|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 07/09/2008 : 16:34:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Kil said:
We need people like Jimmy Carter to tell other evangelicals where they have gone wrong; ‘cause they ain't gonna listen to us.
|
What makes you think the Red State Retards would ever listen to Jimmy Carter?
|
Red States? Not likely. A few people? Why not? His attacks on the religious right coming from an evangelical Christian might influence other evangelicals who will at least read what he has to say about the RR and the damage they are doing to our country. Jimmy has a lot of respect these days. A lot more respect than he had as president.
But let me put this another way. If Carter were representative of the mainstream of Christian thought, beyond our criticism of his claim to a creator, what would our beef be with him? He was pro science and was able to separate his religious beliefs from his policy making, which included a strong stand in support of the separation clause. He is still advocating that. He has said that he is personally opposed to abortion but feels that Roe V. Wade was a correct interpretation of the constitution and a woman's right to choose should be protected.
People are complicated and boiling everything down to how we will view them based on their religion is both foolish and bigoted. Even if Carter doesn't change a single mind, he is out there trying. And we should be smart enough to recognize what side he is on.
And no Dave, I am not calling you a bigot or a fool. The opinion I am expressing is nothing new. I have always been a "big tent" skeptic, as you know...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2008 : 16:50:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Dave:
And to re-iterate, our being tolerant of even the least dangerous irrational beliefs only benefits (and only can benefit) those who hold such beliefs. Our tolerance doesn't benefit us, and so it turns us into doormats, willing to be stepped on for the sake of a moral high ground which will be ignored, at best. |
The moment we throw people like Hal Bidlack out of our ranks based on our intolerance of a belief that gives him comfort, we loose the kind of person who can be even more effective than we can be at persuading others with a god belief that a secular approach to science and politics is the only one that makes sense. We can disagree with him until the cows come home about his actual belief, but from a practical point of view, casting people like him out of our camp would be counter productive.
|
Agreed. But the kind of sentiment I get is that we are supposed to be nice and silent and don't dare contest other people's beliefs unless they are wildly ridiculous like the cracker guy.
I do not mean us, here, not even a political context - I'm saying daily life here. The general sentiment I get, at least over here, is that religious belief, because it's personal and mostly emotional and just plain ol' belief shouldn't be contested unless it's crackpoty and blatantly absurd like the cracker guy's and ensuing situation. Because it's belief and everyone's entitled to believe whatever, right? Even if it's utterly absurd.
Dave may correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's that last barrier - that somehow it's bad form to contest someone's beliefs simply because "they're harmless, so who cares, let them believe what they want" - that he's saying should be broken, since the only difference there is one of scale and crackpottery, really. And, by agreeing with that last barrier and not even trying to break it, you're tacitly agreeing with condoning the more... flamboyant... manifestations of it.
My R$0.2, anyway.
[edit: spelling, grammar, semantics, ya know :p] |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
| Edited by - Siberia on 07/10/2008 11:57:53 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2008 : 17:16:52 [Permalink]
|
Kil, the bigger picture is that the Bidlacks, Millers and Carters of the world wouldn't side with the radical fundamentalists even if every atheist were magically wiped off the planet tomorrow. They do what they do because they know that faith isn't enough for good governance or for good science. They're not going to roll over for the total screwballs out of spite for getting kicked out of the skeptic club (any of them who does wasn't in our corner to begin with). We gain nothing that those people wouldn't be doing anyway, because they're not doing it for us. They're doing it for themselves and the other non-radical religionists who don't want to live and work under the yoke of a despotic, self-destructive theocracy.
Besides, I'm not talking about kicking them out of our camp. My plan is nothing more than if they say something worthy of ridicule, I'm going to ridicule it. If they can't take it - if they demand that I respect their silly beliefs - then they can take their respective balls and go home, for all I care. These sorts of highly public figures have to have thicker skins than that, anyway, to be able to stay cool under even the most unreasonable of criticism, which won't come from me. (Although I haven't been trying to keep tabs on the man, I haven't heard a thing out of Bidlack in many months - did he not want the publicity any longer?)
Really, my biting my tongue when faced with lunacy from people on "our" side means nothing more than that I'm holding myself to a double standard for zero political or scientific gain. But I can almost guarantee that I won't be tittering from the back pew while Ken Miller speaks at a church, and the idea that I might get a NY Times op-ed with which to point out Carter's failings is pretty silly, too. In other words, I won't be in the audience when these people are talking to the people you want them to talk to on your behalf, Kil, so the risk of me disrupting the plans of the framers and doormats is low.
But if I happen to be in a roomful of skeptics when they say something zany, you can be pretty sure that I won't be the only one laughing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2008 : 18:35:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Siberia
Dave may correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's that last barrier - that somehow it's bad form to contest someone's beliefs simply because "they're harmless, so who cares, let them belief what they want" - that he's saying should be broken, since the only difference there is one of scale and crackpottery, really. And, by agreeing with that last barrier and not even trying to break it, you're tacitly agreeing with the more... flamboyant... manifestations of it. |
Pretty much spot-on, Sib. Although I'd use "condoning" instead of "agreeing" in that last sentence.
To put it still another way, even if I agreed with the framers and felt that there is a compelling political need for this sort of compromise, I'd still (of course) be intolerant towards the supremely insane beliefs. Importantly, I'd have no tolerance towards non-deadly but absurd beliefs like Biblical literalist creationism. Therefore, I would be forced to draw some arbitrary line and say, "these irrational beliefs are tolerable, while those are not."
The fact that it would have to be arbitrary makes it vulnerable to attack. Arbitrariness is why we're still having "debates" about abortion, for example. No agreement will be reached when the line between acceptable and not-acceptable is flexible. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2008 : 05:58:34 [Permalink]
|
I am completely against religous nut jobs going out into the community and trying to impose their will, based on their beliefs, on people who do not believe. I'm thinking of legislating issues related to stem cells, abortion, homosexuality, evolution, etc. As long as they keep to themselves and don't do anything too heinous to non-consenting adults, I don't give a shit what they do.
But I am also against intentionally antagonizing religous nut jobs. To you and me that communion host is just a piece of unleavened bread, but to very devout Catholics it is the body of Christ. It doesn't represent the body of Christ, it IS the body of Christ. Ritual cannibalism though it be, communion is the most sacred part of Catholic Christianity and to be fair to them, they don't go parading it around in the streets and they don't try to force people to participate. To fuck around with Catholic communion, you have to go into their church, during their mass, and take possession of their most sacred transmutated whatever under false pretenses. And that is wrong.
This isn't the same as publishing unflattering pictures of Mohammad in the newspaper. Tolerance does not mean you can go into someone's house and kick over their most prized possession. Whether he meant to dessecrate catholic beliefs or he's just stupid, this kid was categorically wrong in what he did and the Catholic community has every right to be upset. They don't have the right to make death threats, of course, but that's not coming from any responsible and/or official source in the catholic community...
But don't poke a wasp nest and then act surprised when the wasps get pissed off and try to sting you. Leave them alone, let them have their rituals and beliefs without interference and in return expect the courtesy that they will not try and fuck around legislating their beliefs on you. Live and let live. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2008 : 08:34:33 [Permalink]
|
This could get interesting. Seems Bill Donahue is after PZ's job. Betcha he doesn't get it.
Me, I think the kid did a dumb thing, but there was no call for the intense shit-storm that it generated. I think that it shows a certain insecurity on the part of the believers, that they must over-kill any sort of "straying from the path," as it were. But then, all religions have a quanity of sick assholes, and these often inflame the more thoughtful ones.
"Body of Christ" indeed! It's no more than a stale bit of symbolic canniblism, unworthy even of peanut butter.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2008 : 09:15:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
I think that it shows a certain insecurity on the part of the believers... |
The very idea of "sacrilege" demonstrates the insecurity of the religious. If it really is the Body of Christ, then it is a part of God and God can take care of Himself. God shouldn't need puny humans to defend Him against the unbelievers, 'cause He can destroy entire planets if He wants to.
If you go into a church and start stealing the candlesticks, then yeah, expect a pew-emptying brawl. Put a piece of God in your pocket? The faithful should understand that God will respond as God wishes to, and if God's not smiting the thief, then what do the faithful have to be concerned about? The actual response seems to indicate an utter lack of faith. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2008 : 10:23:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
The actual response seems to indicate an utter lack of faith.
|
More and more it is becoming clear to me that most religious people don't use the word "faith" the way us skeptics do, as "to believe without sufficient evidence." Sure, some of the more vocal apologists will fall back on that definition of faith when confronted with the absolute insanity of their religious propositions. But in their everyday dealings, "faith" means "submission to authority." And once you pledge yourself to the group, as in a gang, you don't get out again without unpleasant and sometimes violent consequences.
So this blood-thirsty mob has "faith" in spades, just not the sort of faith as we understand it. Their faith would be more like blind loyalty, willingness to sacrifice individuality and submit to group consensus, and a desire to defend the group against outsiders or apostates.
God really never comes into it.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2008 : 10:38:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Me, I think the kid did a dumb thing, but there was no call for the intense shit-storm that it generated. I think that it shows a certain insecurity on the part of the believers, that they must over-kill any sort of "straying from the path," as it were. But then, all religions have a quanity of sick assholes, and these often inflame the more thoughtful ones.
"Body of Christ" indeed! It's no more than a stale bit of symbolic canniblism, unworthy even of peanut butter.
|
Is the kid a Catholic? Was he a member of that Church he pilfered god from? The article doesn't say; a glaring omission, IMO. It makes a difference.
Regarding the reaction to sacrilidge in general, I presume it's to protect and preserve the institution more than god. But then someone has to defend the god that, bluntly, isn't there, or anywhere, to defend itself. There's a whole hell of a lot of faithless activity out there. If US Christians had true Faith in Jesus they'd be absolute pacifists, for example. How many christians were gnashing their teeth to invade Afghanistan and Iraq for some 9/11 revenge? Where was their Faith?
But regardless of cold reality, these folks have certain beliefs that are very important to them. They don't deserve to be indulged without challenge in the public forum but they should be left alone while in their own dark places. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2008 : 10:45:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Dave W.
The actual response seems to indicate an utter lack of faith.
|
More and more it is becoming clear to me that most religious people don't use the word "faith" the way us skeptics do, as "to believe without sufficient evidence." Sure, some of the more vocal apologists will fall back on that definition of faith when confronted with the absolute insanity of their religious propositions. But in their everyday dealings, "faith" means "submission to authority." And once you pledge yourself to the group, as in a gang, you don't get out again without unpleasant and sometimes violent consequences.
So this blood-thirsty mob has "faith" in spades, just not the sort of faith as we understand it. Their faith would be more like blind loyalty, willingness to sacrifice individuality and submit to group consensus, and a desire to defend the group against outsiders or apostates.
God really never comes into it.
|
I agree with you, the word faith is loaded with baggage well beyond just the committment to belief in something without evidence. When someone talks about their Faith, they use the word like they are describing their entire cosmological and social belief system and the group(s) with which they affiliate themselves. People who use the phrase 'my faith' scare me. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2008 : 13:04:02 [Permalink]
|
The Uncommonly Dense people have now chimed in in the person of Dave Scot
| Myers is playing Russian roulette. He just keeps pushing the envelope in seeing how many people he can possibly offend in the worst way. It#8217;s just a matter of time before someone with a terminal disease, a month left to live, decides he hasn#8217;t got anything to lose by taking out Myers along with him. |
So, anyone remember how self-righteous they acted when the Muslims went nuts over those Danish cartoons?
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2008 : 13:35:28 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
(Although I haven't been trying to keep tabs on the man, I haven't heard a thing out of Bidlack in many months - did he not want the publicity any longer?) |
He's been busy running for Congress:
http://www.bidlack2008.com/index.php |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2008 : 13:46:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by the_ignored
The Uncommonly Dense people have now chimed in in the person of Dave Scot
| Myers is playing Russian roulette. He just keeps pushing the envelope in seeing how many people he can possibly offend in the worst way. It#8217;s just a matter of time before someone with a terminal disease, a month left to live, decides he hasn#8217;t got anything to lose by taking out Myers along with him. |
So, anyone remember how self-righteous they acted when the Muslims went nuts over those Danish cartoons?
|
I was thinking about that a little while ago. Islam & Christianity might be different, but their more rabid followers are exactly alike.
They ought'a invent a vaccine.....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 07/10/2008 16:42:06 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2008 : 16:37:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by the_ignored
The Uncommonly Dense people have now chimed in in the person of Dave Scot
| Myers is playing Russian roulette. He just keeps pushing the envelope in seeing how many people he can possibly offend in the worst way. It#8217;s just a matter of time before someone with a terminal disease, a month left to live, decides he hasn#8217;t got anything to lose by taking out Myers along with him. |
So, anyone remember how self-righteous they acted when the Muslims went nuts over those Danish cartoons?
|
So we have a christian (I assume) willing to spend an enternity in hell by commiting murder in their last few days of life.
What would Jesus Do? |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2008 : 16:49:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moakley
Originally posted by the_ignored
The Uncommonly Dense people have now chimed in in the person of Dave Scot
| Myers is playing Russian roulette. He just keeps pushing the envelope in seeing how many people he can possibly offend in the worst way. It#8217;s just a matter of time before someone with a terminal disease, a month left to live, decides he hasn#8217;t got anything to lose by taking out Myers along with him. |
So, anyone remember how self-righteous they acted when the Muslims went nuts over those Danish cartoons?
|
So we have a christian (I assume) willing to spend an enternity in hell by commiting murder in their last few days of life.
What would Jesus Do?
|
Judging by history, recent as well as ancient, there are certainly Christians who would happily do exactly that, secure in the fantasy that murder for God would not only be forgiven but blessed & rewarded.
What would Jesus do? He'd weep in despair at the wickedness of his followers.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 07/10/2008 16:50:43 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
A Christian (Catholic) sense of proportion...
