Two points.
The minor point: Atheism as a religion ....
I noticed in here somewhere mention that the court referred to secular humanism, and other atheistic ideas in a manner that gives them religious status. Well ... are you going to tell me that it's against the law to not believe in God? In that sense, the choice to not believe in God must be protected by the Constitution:
What is your religion protected by the First Amendment?
"I have no religion, since I don't believe in God."
So your beliefs are not protected by the First Amendment?
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." (Geddy Lee, in the most recent form I've heard this.)
And so the religious people, seeing the courts regard atheism and atheistic thought as religious for constitutional purposes, apparently believe that science is the same. Thus, atheism is now a religion, and science is now as subjective as any claim about what God is, might be, or whether or not God exists. Like I always say: I can show you gravity.
Wow, and that was the minor point.
* * * * *
The major point is my accusation of bigotry against atheism.
I'll start with a quote from Caleb's 9/27 post (7.28 pm) in Religion is for Fools:
The only way the above assertions are true, and thus the statistical inquiries, would be if atheism and morality had no discernable connection.
Frankly, I don't get what this assumption is that religion=morality.
Hitler? Hitler was superstitious to the point of paranoia.
I mean, Caleb seems to be overlooking the idea that his standard for decency and right has utterly nothing to do with the standards of the person committing the perceived wrong.
(Disclaimer: Caleb ... it's nothing personal. Yours happened to be the nearest comment to me when I decided I had to drag this up. Really, this is a long-running, growing issue with me.)
I mean, we know that this or that action is wrong, but take a look at how perceptions affect that: in three words, Irish Republican Army.
We know that terrorism is "wrong" (I'm addressing from an utterly subjective perspective here, thus the quotes.) We know that murder is "wrong". We condemn the IRA as being "wrong" because they're terrorists, yet consider the individual's point of view before committing an "atrocity": Your "enemy" has starved, beaten, raped, and stolen your nation; as a government, your "enemy" has discriminated, destroyed, stolen, raped, and beaten your neighbors. Your "enemy" relies on its merit as a respected member of the world community to ensure that no sanctions are ever enacted against it. Your "enemy" kills your neighbors without remorse. If we stick with the last century and a half of Irish history, when were the Irish not entitled, as a people, to their independence? Did they not deserve independence while the British landlords fostered disaster in 1847? Did they not deserve independence when they won it on a legitimate battlefield in 1922? What was it about Bloody Sunday, or the Guilford convictions, or Drumcree that was so "right"? We, the world, recoiled at IRA atrocities arbitrarily. Or is it more forgiveable when an endorsed government deliberately commits atrocities?
I have no problem extending my idea of "right" to include the actions of extremists who know no other alternative than violence. It doesn't mean I want violence anywhere. But the world is horrified, and I'm wondering why--it's not like we couldn't see these bombings coming from a hundred years away.
And in that one person's mind, the act of murder may be "right", because it is an act of war.
And this conflict of "doing anything they want" finds its permissiveness not in atheism, but in Roman Catholic and Anglican Protestant religious ideas; that is, the permissiveness comes from Christian justifications.
So I'm wondering ... if atheism allows people to do anything they want, what's so different between atheistic moralism and Christian moralism? That God says you can misbehave?
So what is the assumption that moral restraint is only vested in religion? Morality is pretty damn straightforward, and if believing in God or not has any bearing on morality, I would assert that believing in God allows greater justification for misdeeds, and I think history will back me on that.
The only difference I can see between atheistic morality and religious morality is that atheism cuts out the middleman, bases its standards on observable nature, and never gets to use "God" as an excuse to not be responsible for one's actions.
If I look at murder with an atheistic eye toward moralism, I see any number of reasons not to kill someone which play out through logical arguments. Murder is bad for any number of reasons, in an atheistic view. But the religious--that is, the monotheistic--perspective says murder is wrong simply because God says so.
Hence, Thou shalt not kill, lest God first tells you to destroy the ____, their homes, their animals, their wives, and their children.
Are you a human being? Do you choose to live in human society? Now ... how is murder right, profitable, or beneficial in that human society? Answer: it's not. The bottom line is that once it's right for you to commit, someone else is right in murdering you. It is possible to wound the survival capability of the species by murdering, if you're an atheist. If you're a theist, your primary worry is offending God, and that's easily enough talked around.
Okay? We see that people do dumb things. We see that atheists and theists alike are capable of hideous atrocities.
But if people are going to continue to espouse that atheism allows one to behave in any manner they choose, I need them to first establish that it's true, and then establish how that's different from any theistic idea in the world.
What happens if the many rooms are in the Father's glass house?
But the assertion that atheism justifies immorality by allowing the atheist to behave any way they see fit is balderdash, and its best purpose in any argument that I can see is that it deflects the primary issues.
It reminds me of something Alderian wrote, once, in relation to people with opinions different from his; something about noting the source and accounting for its bias.
If one assumes atheism to be so bad as to openly justify massacres and genocide, what obligation does a theist have to listen to the response? After all, they're just justifying themselves, right? Any argument, then, can be derailed by pointing out the inherent "immorality" of atheism.
Please ... if we're going to bash atheism for its standards, ought not we consider what those standards are, and what they're based on? I mean, heck, if I was religious and obsessed with other people's private behavior because God told me to be, of course the first thing I would think upon hearing a rejection of God would be a rejection of God's morality. In a sense that's true.
Theistic morality appears to be a static standard designed to honor God through obedience. Atheistic morality is an organic standard, constantly redesigned as new data affects the perspective.
The constant change of scenery is a nice thing about atheism, but it's no reason for theists to be jealous. We, too, have window seats on this journey. It's just that God apparently told some of us we can't look outside the airplane.
But the first thing necessary to close the widening gap between theists and atheists is, at least from theistic history, for theists to stop antagonizing the atheists. One of the ways to accomplish this is to stop assuming that a lack of God means a lack of the things God forces the theists to believe. Especially when they're vital beliefs, such as survival of the species, of the community, of the society ....
Having vomited, I must say that I do feel better ...
So, if it makes sense, I think I've got my flame-proof cape on just in case it's a can of gasoline. If, however, I fail utterly to make any sense, please be comforted by the notions that, on the one hand, I'm never surprised when I don't make sense, and, to the other, I'm fully prepared at all times for circumstances under which I stop making sense.
thanx much,
Tiassa
------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
The minor point: Atheism as a religion ....
I noticed in here somewhere mention that the court referred to secular humanism, and other atheistic ideas in a manner that gives them religious status. Well ... are you going to tell me that it's against the law to not believe in God? In that sense, the choice to not believe in God must be protected by the Constitution:
What is your religion protected by the First Amendment?
"I have no religion, since I don't believe in God."
So your beliefs are not protected by the First Amendment?
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." (Geddy Lee, in the most recent form I've heard this.)
And so the religious people, seeing the courts regard atheism and atheistic thought as religious for constitutional purposes, apparently believe that science is the same. Thus, atheism is now a religion, and science is now as subjective as any claim about what God is, might be, or whether or not God exists. Like I always say: I can show you gravity.
Wow, and that was the minor point.
* * * * *
The major point is my accusation of bigotry against atheism.
I'll start with a quote from Caleb's 9/27 post (7.28 pm) in Religion is for Fools:
The only way the above assertions are true, and thus the statistical inquiries, would be if atheism and morality had no discernable connection.
Frankly, I don't get what this assumption is that religion=morality.
Hitler? Hitler was superstitious to the point of paranoia.
I mean, Caleb seems to be overlooking the idea that his standard for decency and right has utterly nothing to do with the standards of the person committing the perceived wrong.
(Disclaimer: Caleb ... it's nothing personal. Yours happened to be the nearest comment to me when I decided I had to drag this up. Really, this is a long-running, growing issue with me.)
I mean, we know that this or that action is wrong, but take a look at how perceptions affect that: in three words, Irish Republican Army.
We know that terrorism is "wrong" (I'm addressing from an utterly subjective perspective here, thus the quotes.) We know that murder is "wrong". We condemn the IRA as being "wrong" because they're terrorists, yet consider the individual's point of view before committing an "atrocity": Your "enemy" has starved, beaten, raped, and stolen your nation; as a government, your "enemy" has discriminated, destroyed, stolen, raped, and beaten your neighbors. Your "enemy" relies on its merit as a respected member of the world community to ensure that no sanctions are ever enacted against it. Your "enemy" kills your neighbors without remorse. If we stick with the last century and a half of Irish history, when were the Irish not entitled, as a people, to their independence? Did they not deserve independence while the British landlords fostered disaster in 1847? Did they not deserve independence when they won it on a legitimate battlefield in 1922? What was it about Bloody Sunday, or the Guilford convictions, or Drumcree that was so "right"? We, the world, recoiled at IRA atrocities arbitrarily. Or is it more forgiveable when an endorsed government deliberately commits atrocities?
I have no problem extending my idea of "right" to include the actions of extremists who know no other alternative than violence. It doesn't mean I want violence anywhere. But the world is horrified, and I'm wondering why--it's not like we couldn't see these bombings coming from a hundred years away.
And in that one person's mind, the act of murder may be "right", because it is an act of war.
And this conflict of "doing anything they want" finds its permissiveness not in atheism, but in Roman Catholic and Anglican Protestant religious ideas; that is, the permissiveness comes from Christian justifications.
So I'm wondering ... if atheism allows people to do anything they want, what's so different between atheistic moralism and Christian moralism? That God says you can misbehave?
So what is the assumption that moral restraint is only vested in religion? Morality is pretty damn straightforward, and if believing in God or not has any bearing on morality, I would assert that believing in God allows greater justification for misdeeds, and I think history will back me on that.
The only difference I can see between atheistic morality and religious morality is that atheism cuts out the middleman, bases its standards on observable nature, and never gets to use "God" as an excuse to not be responsible for one's actions.
If I look at murder with an atheistic eye toward moralism, I see any number of reasons not to kill someone which play out through logical arguments. Murder is bad for any number of reasons, in an atheistic view. But the religious--that is, the monotheistic--perspective says murder is wrong simply because God says so.
Hence, Thou shalt not kill, lest God first tells you to destroy the ____, their homes, their animals, their wives, and their children.
Are you a human being? Do you choose to live in human society? Now ... how is murder right, profitable, or beneficial in that human society? Answer: it's not. The bottom line is that once it's right for you to commit, someone else is right in murdering you. It is possible to wound the survival capability of the species by murdering, if you're an atheist. If you're a theist, your primary worry is offending God, and that's easily enough talked around.
Okay? We see that people do dumb things. We see that atheists and theists alike are capable of hideous atrocities.
But if people are going to continue to espouse that atheism allows one to behave in any manner they choose, I need them to first establish that it's true, and then establish how that's different from any theistic idea in the world.
What happens if the many rooms are in the Father's glass house?
But the assertion that atheism justifies immorality by allowing the atheist to behave any way they see fit is balderdash, and its best purpose in any argument that I can see is that it deflects the primary issues.
It reminds me of something Alderian wrote, once, in relation to people with opinions different from his; something about noting the source and accounting for its bias.
If one assumes atheism to be so bad as to openly justify massacres and genocide, what obligation does a theist have to listen to the response? After all, they're just justifying themselves, right? Any argument, then, can be derailed by pointing out the inherent "immorality" of atheism.
Please ... if we're going to bash atheism for its standards, ought not we consider what those standards are, and what they're based on? I mean, heck, if I was religious and obsessed with other people's private behavior because God told me to be, of course the first thing I would think upon hearing a rejection of God would be a rejection of God's morality. In a sense that's true.
Theistic morality appears to be a static standard designed to honor God through obedience. Atheistic morality is an organic standard, constantly redesigned as new data affects the perspective.
The constant change of scenery is a nice thing about atheism, but it's no reason for theists to be jealous. We, too, have window seats on this journey. It's just that God apparently told some of us we can't look outside the airplane.
But the first thing necessary to close the widening gap between theists and atheists is, at least from theistic history, for theists to stop antagonizing the atheists. One of the ways to accomplish this is to stop assuming that a lack of God means a lack of the things God forces the theists to believe. Especially when they're vital beliefs, such as survival of the species, of the community, of the society ....
Having vomited, I must say that I do feel better ...
So, if it makes sense, I think I've got my flame-proof cape on just in case it's a can of gasoline. If, however, I fail utterly to make any sense, please be comforted by the notions that, on the one hand, I'm never surprised when I don't make sense, and, to the other, I'm fully prepared at all times for circumstances under which I stop making sense.
thanx much,
Tiassa
------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
