Why the divide between Science and Religion... (priest, ritual, moral)

[andys]

Reply to Deep Shadow:
I did not state or even imply that being religious makes one stupid. In fact, I think it is interesting that so many religious people are NOT stupid. I must say, however, to the rational observer who will eventually discard beliefs in the Easter Bunny, Tooth-fairy and Santa Clause, we Atheists do find it curious when, otherwise, rational adults appear to willingly forfeit the power of reason in favor of adopting unsupported beliefs such as Angels and virgin births.

As for your little joke that I should delineate the Bible-thumpers from the "plain religious" folk and kill them; it IS tempting, although that would only reduce an Atheist to the level of a Christian. After all, Atheists value and promote human rights—particularly the right to freedom of thought and expression. So we try to avoid conducting Inquisitions whenever we can.

Correction: I make no delineation between hard-core "thumpers" and the less extreme followers of the Bible. This distinction is simply a matter of degree, not kind.

Oh, to suggest that I may be a bigot is so un-Christian. Tsk, tsk.
However, don't give me the benefit of the doubt by suggesting that I might not have a problem with religion; I DO have a problem with religion. And I DO have a problem with "small-mindedness, bigotry, baseless demagoguery, [whatever you meant by that—who's the demagogue?] etc." as well.

Since the purpose of this web site is education, let me comply: Only very, very recently has any person enjoyed the right to express his or her thoughts and enter into discourse with Theists. This right was earned only after the "Church" lost its military superiority. Previous to this glorious day, had there been an Easy-button on hand that could eradicate every "heathen" from the planet, I wouldn't be here like a fly in your soup. Atheists, in sharp contrast, will fight for the rights of all human beings—including your human right to believe in anything (crazy as your beliefs may seem to us). That is because, as free thinkers, we Atheist hold very dear the value of humanity and freedom for all. Especially, one's human (not "god-given") right to think. As it turned out, this noggin of ours is pretty remarkable when it's allowed to flex its own muscle. Enter Logic, Science and the multitude of wonderful benefits that have resulted. Meanwhile, the poor faithful were left impotent, unable to silence these arrogant heretics who were discovering new facts every day. Facts that threatened their dogmatic doctrines. Their only resource was to try to beat them at their own game—to introduce their own "facts". And that's where we are as I type on my Mac.

All I want is for believers to go right on believing. You can have your Guardian Angels! Granted! Enjoy! Just, pretty please, let Science do its job. Contriving artificial facts, in a self-serving effort to save face, can only reduce whatever credibility Religion has left. Are we free thinkers really asking too much?

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by andys

Atheists, in sharp contrast, will fight for the rights of all human beings—including your human right to believe in anything (crazy as your beliefs may seem to us). That is because, as free thinkers, we Atheist hold very dear the value of humanity and freedom for all.

Look, I'm an atheist, but this generalization is far detatched from reality. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god. There is no necessary connection between belief (or lack thereof) in a god and commitment to human rights. To wit: Stalin was an atheist, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a theist.

I think when you criticize "Religion" in this way, you are really missing the mark. What needs to be criticized is dogmatism, willful ignorance, intolerance, and oppression; although these things are sometimes aspects of a given religion or a group of people who happen to be religious, they are not equivalent to religion.

Once again, to wit: there are plenty of liberal Christians (indeed, even evangelical Christians), Jews, Unitarians, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. out there who are very undogmatic, knowledgable, tolerant, and who support human rights and a steadfast barrier between church and state. The Save Darfur Coalition, to my knowledge, is largely supported by religious organizations, for example.

[Jaiket]

I liked that post very much, Spinks (I'm no allowed to frubal ye).

[andys]

REPLY TO MR. SPRINKLES
First of all, "Hi!" It's nice to know other Atheists are out there.
Just a few remarks:
Atheists are not the sole custodians of human rights, nor did I allude to such a ridiculous claim. Religious people can be concerned about human rights too, although one's soul is their big priority. So bravo to Martin Luther King. (As for Satan, he most certainly was NOT an Atheist. Wow, if anyone ever believed in the existence of God it was this guy. He and God were like oil and water, in case you didn't know. Fortunately for humans, he convinced Adam not to heed God's command to avoid knowledge (Genesis, 2/17)! In this respect, Satin is the father of Science and free thought.

Which brings me to your next comment, "Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god. There is no necessary connection between belief (or lack thereof) in a god and commitment to human rights." Technically—very technically—you're absolutely right. But I guarantee that no "believer" would be satisfied with such ultra exactitude applied to a definition of "Theist" i.e., Theism is simply a belief in a god." Period. While clinically correct, this definition neglects to include important attending characteristics of theism. For example, 1) belief in a god invariably involves things such as a specific picture of the world and one's place in it, 2) how to live your life according to certain principles or teachings prescribed by this god, 3) a belief that it is possible to communicate with this god, and so on. Now we are beginning to really "define" the essence of what it is to be a Theist.

Today, to be an Atheist is is still as much about freedom of thought and expression as to deny, outright any association with Theism. Having dispensed with theism as irrational, modern Atheists apply their powers of reason to social injustices and other areas where rights and freedom are practiced. There are many Atheist organizations around the world and each is devoted to promoting the power of reason to battle any obstacle that impedes rationality and injustice. But I never implied we have a monopoly on this pursuit. Hey, welcome aboard (everyone)!

[DeepShadow]

Originally Posted by andys

Reply to Deep Shadow:
I did not state or even imply that being religious makes one stupid.

On the contrary, you say below that you don't distinguish between theists, and above you call them (all, presumably) pea-brains.

In fact, I think it is interesting that so many religious people are NOT stupid.

Funny that.

I must say, however, to the rational observer who will eventually discard beliefs in the Easter Bunny, Tooth-fairy and Santa Clause, we Atheists do find it curious when, otherwise, rational adults appear to willingly forfeit the power of reason in favor of adopting unsupported beliefs such as Angels and virgin births.

You're atheists. Saying you find our beliefs unsupported is only begging the question. Obviously, we find support for them. When God talks to you, you may choose to be a theist. Then you'll have support.

As for your little joke that I should delineate the Bible-thumpers from the "plain religious" folk and kill them; it IS tempting, although that would only reduce an Atheist to the level of a Christian.

No, it would reduce you to the level of a genocidalist. The fact that you continue to conflate "genocide" with "Christianity" is yet another suggestion that you think we're all insane and/or stupid. Spinkles provided a case in point that atheists can commit genocide: Stalin. There are many others; Pol Pot comes to mind.

After all, Atheists value and promote human rights—particularly the right to freedom of thought and expression. So we try to avoid conducting Inquisitions whenever we can.

Which is why an atheist (Pol Pot) came up with the "Year Zero" concept and ordered the extermination of schoolchildren because they knew how to count. Whatever.

We've all got blood on our hands, in terms of our philosophical heritage. Theists, atheists, everyone. Geez, take a look at what the Crav are doing in France, threatening Jihad-level extremism because of the price of wine.

Correction: I make no delineation between hard-core "thumpers" and the less extreme followers of the Bible. This distinction is simply a matter of degree, not kind.

Your statement is meaningless, because you have already demonstrated that you know little about Christians beyond the fact that some of them are wack jobs.

Oh, to suggest that I may be a bigot is so un-Christian. Tsk, tsk.

Case in point. Theists have always been part of the crusade for civil rights. We call it bigotry when we see it.

However, don't give me the benefit of the doubt by suggesting that I might not have a problem with religion; I DO have a problem with religion.

It shows.

And I DO have a problem with "small-mindedness, bigotry, baseless demagoguery, [whatever you meant by that—who's the demagogue?] etc." as well.

What do I mean by that? I mean what I said. Baseless demagoguery is evil, whether it's a religious person stirring up fanatics or a french wine grower saying people need to support their traditional way of life at the expense of others.

Since the purpose of this web site is education, let me comply: Only very, very recently has any person enjoyed the right to express his or her thoughts and enter into discourse with Theists.

Gee, if you put some more details into that sketch, I can frame a rebuttal. For now, all I can do is look at you funny.

This right was earned only after the "Church" lost its military superiority.

That's one church. Another church, Quakers, defended the rights of atheists, and were hung for it. While we're educating each other.

Previous to this glorious day, had there been an Easy-button on hand that could eradicate every "heathen" from the planet, I wouldn't be here like a fly in your soup.

As many atheists have wished to eradicate theism, and here we can go beyond Pol Pot and Stalin.

That is because, as free thinkers, we Atheist hold very dear the value of humanity and freedom for all.

Some of you do, of which I'm very thankful. Sadly, you seem to fail to understand that there are theists who are standing beside you, allies in that fight. Why can't you believe that some of us hold those same values?

Especially, one's human (not "god-given") right to think. As it turned out, this noggin of ours is pretty remarkable when it's allowed to flex its own muscle. Enter Logic, Science and the multitude of wonderful benefits that have resulted.

For which you have theists to thank, as well as atheists.

Meanwhile, the poor faithful were left impotent, unable to silence these arrogant heretics who were discovering new facts every day.

Hogwash. Many of the faithful were working diligently to discover those facts right alongside the ones you call heretics.

Facts that threatened their dogmatic doctrines.

Correction: Facts that some of them embraced, and others balked at. Theists are not as homogenous as you paint us.

Their only resource was to try to beat them at their own game—to introduce their own "facts". And that's where we are as I type on my Mac.

...er, I can only assume you're talking about the creation/evolution debate? Do you realize how few theists are creationists? I'd estimate about a tenth. Do realize how great an injustice you do to the rest of us by lumping us together with small-minded pseudoscientists?

All I want is for believers to go right on believing.

Which is why you uttered a call to arms against all of us a page ago. Got it.

You can have your Guardian Angels! Granted! Enjoy! Just, pretty please, let Science do its job.

I'm a science educator. I fully intend to let science do its job. Now can I get on your nice list?

Contriving artificial facts, in a self-serving effort to save face, can only reduce whatever credibility Religion has left. Are we free thinkers really asking too much?

Not at all. Are we religionists asking too much to not be styled as head-in-the-sand creationists? I don't think so.

[DeepShadow]

Originally Posted by andys

Which brings me to your next comment, "Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god. There is no necessary connection between belief (or lack thereof) in a god and commitment to human rights." Technically—very technically—you're absolutely right. But I guarantee that no "believer" would be satisfied with such ultra exactitude applied to a definition of "Theist" i.e., Theism is simply a belief in a god." Period.

Why would any theist object to such a definition of theism?!?! It's a perfectly good definition, which is why they use it (or one like it) in the dictionary.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by andys

All I want is for believers to go right on believing. You can have your Guardian Angels! Granted! Enjoy! Just, pretty please, let Science do its job. Contriving artificial facts, in a self-serving effort to save face, can only reduce whatever credibility Religion has left. Are we free thinkers really asking too much?

This bit about contriving artificial facts is a real toot, andys, considering you seem to have fabricated more than a few about "religion."