach the level where it has the power to allow for those ppl that'll misconstrue it or manipulate for their own gains and harm others.

I understand you're trying to warn us not to become the very thing we're currently against.  I've seen that same argument in just about all of the threads dealing with the same argument. I also don't think science will provide every single important answer to our existence but I do think it can help and support.

What this boils down to is that you guys think you have the right to insult and harass people who don't believe what you believe.  I don't agree with that.
Now I have seen some members posting reasons for why they thought insulting and ridicule were okay. Didn't agree with all of their reasoning but I didn't see it as them attacking or harassing for the simple sake of them not believing what they don't but more for the arguments and reasons used to explain their stance or their lack of doing that and just trolling. Some things were laughable. Not worthy of insult but laughable. I know calling a belief stupid may be something you consider unacceptable but I find that hard to rationalize when ppl are choosing to be skeptical of everything but their own beliefs and that the rest are just wrong and inferior. I can't say no belief is stupid.

It seems in many of the arguments the opposition rather not argue the topic but argue the ppl and their motives, assuming what they don't know of them, making the discussion about something it's not, engaging in the discussion and at the same expressing disdain for it, attacking that there's even being an argument about the topic instead of abstaining from it. Persistently trolling, refusing to remain civil (I mean if we're really insulting ppl in these arguments each one would just make our stance look worse inevitably leaving us with no one to argue with), assuming we're coming from a stance that we're superior.

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by Method Man

Dr. King's courage inspired a tremendous good. Not his religious faith, maybe I'm assuming and you meant his faith in mankind to live civily together. Many before him held the same stance.

That's not supported by his writing, his interviews, his sermons/speeches, by the accounts of his family and colleagues, or by pretty much any serious treatment of his life and work.  I've studied Dr. King more than most and it's patently obvious that his faith was central to his work - and his ability to apply internal leverage by highlighting the incongruities between racism and Christianity proved enormously powerful.  Similarly, anyone who's so much as read the Autobiography of Malcolm X knows just how central his faith was to his own activism.  Faith-based movements have had the effect of attacking and eroding inequities in our society (including scientific racism,) just as it could be argued that secular influences have made religious groups more egalitarian.

I'm not denying that his faith in christianity motivated and compelled him to do what he did. I'm saying that his faith in it shouldn't be looked at as something inspiring. You don't say look at what King did and that was all cuz of his faith in GOD and/or the bible. The bible has historically many view points, ideas that led ppl to do some stupid and atrocious things. You got ppl looking at the bible to justify slavery, which it doesn't condemn. When you can use the the bible to support any viewpoint, it actually supports no viewpoints. So yeah, King may have said his faith in his religion prompted him to do what he did but it does not take faith to do what he did.

I'm also not denying what faith based movements can do. If you look at it on all sides you'd know they can do just as much bad as they can do good. It's a merely a tool. One that history shows humans will misuse and abuse given the chance. Books of the bible were written just so Constantine could keep his reign in Rome going. Hitler was a christian.

It's a mistake to assume that cultural change is inherently secular, that only secular beliefs can jar religion from its ancient moorings.  Belief systems adapt to the sociocultural environment.  That goes for the secular/scientific as well as the spiritual/religious.
But what is fueling the sociocultural environment or causing it to change in order for religion(s) and belief systems to adapt? I'd say part of it stems from secular ideas.

Seeing as it wasn't actually science that was being used to justify racism. Just racist scientists with a strong bias that attempted to look to science to justify their racist beliefs. Eugenics is pseudoscience, measuring the size of skulls is not science. I was just watching part of The Power Of Illusion documentary couple days ago that covered this. You can't call that a black mark on science when the people at fault were a select few scientists with a racist agenda.
What is now deemed "pseudoscience" was once science proper.  
Granted but that's only due to the majority and those in power calling the shots. I shouldn't have said a "select few" since many others backed it or ignored it but it became extremely popular at the time from prominent scientists. Unfortunately, not many scientists spoke against it or spoke up at all. If they did they'd be belittled, discredited, looked down upon, and even ostracized.

It was pseudoscience then just as much as it is now even if they thought otherwise. A running fad at the most.

If you trace the ideological evolution of racism, you'll find that secularism and "the Enlightenment" actually had the effect of facilitating the spread of racist ideology. 

A lot of times ppl take good ideas and warp them in to belief systems. I'm not defending secularism as if someone hasn't or couldn't use it for bad reasons.

It used to be the case that people could use science to attack LGBT citizens under a very similar rationale you're using to attack religious adherents.  That is to say, "it's a belief system and something you can change.  It's not fixed like race or gender.  People CHOOSE to be ignorant to their biology.  They're confounding the sexual reproduction that propagates our entire species and perverting the natural order."  Studies were produced to demonstrate that you can't be born gay, etc.  Even now, many LGBT activists take umbrage with attempts to "naturalize" sexual orientation because they feel it is one's right TO choose as they see fit. 
I just can't agree with this comparison when you look at the reasons for why people blindly believe in certain things. Even if homosexuality were a choice I wouldn't even see it in the same light as theists and the reasons for why they choose to believe in a higher power and then what is done with those beliefs.

If someone is born male and chooses to wear a dress and make up to work, I don't think I have the right to harass and "educate" them.  It doesn't bother me.
I just don't see that going on in these religious threads. If atheists, secularists were going around doing something akin to this I'd disagree with it as well. Not that I've been reading every single atheist reply in all of these threads to voice my displeasure with how they handled a back n forth.

Similarly, I don't see why it's such a big problem that someone else believes in an afterlife or a divine creator.
That by itself isn't a problem at all. If that was the only thing being discussed it wouldn't go far when it comes to the questions that arise.

Just as you're not going to "blame science" for the actions of a select few bigots who choose to APPLY science in a racist fashion, I don't see why I should "blame religion" for the actions of bigots who choose to APPLY religion in racist fashion.
No that's fine. I'd just like regulation in the matter. If all religious ppl kept their beliefs personal this wouldn't be an issue in the least.  I'm not intolerant of religion. I just don't see a problem in discussing/arguing about it.

 Some of you are hailing secular humanism, and if that's fine, but just understand that a nihilist could come in here and completely ridicule you for your "meaningless" notions of right and wrong. 
I would love for that to happen. I'd acknowledge their point but I'd endlessly enjoy talking about why I think morality is important. Wouldn't be offended at all. Even if it got to the point I didn't have the best answers in the discussion. Bring on the egoists as well.

You can try to defend it by claiming that morality represents a cultural adaptation that allows us, as social creatures, to live cooperatively and that this practice improves our survival odds... but it's a slippery slope.  Eventually, you're going to be confronted with moral beliefs you hold that represent personal beliefs shorn of "objective" function.  Surely we can imagine situations in which the "golden rule" seems maladaptive in a strictly utilitarian sense.
  I'm not claiming that I have all the answers because I adhere to one train of thought.

Imagine if you volunteered at a homeless shelter and a pack of college kids fresh out of philosophy class showed up to insult you for caring and set about hive fiving each other for quips about the futility of your misguided sense of kinship and morality.  How would you feel?  

Not bad or disrespected or offended. Aint like many would end up with doctorates in that field for them to understand their own futility in doing that. I mean personally I find nihilism laughable at times. It doesn't have much to offer but of course a nihilist would say there's no meaning in other philosophies that do offer something. I like to talking about this stuff and understanding other ppl's reasoning for their beliefs, principles, ideals, etc. Once engaged in the discussion I don't see the problem giving my opinion on it.

Someone could make virtually the same case about your concept of morality and consider it their job as a good missionary nihilist to disabuse you of such primitive constraints and cast aside the shackles of your fetishistic devotion to the imaginary totems of right and wrong. 

Perhaps some people would prefer to do what they feel is right because it makes their lives feel meaningful.  They find joy in helping others and attempting to make the world better for future generations.  That comes down to a matter of belief.  Do you think you have a right to believe in secular humanism as opposed to nihilism? 

Well that's interesting. I'd find it rather hypocritical for a nihilist to do that don't you? I'd never did agree with the thought that if you indeed discovered the right way to live or the meaning of life that you'd be compelled to spread it and make sure everybody else followed it too. If they did though, I'd be just s much against that as I would to atheists trying to do it.

Atheists/Humanists/Secularists aren't forcing theists to be them, at least not in these threads. I'm not even arguing whether or not we're forcing our beliefs on others since I don't think that's been the case in these threads. I've gathered a good amount of stuff to research and new things I haven't come across from both sides of the argument despite that I'm on one side.

Again, many people blindly reiterate scientific "facts" they've heard without applying any critical thought whatsoever.  In today's world, The Bell Curve is influencing far more racists than the Hamitic curse. 

It's a little frightening to me that, KNOWING the pitfalls of dogmatic zealotry and absolutism, some of you utterly fail to think critically about your own actions and beliefs.

I can't account for the others but I do. I'm not just regurgitating things after reading the title. Can't say my actions have been mirroring those same pitfalls but I'd implor my fellow atheists to reflect on what they've posted in these threads and critically think about their stance regardless if the discussion gets heated.

1. It isn't science alone that corrects science.  Science doesn't conduct itself.  Humans create science.  Therefore, everything that influences people influences the "science" we produce.

Yes. I didn't intend to imply science was some sentient process or program capable of self-correcting itself and yes those humans that have created this useful process should be mindful of how much faith they put in to it and recognize when something is being misrepresented as science.

2.  Attempts to "drag" people kicking and screaming generally cause retrenchment and resentment. 
With time, those feelings will subside or they'll die of old age angry at that. I'm not trying to make it out to be some crusade but that's how it is when things change. That's how it is whether things change for the good or the better. Of course I see it as a good change.

Missionaries thought they were being kind by disabusing indigenous people of their "superstitious," fetishistic beliefs.  Their attempts to "civilize" aren't all that different from yours in a way.  They didn't just bring Christianity.  Missionaries brought with them various technological innovations.  They started damming rivers, which caused tremendous ecological damage we're still attempting to counteract.  They brought different medical practices and techniques.  They brought different tools (and weapons.)  Half of the dual mandate was to "uplift" people from a condition of "savagery."  Everyone was held up to a single Eurocentric standard.  Anything that deviated from this standard was decried as irredeemably backward.


There's a difference between cross-cultural exchanges, cultural assimilation, and cultural annihilation.  Is it necessary to annihilate difference to ensure compatibility?   We have so much common ground to build on together.  I'd be a failure as an activist if ignored opportunities to form coalitions across religious/spiritual lines.

I'm not sure all atheists would agree that the goal is some future where religion is completely abolished. That we'd systematically go about stripping ppl of their right to religion in favor of the realization that your life is finite or at least I don't think that's the plan. People can go ahead and tithe, pray, worship, etc. it just should have it's place, be regulated imo. Not reach the level where it has the power to allow for those ppl that'll misconstrue it or manipulate for their own gains and harm others.

I understand you're trying to warn us not to become the very thing we're currently against.  I've seen that same argument in just about all of the threads dealing with the same argument. I also don't think science will provide every single important answer to our existence but I do think it can help and support.

What this boils down to is that you guys think you have the right to insult and harass people who don't believe what you believe.  I don't agree with that.
Now I have seen some members posting reasons for why they thought insulting and ridicule were okay. Didn't agree with all of their reasoning but I didn't see it as them attacking or harassing for the simple sake of them not believing what they don't but more for the arguments and reasons used to explain their stance or their lack of doing that and just trolling. Some things were laughable. Not worthy of insult but laughable. I know calling a belief stupid may be something you consider unacceptable but I find that hard to rationalize when ppl are choosing to be skeptical of everything but their own beliefs and that the rest are just wrong and inferior. I can't say no belief is stupid.

It seems in many of the arguments the opposition rather not argue the topic but argue the ppl and their motives, assuming what they don't know of them, making the discussion about something it's not, engaging in the discussion and at the same expressing disdain for it, attacking that there's even being an argument about the topic instead of abstaining from it. Persistently trolling, refusing to remain civil (I mean if we're really insulting ppl in these arguments each one would just make our stance look worse inevitably leaving us with no one to argue with), assuming we're coming from a stance that we're superior.

 

[its that dude]

You (Method Man) keep saying beliefs have to be respected in order for us to live together peacefully.  Yet, you show no respect towards Sarah Palin and her beliefs (not that you should

).  Why are her political beliefs, which are often mixed in her religious beliefs, exempt from your respect?

Religious beliefs deserve no more respect than any other kind of beliefs.  It is subject to scrutiny and ridicule like any other beliefs.  If I ridiculed a right-wing talking point, would I be warned or banned? Of course not.  Why isn't it the same way for religious beliefs?  What is it about religion that gives a a higher status than any other kind of belief?  

[color= rgb(255, 255, 255)]

1. Derogatory comments regarding race, ethnic background, language, gender, sexual orientation or religion are strictly prohibited. The use of slurs and/or hate speech will result in immediate and permanent banishment from the community without warning.

[/color]


As far as I know, there have been no religious slurs/hate speech ever directed at anyone by atheists on NikeTalk.  I've been in pretty much all of the religious threads on NikeTalk the past several years, and this has never happened. What I have seen is a call for the execution of an atheist member of NikeTalk (and all other people who shared his same views) by a religious member 8 days ago. 

 

[its that dude]

You (Method Man) keep saying beliefs have to be respected in order for us to live together peacefully.  Yet, you show no respect towards Sarah Palin and her beliefs (not that you should

).  Why are her political beliefs, which are often mixed in her religious beliefs, exempt from your respect?

Religious beliefs deserve no more respect than any other kind of beliefs.  It is subject to scrutiny and ridicule like any other beliefs.  If I ridiculed a right-wing talking point, would I be warned or banned? Of course not.  Why isn't it the same way for religious beliefs?  What is it about religion that gives a a higher status than any other kind of belief?  

[color= rgb(255, 255, 255)]

1. Derogatory comments regarding race, ethnic background, language, gender, sexual orientation or religion are strictly prohibited. The use of slurs and/or hate speech will result in immediate and permanent banishment from the community without warning.

[/color]


As far as I know, there have been no religious slurs/hate speech ever directed at anyone by atheists on NikeTalk.  I've been in pretty much all of the religious threads on NikeTalk the past several years, and this has never happened. What I have seen is a call for the execution of an atheist member of NikeTalk (and all other people who shared his same views) by a religious member 8 days ago. 

 

[10508 cardo jr ln]

*checks last page*

 

[10508 cardo jr ln]

*checks last page*

 

[Methodical Management]

I would love for that to happen. I'd acknowledge their point but I'd endlessly enjoy talking about why I think morality is important. Wouldn't be offended at all. Even if it got to the point I didn't have the best answers in the discussion. Bring on the egoists as well.
And this is part of my concern, and the reason for the unwilling MMA sparring recruit analogy.  You guys enjoy these debates.  That's fine, and NikeTalk should be a good place to have them respectfully.  
The problem is that you don't often find willing partners to play with you.  So, what do you do?  The Colosseum's all set up, but you don't have any gladiators!  Well, you may as well just drag some people in and force them to fight, right?  How are you any better than the guy who likes to pick fights in bars?  Really, that's what it comes down to.  

Some people who train in various forms of martial arts secretly hope that they're accosted on the street.  They WANT a drunk at the bar to disrespect their date for the evening.  They can't wait for an excuse to put their techniques into practice.  Not everyone feels that way.  Some people go to a bar to relax, not to fight.  Personally, I don't enjoy arguing - but unfortunately on this board some people try to bait me into it by saying inflammatory things about issues I care deeply about.  I find that utterly selfish, manipulative, and, for lack of a better word, simply obnoxious.

This is something people hold very dear.  It's important to them.  They draw strength and inspiration from it.  You can call it a crutch, but that's your opinion.  What you're doing, though, is exploiting the strength of people's devotion to make them defend it, which gives you guys sparring partners.  

Some of you see the missionary mindset at play in society, you see how people attempt to violate the separation of church and state, you see how people try to ram their religions down your throat and use it to control you without your consent, and you're understandably upset about these things, but rather than looking at these instances as an example of the misuse of religion, you assume that religion itself is a universal bad and that you, therefore, have the right to call any religious adherent to the carpet and hold them accountable for it.  

Imagine, for a moment, that you're an American traveling abroad.  You visit a pub to relax with your fellow travelers, yet as you're attempting to settle in you feel a swelling sense of unease in the room and the pub's regulars begin to gather around your table.  They're angry.  They're angry about America's foreign policy.  They're angry about Western exploitation of the rest of the world.  They're angry about America's central role in aggravating climate change and its intransigence to reform.  They're angry about our militarism and lack of meaningful humanitarian aid.  

How SHOULD they express that?  IF they'd approached you and said, "Oh, you guys are Americans, huh?  Well, I'm sorry if you find some people here unfriendly.  We're pretty frustrated with your government's stance on....."  then you could choose to enter into that conversation and present your thoughts in support of those particular decisions, you could distance yourself from them and find common ground, or you could simply make it clear that you're not looking for any trouble and that you're just here on business/vacation/whatever and agree to disagree.   

That's not what tends to happen in these threads.  It's more like if the pub regulars started spilling their drinks on the Americans, made fun of their economic woes and military failures, and set about calling them fat, lazy, and stupid.  Their criticism of Americans may contain complaints about foreign policy, economic exploitation, environmental issues, and what have you - but it's presented such that if you ARE an American, you ARE an idiot - and the ONLY way to avoid that comparison is to emigrate to another country.  Odds are, you're not going to respond to bar bullying by renouncing your citizenship.  

In my opinion, you need to frame your discussions responsibly, avoid baiting or bullying, and focus your criticism such that you refrain from the sort of massive generalizations and stereotypes that pervade posts like this one.  You should also consider self-policing.  If someone's doing a disservice to your positions by being disrespectful, you should call them on it.  Too often, it seems utterly cliquish - like a cheering circle or a roving gang.  Even if I weren't an administrator, I'd still have spoken up about this because I think the way some of you are carrying yourselves is deplorable and I'm ashamed to be associated with it.  Some of you truly are reproducing many of the behaviors that led you to despise organized religion to begin with.  

Religious beliefs deserve no more respect than any other kind of beliefs.  It is subject to scrutiny and ridicule like any other beliefs.  If I ridiculed a right-wing talking point, would I be warned or banned? Of course not.  Why isn't it the same way for religious beliefs?  What is it about religion that gives a a higher status than any other kind of belief?  

You remember TBONE during the '08 election?  THAT is how some of you are acting.  Sorry.
Before he was banned, TBONE did nothing but dredge Drudge and repost it on NT.  ACORN "scandal?"  Oh, you'd better believe that's a topic.  Obama may not have been born in the US?  Oh baby, wait til the pinkos on NT get a load of that!  The libs are fawning over Obama's performance in the debates?  Let me at 'em!!!  

At a certain point, it wasn't even about the issues.  It was like tribalism.  That's what I mean by poisoning the well. 

If Sarah Palin were a member of this community, I wouldn't call her a moron.  Even if I think she is a moron, I don't, by extension, call everyone who admires her a moron.  That's just argumentum ad hominem. 

[Mark Jackson]You're better than that.[/Mark Jackson]

So yeah, King may have said his faith in his religion prompted him to do what he did but it does not take faith to do what he did.I'm also not denying what faith based movements can do. If you look at it on all sides you'd know they can do just as much bad as they can do good. It's a merely a tool. One that history shows humans will misuse and abuse given the chance. Books of the bible were written just so Constantine could keep his reign in Rome going. Hitler was a christian.

It's funny, because many people argue that Hitler was more of an atheist than a Christian, despite his public affiliations.  It doesn't take much effort to find abuses of religion or examples of how religious dogma was altered for the purpose of control.  

Of course, you could take that entire excerpt and replace religion with science if you wanted to.  "Science is merely a tool; one that history shows humans will misuse and abuse given the chance."  Much was made recently about the how Gabrielle Giffords' shooter was an atheist and how the shooting spree was motivated by nihilism.  

Dr. King and Malcolm X weren't perfect men (and who is?), but they certainly help illustrate how faith can be utilized constructively and underscore why we shouldn't paint all religious adherents with a broad brush.  Our community was richer and more just for their presence.  I think it would be wise to remain cognizant of that rather than simply bashing anyone whose faith is important to them as "weak minded."  

But what is fueling the sociocultural environment or causing it to change in order for religion(s) and belief systems to adapt? I'd say part of it stems from secular ideas.

As long as we're talking about ideological evolution, it's worth noting that monocausality has all the currency of the geocentric model of the universe. 

Granted but that's only due to the majority and those in power calling the shots. I shouldn't have said a "select few" since many others backed it or ignored it but it became extremely popular at the time from prominent scientists. Unfortunately, not many scientists spoke against it or spoke up at all. If they did they'd be belittled, discredited, looked down upon, and even ostracized. It was pseudoscience then just as much as it is now even if they thought otherwise. A running fad at the most.

Well, I think that's representative of a modernist or absolutist perspective wherein one universal truth exists and, through the application of science, humanity is inching ever closer to its discovery.  Through the benefit of hindsight, we've found that sort of mistaken certitude has characterized most of our rebuked paradigms.  A couple of generations ago, schoolchildren would learn that electrons were the smallest particles in existence.  People truly believed that.  Now, when you make a new discovery at the subquantum level, do you have the hubris to say that THIS TIME you've finally apprehended the "true" foundation of matter, or do you acknowledge the possibility that quarks or what have you may represent just another step in a potentially infinite progression?

We're constantly revising our understanding of reality.  Many of the "laws" we've postulated have been appended, contextualized, or refuted outright.  It's sort of arrogant, in the present, to sit there and say that the consensus view of reality is inherently stronger and better founded than the antiquated paradigms it replaced.  Were the fabled dinosaurs of the Mesozoic era objectively "better" than the ancient creatures of the Paleozoic era, 95% of whom perished in the Permian extinction?  Well, they were newer species.  Newer often connotes "better," "more advanced."  Dinosaurs themselves evolved over 150 million years.  *%@+ sapiens have been evolving for but a minute sliver of that time, under 200,000 years by some estimates.  That's a lot of "progress."  Dinosaurs succumbed to extinction not because they weren't evolved "enough," but simply because, if we're to accept prevailing wisdom, they were ill-suited to their suddenly changed environment.  

We may discover something tomorrow that completely invalidates much of our prevailing understanding of the universe.  In that sense, the subscribers of ANY given paradigm could easily be characterized as the devotees of pseudoscience through the benefit of hindsight.  

Now, you can take this and say, "well, that's true, but it IS ignorant to cling to a paradigm that has been disproven, and that's exactly what Christians are doing."  However, that's still a subjective value-judgment.  Scientists are still making use of theories today that lack universal explanatory power.  In other words, we may believe that a black hole can defy the "laws of physics," but we don't consider those "laws" a fairytale.  They're useful in helping us make sense of our reality here on Earth.  Further discovery has served to situated and contextualize what we once considered universal.  

Saying, "I believe in God and heaven" isn't the same as saying "Jesus rode a dinosaur."  

It's important to situate our own scientific traditions and bear in mind that these practices, too, are cultural and relative.  

This is where I think people can really benefit from an epistemological grounding. 

A lot of times ppl take good ideas and warp them in to belief systems. I'm not defending secularism as if someone hasn't or couldn't use it for bad reasons.

And I assume you wouldn't enjoy being mocked or harassed for your secularism due to those abuses.

Well that's interesting. I'd find it rather hypocritical for a nihilist to do that don't you? I'd never did agree with the thought that if you indeed discovered the right way to live or the meaning of life that you'd be compelled to spread it and make sure everybody else followed it too. If they did though, I'd be just s much against that as I would to atheists trying to do it.Atheists/Humanists/Secularists aren't forcing theists to be them

2.  Attempts to "drag" people kicking and screaming generally cause retrenchment and resentment. 
With time, those feelings will subside or they'll die of old age angry at that. I'm not trying to make it out to be some crusade but that's how it is when things change. That's how it is whether things change for the good or the better. Of course I see it as a good change.
And this reads like "yeah, we're gonna push you to believe what we do and if you're bitter, too bad.  You'll either get over it or die.  Either way, people like you are en route to extinction.  That's progress." 
That strikes me as intolerant.

I'm not sure all atheists would agree that the goal is some future where religion is completely abolished. That we'd systematically go about stripping ppl of their right to religion in favor of the realization that your life is finite or at least I don't think that's the plan. People can go ahead and tithe, pray, worship, etc. it just should have it's place, be regulated imo. Not reach the level where it has the power to allow for those ppl that'll misconstrue it or manipulate for their own gains and harm others.

If it's okay for people to "go ahead and tithe, pray, and worship, etc.", then why isn't it okay for them to have a thread like this?  The OP made it clear early on that he WASN'T looking for a fight and that he was resentful of the way atheists had been going around trolling in other areas of the board.  Apparently, some people considered that a call to arms.  "Oh, how dare they call us trolls!  Come on boys, let's invade their thread!!"  No irony there. 

How often in relationship advice threads do you see people come in to call the participants sinners for discussing premarital sex?  In 11 years here I've been subjected to a lot of negativity and insults, but not once has anyone told me that I'm going to hell for toiling on the sabbath.  

If you want to start a thread that's specifically about questioning religion, that's fine - but it doesn't have to be a constant thing the way TBONE was CONSTANTLY trolling to rile up the Libs and you certainly don't need to go into threads where people just want to discuss their own faith in peace and try to freak out the squares.  We do have to SHARE this board, after all, and part of that is realizing that we don't have the right to try and commandeer the community to advance our own personal agendas.  

This thread had nothing to do with evolution vs. creationism.  It had nothing to do with converting NikeTalk members to Christianity.  It seemed to me that people just wanted to discuss passages from a book they found inspiring.  I don't see what's so horrible about that.  The worst you can say is that the OP wanted to see if he could "get away" with such a post within the current climate - and if that's so, I think it's fair to say that you guys failed the tolerance test. 

 I've been in pretty much all of the religious threads on NikeTalk the past several years, and this has never happened. What I have seen is a call for the execution of an atheist member of NikeTalk (and all other people who shared his same views) by a religious member 8 days ago. 

If someone calls for the execution of another member, etc. then the best thing to do is to report the post.  

Calling someone stupid because they don't believe what you believe is against the rules.  Calling another member stupid in general is against the rules.  What I see borders on harassment and it needs to stop.  There's plenty of space for civil discussions and that's what we're here to promote.  What I've seen has not been civil.  

Someone used to post a scripture of the day thread on here and that had to stop due to all the copycat posting it incited.  What's sad is that the inevitable "atheist thought of the day" thread had nothing to do with secular morality and nonreligious words of inspiration... it was just gratuitous religion-bashing.  Really, is that the way to show others what you stand FOR?  

I believe in treating others with respect and compassion.  I believe in the value of diversity.  If I want to be the change I wish to see in this world, I'm not gonna go around bashing everyone who believes in God.  I'm going to try and live my life in such a way as to demonstrate that one doesn't necessarily NEED to believe in God in order to value empathy and peace.

The only point I need to prove to a religious person is that we can live and work together toward common goals even if we don't always share the same beliefs.  If we can at least share that belief, no conversion or coercion would be necessary. 

 

[Methodical Management]

I would love for that to happen. I'd acknowledge their point but I'd endlessly enjoy talking about why I think morality is important. Wouldn't be offended at all. Even if it got to the point I didn't have the best answers in the discussion. Bring on the egoists as well.
And this is part of my concern, and the reason for the unwilling MMA sparring recruit analogy.  You guys enjoy these debates.  That's fine, and NikeTalk should be a good place to have them respectfully.  
The problem is that you don't often find willing partners to play with you.  So, what do you do?  The Colosseum's all set up, but you don't have any gladiators!  Well, you may as well just drag some people in and force them to fight, right?  How are you any better than the guy who likes to pick fights in bars?  Really, that's what it comes down to.  

Some people who train in various forms of martial arts secretly hope that they're accosted on the street.  They WANT a drunk at the bar to disrespect their date for the evening.  They can't wait for an excuse to put their techniques into practice.  Not everyone feels that way.  Some people go to a bar to relax, not to fight.  Personally, I don't enjoy arguing - but unfortunately on this board some people try to bait me into it by saying inflammatory things about issues I care deeply about.  I find that utterly selfish, manipulative, and, for lack of a better word, simply obnoxious.

This is something people hold very dear.  It's important to them.  They draw strength and inspiration from it.  You can call it a crutch, but that's your opinion.  What you're doing, though, is exploiting the strength of people's devotion to make them defend it, which gives you guys sparring partners.  

Some of you see the missionary mindset at play in society, you see how people attempt to violate the separation of church and state, you see how people try to ram their religions down your throat and use it to control you without your consent, and you're understandably upset about these things, but rather than looking at these instances as an example of the misuse of religion, you assume that religion itself is a universal bad and that you, therefore, have the right to call any religious adherent to the carpet and hold them accountable for it.  

Imagine, for a moment, that you're an American traveling abroad.  You visit a pub to relax with your fellow travelers, yet as you're attempting to settle in you feel a swelling sense of unease in the room and the pub's regulars begin to gather around your table.  They're angry.  They're angry about America's foreign policy.  They're angry about Western exploitation of the rest of the world.  They're angry about America's central role in aggravating climate change and its intransigence to reform.  They're angry about our militarism and lack of meaningful humanitarian aid.  

How SHOULD they express that?  IF they'd approached you and said, "Oh, you guys are Americans, huh?  Well, I'm sorry if you find some people here unfriendly.  We're pretty frustrated with your government's stance on....."  then you could choose to enter into that conversation and present your thoughts in support of those particular decisions, you could distance yourself from them and find common ground, or you could simply make it clear that you're not looking for any trouble and that you're just here on business/vacation/whatever and agree to disagree.   

That's not what tends to happen in these threads.  It's more like if the pub regulars started spilling their drinks on the Americans, made fun of their economic woes and military failures, and set about calling them fat, lazy, and stupid.  Their criticism of Americans may contain complaints about foreign policy, economic exploitation, environmental issues, and what have you - but it's presented such that if you ARE an American, you ARE an idiot - and the ONLY way to avoid that comparison is to emigrate to another country.  Odds are, you're not going to respond to bar bullying by renouncing your citizenship.  

In my opinion, you need to frame your discussions responsibly, avoid baiting or bullying, and focus your criticism such that you refrain from the sort of massive generalizations and stereotypes that pervade posts like this one.  You should also consider self-policing.  If someone's doing a disservice to your positions by being disrespectful, you should call them on it.  Too often, it seems utterly cliquish - like a cheering circle or a roving gang.  Even if I weren't an administrator, I'd still have spoken up about this because I think the way some of you are carrying yourselves is deplorable and I'm ashamed to be associated with it.  Some of you truly are reproducing many of the behaviors that led you to despise organized religion to begin with.  

Religious beliefs deserve no more respect than any other kind of beliefs.  It is subject to scrutiny and ridicule like any other beliefs.  If I ridiculed a right-wing talking point, would I be warned or banned? Of course not.  Why isn't it the same way for religious beliefs?  What is it about religion that gives a a higher status than any other kind of belief?  

You remember TBONE during the '08 election?  THAT is how some of you are acting.  Sorry.
Before he was banned, TBONE did nothing but dredge Drudge and repost it on NT.  ACORN "scandal?"  Oh, you'd better believe that's a topic.  Obama may not have been born in the US?  Oh baby, wait til the pinkos on NT get a load of that!  The libs are fawning over Obama's performance in the debates?  Let me at 'em!!!  

At a certain point, it wasn't even about the issues.  It was like tribalism.  That's what I mean by poisoning the well. 

If Sarah Palin were a member of this community, I wouldn't call her a moron.  Even if I think she is a moron, I don't, by extension, call everyone who admires her a moron.  That's just argumentum ad hominem. 

[Mark Jackson]You're better than that.[/Mark Jackson]

So yeah, King may have said his faith in his religion prompted him to do what he did but it does not take faith to do what he did.I'm also not denying what faith based movements can do. If you look at it on all sides you'd know they can do just as much bad as they can do good. It's a merely a tool. One that history shows humans will misuse and abuse given the chance. Books of the bible were written just so Constantine could keep his reign in Rome going. Hitler was a christian.

It's funny, because many people argue that Hitler was more of an atheist than a Christian, despite his public affiliations.  It doesn't take much effort to find abuses of religion or examples of how religious dogma was altered for the purpose of control.  

Of course, you could take that entire excerpt and replace religion with science if you wanted to.  "Science is merely a tool; one that history shows humans will misuse and abuse given the chance."  Much was made recently about the how Gabrielle Giffords' shooter was an atheist and how the shooting spree was motivated by nihilism.  

Dr. King and Malcolm X weren't perfect men (and who is?), but they certainly help illustrate how faith can be utilized constructively and underscore why we shouldn't paint all religious adherents with a broad brush.  Our community was richer and more just for their presence.  I think it would be wise to remain cognizant of that rather than simply bashing anyone whose faith is important to them as "weak minded."  

But what is fueling the sociocultural environment or causing it to change in order for religion(s) and belief systems to adapt? I'd say part of it stems from secular ideas.

As long as we're talking about ideological evolution, it's worth noting that monocausality has all the currency of the geocentric model of the universe. 

Granted but that's only due to the majority and those in power calling the shots. I shouldn't have said a "select few" since many others backed it or ignored it but it became extremely popular at the time from prominent scientists. Unfortunately, not many scientists spoke against it or spoke up at all. If they did they'd be belittled, discredited, looked down upon, and even ostracized. It was pseudoscience then just as much as it is now even if they thought otherwise. A running fad at the most.

Well, I think that's representative of a modernist or absolutist perspective wherein one universal truth exists and, through the application of science, humanity is inching ever closer to its discovery.  Through the benefit of hindsight, we've found that sort of mistaken certitude has characterized most of our rebuked paradigms.  A couple of generations ago, schoolchildren would learn that electrons were the smallest particles in existence.  People truly believed that.  Now, when you make a new discovery at the subquantum level, do you have the hubris to say that THIS TIME you've finally apprehended the "true" foundation of matter, or do you acknowledge the possibility that quarks or what have you may represent just another step in a potentially infinite progression?

We're constantly revising our understanding of reality.  Many of the "laws" we've postulated have been appended, contextualized, or refuted outright.  It's sort of arrogant, in the present, to sit there and say that the consensus view of reality is inherently stronger and better founded than the antiquated paradigms it replaced.  Were the fabled dinosaurs of the Mesozoic era objectively "better" than the ancient creatures of the Paleozoic era, 95% of whom perished in the Permian extinction?  Well, they were newer species.  Newer often connotes "better," "more advanced."  Dinosaurs themselves evolved over 150 million years.  *%@+ sapiens have been evolving for but a minute sliver of that time, under 200,000 years by some estimates.  That's a lot of "progress."  Dinosaurs succumbed to extinction not because they weren't evolved "enough," but simply because, if we're to accept prevailing wisdom, they were ill-suited to their suddenly changed environment.  

We may discover something tomorrow that completely invalidates much of our prevailing understanding of the universe.  In that sense, the subscribers of ANY given paradigm could easily be characterized as the devotees of pseudoscience through the benefit of hindsight.  

Now, you can take this and say, "well, that's true, but it IS ignorant to cling to a paradigm that has been disproven, and that's exactly what Christians are doing."  However, that's still a subjective value-judgment.  Scientists are still making use of theories today that lack universal explanatory power.  In other words, we may believe that a black hole can defy the "laws of physics," but we don't consider those "laws" a fairytale.  They're useful in helping us make sense of our reality here on Earth.  Further discovery has served to situated and contextualize what we once considered universal.  

Saying, "I believe in God and heaven" isn't the same as saying "Jesus rode a dinosaur."  

It's important to situate our own scientific traditions and bear in mind that these practices, too, are cultural and relative.  

This is where I think people can really benefit from an epistemological grounding. 

A lot of times ppl take good ideas and warp them in to belief systems. I'm not defending secularism as if someone hasn't or couldn't use it for bad reasons.

And I assume you wouldn't enjoy being mocked or harassed for your secularism due to those abuses.

Well that's interesting. I'd find it rather hypocritical for a nihilist to do that don't you? I'd never did agree with the thought that if you indeed discovered the right way to live or the meaning of life that you'd be compelled to spread it and make sure everybody else followed it too. If they did though, I'd be just s much against that as I would to atheists trying to do it.Atheists/Humanists/Secularists aren't forcing theists to be them

2.  Attempts to "drag" people kicking and screaming generally cause retrenchment and resentment. 
With time, those feelings will subside or they'll die of old age angry at that. I'm not trying to make it out to be some crusade but that's how it is when things change. That's how it is whether things change for the good or the better. Of course I see it as a good change.
And this reads like "yeah, we're gonna push you to believe what we do and if you're bitter, too bad.  You'll either get over it or die.  Either way, people like you are en route to extinction.  That's progress." 
That strikes me as intolerant.

I'm not sure all atheists would agree that the goal is some future where religion is completely abolished. That we'd systematically go about stripping ppl of their right to religion in favor of the realization that your life is finite or at least I don't think that's the plan. People can go ahead and tithe, pray, worship, etc. it just should have it's place, be regulated imo. Not reach the level where it has the power to allow for those ppl that'll misconstrue it or manipulate for their own gains and harm others.

If it's okay for people to "go ahead and tithe, pray, and worship, etc.", then why isn't it okay for them to have a thread like this?  The OP made it clear early on that he WASN'T looking for a fight and that he was resentful of the way atheists had been going around trolling in other areas of the board.  Apparently, some people considered that a call to arms.  "Oh, how dare they call us trolls!  Come on boys, let's invade their thread!!"  No irony there. 

How often in relationship advice threads do you see people come in to call the participants sinners for discussing premarital sex?  In 11 years here I've been subjected to a lot of negativity and insults, but not once has anyone told me that I'm going to hell for toiling on the sabbath.  

If you want to start a thread that's specifically about questioning religion, that's fine - but it doesn't have to be a constant thing the way TBONE was CONSTANTLY trolling to rile up the Libs and you certainly don't need to go into threads where people just want to discuss their own faith in peace and try to freak out the squares.  We do have to SHARE this board, after all, and part of that is realizing that we don't have the right to try and commandeer the community to advance our own personal agendas.  

This thread had nothing to do with evolution vs. creationism.  It had nothing to do with converting NikeTalk members to Christianity.  It seemed to me that people just wanted to discuss passages from a book they found inspiring.  I don't see what's so horrible about that.  The worst you can say is that the OP wanted to see if he could "get away" with such a post within the current climate - and if that's so, I think it's fair to say that you guys failed the tolerance test. 

 I've been in pretty much all of the religious threads on NikeTalk the past several years, and this has never happened. What I have seen is a call for the execution of an atheist member of NikeTalk (and all other people who shared his same views) by a religious member 8 days ago. 

If someone calls for the execution of another member, etc. then the best thing to do is to report the post.  

Calling someone stupid because they don't believe what you believe is against the rules.  Calling another member stupid in general is against the rules.  What I see borders on harassment and it needs to stop.  There's plenty of space for civil discussions and that's what we're here to promote.  What I've seen has not been civil.  

Someone used to post a scripture of the day thread on here and that had to stop due to all the copycat posting it incited.  What's sad is that the inevitable "atheist thought of the day" thread had nothing to do with secular morality and nonreligious words of inspiration... it was just gratuitous religion-bashing.  Really, is that the way to show others what you stand FOR?  

I believe in treating others with respect and compassion.  I believe in the value of diversity.  If I want to be the change I wish to see in this world, I'm not gonna go around bashing everyone who believes in God.  I'm going to try and live my life in such a way as to demonstrate that one doesn't necessarily NEED to believe in God in order to value empathy and peace.

The only point I need to prove to a religious person is that we can live and work together toward common goals even if we don't always share the same beliefs.  If we can at least share that belief, no conversion or coercion would be necessary. 

 

[an dee 51o]

Originally Posted by Method Man


The only point I need to prove to a religious person is that we can live and work together toward common goals even if we don't always share the same beliefs.  If we can at least share that belief, no conversion or coercion would be necessary. 

Except that the majority of religious people are unable to be swayed by common sense because of what it says in their holy book. Why are gays bad? Why shouldn't they be able to get married? "Because it says so in the bible." End of story. No debating with them, as they walk to cast their YES on Prop 8.

 

[an dee 51o]

Originally Posted by Method Man


The only point I need to prove to a religious person is that we can live and work together toward common goals even if we don't always share the same beliefs.  If we can at least share that belief, no conversion or coercion would be necessary. 

Except that the majority of religious people are unable to be swayed by common sense because of what it says in their holy book. Why are gays bad? Why shouldn't they be able to get married? "Because it says so in the bible." End of story. No debating with them, as they walk to cast their YES on Prop 8.

 

[mo matik]

Yeah, Jesus was pretty amazing. 

Truly a beautiful story. Worth it if you have the time. Brings tears to my eyes.

 

[mo matik]

Yeah, Jesus was pretty amazing. 

Truly a beautiful story. Worth it if you have the time. Brings tears to my eyes.

 

[fade on you]

 

[fade on you]

 

[south sole]

It is important to know how to approach religious folks if you desire to have a progressive dialog. I always provide information on the History of Bible and its Origins and hope that religious folks will do their due diligence and find the answer for themselves. It worked for me. There are numerous documentaries made about the origins of religion that Religious folk can check out for themselves. One person that has carefully broken down the monotheistic faith of today in a respectful manner in every religious thread is Hazeleyehoney. It is important to encourage and admonish more religious folks to actually study for themselves objectively only then they will come to discover that Christianity as a religious system is not what its advertised to be. As matter of fact, not even close to what it proclaims. This is the fear that the people will discover the hoax that is Christianity and the lies pastors perpetuate every Sun. If they only knew their origins. We have to ask ourselves, how is it that every other spiritual system has found a way to work in harmony with humanity, (ie Buddhism & Yogis) Except Christianity and Islam? The reason why Christianity and Islam gets attacked so much is because 1) both of the systems lie about their origins, 2) the mis-characterization of other cultures they know nothing about, 3) the constant proselytization of its contradictory tenants, and 4) the obvious borrowing of older world systems and then having the audacity to call that which they borrowed as their own. This is why in the debates they only debate Muslims, Christians and Atheist but never the Africans.
BTW I used to be a staunch Christian supporter. No biases here. 

 

[south sole]

It is important to know how to approach religious folks if you desire to have a progressive dialog. I always provide information on the History of Bible and its Origins and hope that religious folks will do their due diligence and find the answer for themselves. It worked for me. There are numerous documentaries made about the origins of religion that Religious folk can check out for themselves. One person that has carefully broken down the monotheistic faith of today in a respectful manner in every religious thread is Hazeleyehoney. It is important to encourage and admonish more religious folks to actually study for themselves objectively only then they will come to discover that Christianity as a religious system is not what its advertised to be. As matter of fact, not even close to what it proclaims. This is the fear that the people will discover the hoax that is Christianity and the lies pastors perpetuate every Sun. If they only knew their origins. We have to ask ourselves, how is it that every other spiritual system has found a way to work in harmony with humanity, (ie Buddhism & Yogis) Except Christianity and Islam? The reason why Christianity and Islam gets attacked so much is because 1) both of the systems lie about their origins, 2) the mis-characterization of other cultures they know nothing about, 3) the constant proselytization of its contradictory tenants, and 4) the obvious borrowing of older world systems and then having the audacity to call that which they borrowed as their own. This is why in the debates they only debate Muslims, Christians and Atheist but never the Africans.
BTW I used to be a staunch Christian supporter. No biases here. 

 

[south sole]

Interesting commentary. 

 

[south sole]

Interesting commentary.