|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 01/11/2007 : 22:36:59 [Permalink]
|
I think the henotheism issue comes down to this: Accuracy. Jews are not presently henotheistic, in fact, they are enormously and famously monotheistic when compared to most religions.
So ragging on the Jews for now being henotheists is simply inaccurate. That they spend so much time worshipping any god is more to the point. They are just as good a target for atheists as any Hindu pantheists or trinitarian Christians when it comes to the god thing. But it is very interesting to see that they evolved from polytheism, through a transitional henotheist stage, to monotheism (with the fossils available for study). Polytheism must have been the norm in ancient times.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 01/11/2007 22:38:48 |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2007 : 22:43:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Hmm. It never occured to me that this was meant as taunting or baiting. I don't quite get why the henotheism comment was so bad when memebers frequently caracterize religion as mythology, myself included.
I thought we were only soft on Buddhists.
Right. Jews already believe in one god, but implying they might believe in more than one is somehow demeaning to them? Why? It isn't like 1000 gods are somehow more improbable than 1 god existing.
I don't get it either. It's like admitting I believe in a unicorn, but getting pissed if someone described me as believing in unicorns. 
Gee. What a sensitive observation. So, what you are saying is all people of faith should be open to ridicule, or have their beliefs challenged because they obviously don't think the way we do?
Or is it that people of faith should recognize how silly they are and therefore not be offended when their belief is challenged?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2007 : 05:07:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
... But it is very interesting to see that they evolved from polytheism, through a transitional henotheist stage, to monotheism (with the fossils available for study). Polytheism must have been the norm in ancient times.
A few interesting works addressing this evolution are Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic by Frank Moore Cross, The Rise of Yahwism by J.C. DeMoore, and The Early History of God by Mark S. Smith, with DeMoore's discussion of the post-Akhenaten "counter-reformation" and its impact on Mesopotamian culture being of particular interest. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2007 : 05:11:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
I don't get it either.
Nor do you wish to - I'm not surprised. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2007 : 10:27:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Gee. What a sensitive observation. So, what you are saying is all people of faith should be open to ridicule, or have their beliefs challenged because they obviously don't think the way we do?
Or is it that people of faith should recognize how silly they are and therefore not be offended when their belief is challenged?
I'm saying that when it comes to questions like "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?," any answer above "zero" is equally stupid. And no, I don't see any reason to be "sensitive" to someone who chooses to take offense at that fact.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2007 : 15:53:10 [Permalink]
|
I agree with you on this, H.H. "Sensitivity" be damned. So long as we don't persecute the religious, why not attack their nonsense?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2007 : 23:01:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
"Sensitivity" be damned. So long as we don't persecute the religious
I can sure agree with that. |
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2007 : 07:40:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Gee. What a sensitive observation. So, what you are saying is all people of faith should be open to ridicule, or have their beliefs challenged because they obviously don't think the way we do?
Or is it that people of faith should recognize how silly they are and therefore not be offended when their belief is challenged?
I'm saying that when it comes to questions like "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?," any answer above "zero" is equally stupid. And no, I don't see any reason to be "sensitive" to someone who chooses to take offense at that fact.
Pummeling strawmen is a passtime that should be left behind once you enter your teens. I suspect that you know nothing of the works of folks such as Spinoza, Wieman, and Whitehead, and neither childish ridicule nor juvenile bombast will mask that ignorance.
Hopefully you will not "choose to take offense at that fact." |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2007 : 08:11:52 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote: quote:
I'm saying that when it comes to questions like "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?," any answer above "zero" is equally stupid. And no, I don't see any reason to be "sensitive" to someone who chooses to take offense at that fact.
Half wrote: quote:
I agree with you on this, H.H. "Sensitivity" be damned. So long as we don't persecute the religious, why not attack their nonsense?
This might be too subtle for some to get, but the problem is not criticism of and debate over matters of faith, but rather, the tone and context in which it is done.
It somebody acts in a way which is harmful to others because of his or her faith (such as working to ban gay marriage, or an act of terrorism) it makes total sense that they be criticized viciously. Many fundamentalist Christians are trying to radically change American and other societies so that they are backwards. This is a true danger and it should be attacked as viciously as is effective for shutting the bastards down. (See, tone, I used the word “bastards”.)
But most religious people are as kind and rational in their behavior as the average nonreligious person. So using harsh language such as “stupid” and “nonsense” in a general discussion about any type of religious faith is IMO just plain mean and serves no purpose except to make skeptics look like assholes.
And to be clear, I'm not saying religious faith shouldn't be debated and criticized (as assholes like Sam Harris often say about people like myself and Kil and Consequent just because we are sensitive toward and come to the defense of many religious people). I am saying that since that type of criticism and debate is pointless in regards to politics, it is better done in a friendlier and more civilized tone.
Edited to add: I'm not trying to merely protect the public image of skeptics or be PC. I really do think that if groups of people who identify with each other (such as "skeptics") become accepting of using a cruel tone when talking about out-groups, the seeds of hatred are being sown. It isn't a good thing to hate anyone for any one aspect of themselves. In other words, it is fine to hate fundamentalism and what it does, or to hate certain people who happen to be fundamentalists (Jerry Falwell) but it is bad to hate fundamentalist people in general, and it is really bad to hate religious people in general. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 01/13/2007 08:16:32 |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2007 : 09:55:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Humbert wrote: quote:
I'm saying that when it comes to questions like "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?," any answer above "zero" is equally stupid. And no, I don't see any reason to be "sensitive" to someone who chooses to take offense at that fact.
Half wrote: quote:
I agree with you on this, H.H. "Sensitivity" be damned. So long as we don't persecute the religious, why not attack their nonsense?
This might be too subtle for some to get, but the problem is not criticism of and debate over matters of faith, but rather, the tone and context in which it is done.
It somebody acts in a way which is harmful to others because of his or her faith (such as working to ban gay marriage, or an act of terrorism) it makes total sense that they be criticized viciously. Many fundamentalist Christians are trying to radically change American and other societies so that they are backwards. This is a true danger and it should be attacked as viciously as is effective for shutting the bastards down. (See, tone, I used the word “bastards”.)
But most religious people are as kind and rational in their behavior as the average nonreligious person. So using harsh language such as “stupid” and “nonsense” in a general discussion about any type of religious faith is IMO just plain mean and serves no purpose except to make skeptics look like assholes.
And to be clear, I'm not saying religious faith shouldn't be debated and criticized (as assholes like Sam Harris often say about people like myself and Kil and Consequent just because we are sensitive toward and come to the defense of many religious people). I am saying that since that type of criticism and debate is pointless in regards to politics, it is better done in a friendlier and more civilized tone.
Edited to add: I'm not trying to merely protect the public image of skeptics or be PC. I really do think that if groups of people who identify with each other (such as "skeptics") become accepting of using a cruel tone when talking about out-groups, the seeds of hatred are being sown. It isn't a good thing to hate anyone for any one aspect of themselves. In other words, it is fine to hate fundamentalism and what it does, or to hate certain people who happen to be fundamentalists (Jerry Falwell) but it is bad to hate fundamentalist people in general, and it is really bad to hate religious people in general.
Amen |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2007 : 13:46:51 [Permalink]
|
I don't know that H was talking about being mean. I think he was expressing a bit of frustration at how he is required to address the sillyness of some peoples beliefs. Such as entertaining the question of how many angels can dance on a pin head just because people around the discussion may believe in angels. I, for one, would never directly seek to target another persons belief for ridicule, but also, I would find it quite hypocritical of me to simply smile and nod if I were part of a 'sensitive' religious conversation.
Of course, I agree with most people here about realizing who your enemies are. I also see no reason why two (or more) people who disagree totally on several different issues can't come together on the ones they do agree on. Religion is a near and dear friend to many. It is a conversation stopper. Once it comes up we are forced to walk on glass trying desperately not to offend others for the sake of civility. This I have a problem with. Perhaps H does also. It is perhaps this bottling up of feelings and thoughts that leads to 'cruel' or 'hatred laced' tones in many skeptic groups.
I, personally, do not see any reason to passively or actively support any belief that is irrational. I am not interested in saving face, or being PC. I don't care who is offended by any comment I ever make. If I sincerely believe something, then I expect that those who disagree come to me with their reasoning to change my mind. If I have reason to think as I do (and I never talk about something that matters unless I am informed in the interest of intellectual honesty) then I have no reason to be ashamed to think that way. Of course, If I do hold a false belief what purpose would it serve others, or me for that matter, simply allowing me to persist in this falsehood.
I realize many are not rational (in fact all of us are capable of praticing emotional thinking and irrational justification), but rather than admitting that as an obstacle, why do we not make it a primary goal to further critical thinking? I appreciate greatly the internet and sites such as this one for making such rational discussion available, but must we limit it to cyberspace? In another point to follow Marf, who I think may agree with me, we should worry more about teaching critical thinking and questioning rather than simply attacking religion. I would love to see the day when saying "Your not being very skeptical." is a harsh admonition that begets fruitful conversation, debate, study, and learning. If in that world we still had the same ratio of religious people as today, I would still consider it a victory because, at least then, we would be able to confront anyones decisions and question their basis. Although, personally I cannot see such a world because the amount of special pleading required for religion would probably snap us into the current one again. This being the reason I do find religious critiques fruitful to compile.
I don't mind religion or the religious, I just mind the irrational. In short, anyone who thinks that any belief they hold is not open to criticism and does not need to be based in logic and fact, is going to be harshly recieved by me. And of course, I certainly am not going to allow special pleading for religion or any other particularly cherished beliefs.
|
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2007 : 14:17:14 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox stated, in part:quote:
This might be too subtle for some to get, but the problem is not criticism of and debate over matters of faith, but rather, the tone and context in which it is done.
While I'm sure you have the advantage on many of us in subtlety, a few of us are capable of being appropriately polite in discussions, even with religious people with whom we strongly disagree. I don't believe in some of the more aggressive approaches to promoting atheism, as I mentioned in (if I recall correctly) opposing Dawkins' implication that children should be taken away from religious families, but I do feel that no quarter should be given for magical thinking.
If someone objects to me calling their cherished mystical beliefs "bullshit," then tough.
Atheists are continually condemned as immoral, soulless individuals by many religious people, not just by fundamentalists. Why should secular people be forced to defend themselves with one rhetorical hand tied behind their backs, when simply calling "bullshit" is often the appropriate approach? We should indeed be as polite as possible (with our mileage varying according to our innate character), but essentially, anything goes, so long as it's not persecution.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2007 : 14:30:09 [Permalink]
|
Neurosis wrote: quote:
I don't know that H was talking about being mean. I think he was expressing a bit of frustration at how he is required to address the sillyness of some peoples beliefs.
Nobody said that Humbert was talking about being mean, but rather, I suggested that he and others in this exchange were being a little mean.
quote:
I, for one, would never directly seek to target another persons belief for ridicule, but also, I would find it quite hypocritical of me to simply smile and nod if I were part of a 'sensitive' religious conversation.
I don't think I or anyone else here is suggesting that skeptics “smile and nod” when such issues come up in common conversation. I merely tried to say that there is a difference between ridicule and polite expression of skepticism. I had an experience a while ago where I was at a dinner party and people started talking about ghosts. I did not keep my skepticism a secret at all. But I expressed it in a way that didn't insult those who believed in ghosts. They felt free to say their reasons for believing, and I felt free to explain why their reasons weren't enough evidence for myself. But if I had said that believing in ghosts was “stupid” or “nonsense”, unless we were very close friends and they could take it as tongue and cheek, they would have felt hurt. It wouldn't have increased the cause of critical thinking. It would have only served to hurt feelings, and probably would have shut down the conversation entirely. In fact, by voicing my opinions politely, it is more likely that I promoted skepticism.
quote:
Religion is a near and dear friend to many. It is a conversation stopper. Once it comes up we are forced to walk on glass trying desperately not to offend others for the sake of civility. This I have a problem with.
Why do you have a problem with it? Some people are secure in what they believe and do not desire to debate it. Why should they be required to get involved in an intellectual debate over theology every time beliefs are brought up. We can politely agree to disagree on things, and that way we skeptics do not deny our skepticism, but we also don't needlessly insult peoples' most dearly-held worldviews. I also don't think “we” are so different from “them”. I have way more in common with a progressive Christian than they do with a fundamentalist Christian. And my atheist-Humanist worldview is very important to me, and I do feel hurt when intolerant religious people casually insult or belittle it.
If a Christian calls me “arrogant” just because I don't believe in God, how is that any different than me calling them “stupid” just because they have faith? We can disagree and still respect each others' beliefs.
quote:
I, personally, do not see any reason to passively or actively support any belief that is irrational.
This tells me that you didn't get the subtly of what I said in my last post. If you politely express skepticism, that is not supporting religious beliefs, nor does it hurt any feelings. OK, well maybe it hurts the feelings of extremely sensitive and self-righteous people, but such people need to get over themselves. The average religious person is not going to be insulted just be |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2007 : 14:38:09 [Permalink]
|
Half wrote: quote:
Atheists are continually condemned as immoral, soulless individuals by many religious people, not just by fundamentalists. Why should secular people be forced to defend themselves with one rhetorical hand tied behind their backs,
Ah, the equivalent to "But Johnny hit me first!" So we must become what we hate to fight what we hate. How cliche.
To answer your question, we should defend ourselves with one rhetorical hand tied behind our backs because we are better than them. "Should" being the key word there. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2007 : 15:13:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Half wrote: quote:
Atheists are continually condemned as immoral, soulless individuals by many religious people, not just by fundamentalists. Why should secular people be forced to defend themselves with one rhetorical hand tied behind their backs,
Ah, the equivalent to "But Johnny hit me first!" So we must become what we hate to fight what we hate. How cliche.
To answer your question, we should defend ourselves with one rhetorical hand tied behind our backs because we are better than them. "Should" being the key word there.
Now, that was very unsubtle of you, Marf. And a misrepresentation of what I'd written. I never said anything about getting revenge, only about being able to argue on equal footing.
You may indeed be better than they are, Marf, but I only claim to have a better approach to evidence. And if you think these religious folks are so inferior, I invite you to debate a Creationist one day. They are not inferior in terms of rhetorical skill, maybe not even to you in debate.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
