Respect is not the same as obedience

[trotsky]

From PZ Myers...

Religion's voice is that of a spoiled child having a temper tantrum.

...

Islam has been particularly petty and overly sensitive to these slights, and seem to be even more narrow and provincial than other religions in lacking any awareness of the fact that the majority of the people on the planet do not hold their beliefs in any great reverence, and that they don't get to respond by demanding that we treat their superstitions as sacred. Their leadership seems to have decided that rather than recognizing their own minority status and appreciating (perhaps, dare I say it, empathizing with people who hold very different beliefs) that they have to tolerate the existence of the infidel, they've increased their demand to enforce Muslim piety on non-Muslims.

...

This seems to be a difficult concept for some people to grasp. No one is saying you can't irrationally revere some religious object — we're just saying you can't tell others that they must irrationally revere your religious object, and you especially can't tell others that their cheap, mass-produced copy of your religious object must be treated in some special way.

...

Religion infantilizes people. It makes them humorless and blind to others' ideas. We're doing no favor to them by indulging their unrealistic and impossible dreams of controlling everyone else's life.

A very good article, worth a read.

[humblebum]

1. I consider militant atheism to be a "religion" without a god and so

concerning your statement "Religion infantilizes people. It makes them humorless and blind to others' ideas. We're doing no favor to them by indulging their unrealistic and impossible dreams of controlling everyone else's life." - simply replace the the term "Religion" with "Militant atheism" and the statement still holds true. Amazing how that works.

[trotsky]

2. One could say your hatred for atheists is your religion.

And one would be spot on.

[humblebum]

4. Where did i ever say that I hated atheists? Are atheists free from

being criticized? I specifically referred to "militant" atheists and even then I only displayed a subjective opinion. So where is this hate you speak of? You certainly do make many unsubstantiated accusations. Now, if I was exhorting people verbally to "hate", as certain militant atheists have done and do, then your accusations would be well founded.

[trotsky]

5. Yup, thanks for confirming.

Your hatred is so intense it blinds you. Try to think of the guy who said you were supposed to turn the other cheek and love your enemies. I know you don't follow him, based on your actions, but perhaps you could consider it sometime.

[humblebum]

6. Did Jesus ever criticize anyone or any institution? You are constantly

accusing me of hating though I have never expressed any such idea. You are making a bold statement and quite frankly, I believe it violates the posting rules. Loving your enemies does not make them immune from criticism. Again, you are confusing criticism with hatred.

[trotsky]

8. No, once again, that's your confusion.

You equate criticism of Christianity with hate speech.

[SlipperySlope]

22. I agree with you

I consider myself somewhat of an agnostic-atheist. I don't go around insulting people for their religious beliefs, or pretending I am morally superior because of my lack of faith. Some of the atheist forums I've visited have been distressing due to the aggressive anger shown towards religion.

One of things that continuously reminds me of this is that most atheist symbols are just sarcastically mocking religious symbols. That isn't something that is done out of "agreeing to disagree" or tolerating diverse beliefs.

There are angry and narrow-minded people on both sides of the faith divide.

[skepticscott]

24. Like so many others, you seem utterly incapable

of making the simple distinction between atheism and anti-theism. You might try getting a grasp on that before you weigh into the debate.

[SlipperySlope]

26. Thank you for the insulting response.

You demonstrate my point beautifully.

[skepticscott]

28. And which point was that?

That people shouldn't inject themselves into debates that they don't understand? Or that in the end truth is always more important than attitude?

[SlipperySlope]

31. Thank you for the 2nd insulting response.

You continue to demonstrate my point beautifully.

[skepticscott]

33. In other words, you have no point

and are playing the usual duck and dodge game of apologists here when their views are challenged directly. Nice try, but we've been around this block too many times for this to fly.

[SlipperySlope]

50. Thank you for the 3rd insulting response.

You continue to illustrate my point better than I ever could for myself.

[humblebum]

32. And then there are those atheists who are indeed anti-theists

the terms are not mutually exclusive. it becomes apparent when those engaged in anti-theist activity identify themselves as atheists.

[skepticscott]

34. Many atheists are also anti-theists

but not all. Atheism and anti-theism are not at all the same thing, and it is perfectly possible to be one and not the other. The fact that many blonde people also have blue eyes does not mean that blonde hair and blue eyes are the same thing. Savvy?

[wookie72]

35. Cripes, do you ever read your own posts?

Every sentence you've written is dripping with condescension.

I'm not going to accuse any atheists of hate speech, but I would say that no one has ever had their mind changed through ridicule.

[skepticscott]

41. Nor has anyone ever had their mind changed

by seeing nonsense that's repeated over and over and over after being thoroughly discredited still treated with respect, deference and "tolerance". Bullshit and deeply flawed arguments need to be called out for exactly what they are.

If someone is lacking in knowledge and understanding and is genuinely interested in educating themselves, fine. But when someone makes unqualified statement of fact as if they know what they're talking about when they're actually dead wrong, and obviously so, they should expect to get smacked down.

[humblebum]

37. I know many who are not anti-theists, probably most are not. nt

[skepticscott]

42. So you obviously agree with my original point

which was that atheism and anti-theism are not the same thing.

[humblebum]

43. I have always thought that. There are agnostic anti-theists and even

believing anti-theists.

[laconicsax]

3. How can something be a religion without a belief structure?

Oh, right...straw man, straw man, ad hominem, lather, rinse, repeat.

[humblebum]

7. Only when it is framed in quotation marks. nt

[ZombieHorde]

10. Calling someone religious is the worst insult some people can think of. nt

[laconicsax]

11. +1

[cleanhippie]

19. Nice! Now THAT'S Funny!

Humblebum, take notes.

[ZombieHorde]

9. If more Americans thought like you, we atheists could get a tax break

for not preaching the word of God in church.

[humblebum]

12. They do. American Atheists is a recognized non-profit. nt

[laconicsax]

13. ...as an EDUCATIONAL organization. Not as a religious one.

http://www.atheists.org/orphans/501c3_statement

American Atheists a 501 (c) (3) non profit (educational) organization. We are not a political or religious organization. Donations may be tax deductible to the fullest extent allowed by law. Please check with your tax preparer for details.

A copy of our latest annual report may be obtained, upon request, from our HQ at 225 Cristiani St, Cranford, NJ 07016 (908.276.7300) or in person at our National Conventions.

[humblebum]

16. You did not specify, but you could still open up a "church" such as

the one started by Comte a couple centuries ago. I think it was the Church of Positivism or something like that. Purely secular, worshiped science and reason if i recall. Had an altar and pews and the whole bit.

[laconicsax]

17. Of course I didn't specify--I didn't make the original comment.

Really, humblebum. Figure out whom you're replying to before you start typing. Either way, your red herrings don't distract from the fact that you got it wrong.

[cleanhippie]

18. BORING! Be More Funny!

This routine has lost its zest and is no longer funny, just tiring. Please, get some new material.

[skepticscott]

25. Atheism infantilizes people?

Of Atheism and religion, which one encourages blind, unquestioning faith in what you're told, and which one encourages critical thinking and the constant examination of truth claims?

[TZ]

27. You don't hate atheists?

Clearly posting stereotypic shit about a diverse group of people proves your tolerance..:sarcasm:
I fucking hate the MILITANT ATHEIST bullshit. When someone blows up something in the name of atheism call me back, okay?

[dimbear]

29. Miltant atheists are easily recognized........

they defend themselves when attacked. Tres mechant, as the French say.

[humblebum]

30. So you hate the militant atheist stuff? Do you have any idea

how many thousands of religious structures were destroyed with the help of the League of Militant Atheists? What is is.

[trotsky]

49. In order to protect and promote Communism, yes, we've established that.

Don't you get tired of trying the same old worn out strawmen over and over and over?

Point to the destruction today's "militant atheists" are causing. I'll point to what today's extremist believers are doing. Who do you think will end up with more?

[Deep13]

39. I'm sure you do consider it so.

And yet it continues to be not a religion. Anyway, it isn't militant because we have not resorted to violence unlike every religion of any size. (And spare me the Stalin straw-man "argument.") I rather doubt your little word game proves anything of consequence.

Two sides of a debate can make symetrical arguments to each other and still not be equally valid. The real question here is not whether outspoken atheism is a religion, but whether or not it is factually correct. We are so wrapped up in who might be offended or whether or not this or that point of view fits in our paradigm that we seem to have forgotten that there is an actual, ascertainable answer to be hard.

So before you leap to the bigot label, as yourself, "Are they right?"

[humblebum]

48. Being militant about something doesn't require overt violence and

yes, Stalin was an atheist. You got that part right.

[rug]

14. The Abrahamic religions are all about fostering that feeling of oppression, even when it isn't there

He should know.

[trotsky]

21. Yeah, I think he was once a Christian.

Just like me. So yeah, I know how the religion works.

[ClarkJonathanKent]

15. You're right.

Definitely worth reading.

[ZombieHorde]

20. Welcome to DU! nt

[DeSwiss]

23. "Religion infantilizes people."

Yes it does.

- K&R

[wookie72]

36. Sure thing

MLK, Desmond Tutu, Thich Nhat Hanh, what a bunch of whiny babies.

I don't know how to do the sarcasm symbol.

[DeSwiss]

38. Best you could do on short notice, eh?

Well, let's not forget to mention: Terry Jones, Rick Warren, Jerry Falwell, John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Franklin Graham.... I'd go on but there are just too damned many of these whiny-ass bastards to list.

- And I don't need no stinkin' sarcasm symbol.....

"The Church doesn't like for people to grow up because you can't control grownups. That's why we talk about being born again. When you're born again, you're still a child. But people don't need to be born again, they need to grow up. They need to accept their responsibility for themselves and the world." ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BkP9-HG8-I&feature=recentf">Bishop John Shelby Spong

"Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." - Matthew 18:3-6

:P

[wookie72]

40. So, in other words, you can't criticize them

So you bring up a bunch of religious people you do consider whiny.

As for the Matthew quote, I always took it to be about innocence, not credulousness.
Danny Kaye once pointed out that being childish and childlike are two very different things.

[DeSwiss]

44. My post was affirming what the OP stated.....

...as something that I too believed. I contend that believing in fairy stories about walking/talking snakes, witches, flat earth, dragons and leviathans is for those with a child-like mindset. And I KNOW that portions of the OT and certainly of Christianity is a ripoff (syncretism) of other religions that are http://www.archive.org/stream/biblemythsandthe00doanuoft#page/n3/mode/2up">far more ancient than they are themselves. I know this because I've spent 41 of my 58 years studying religions and philosophies and these are well known facts. At least they are known by those of us who prefer to know the truth over simply accepting dogma. Dogma that is generally inculcated into frightened children who've been made afraid that devils will come and get them if they don't believe in Jesus, and that they'll burn forever in hell.

The whole of Christianity can be summed up by one of its tenets. A tenet, I might add, that is roundly ignored by most of its adherents. It is a singular point that is the only message that was ever necessary. One that you yourself make when you say: "just try to be kind to each other." That's the ONLY MESSAGE that anyone will ever need from religion. Fortunately, one doesn't have to become brainwashed by religious dogma in order to get that message.

MLK, Desmond Tutu, (and I must assume Thich Nhat Hanh, whom I've never heard of) are not just religious men, but rational men. And neither MLK nor Desmond Tutu advanced the cause of civil liberties solely on the basis of religion, but because they expanded their thinking beyond it to include rationality. Had they been merely religious men, they would have taught their followers to accept their lot in life and obey their masters, just as the bible says for them to and as most preachers taught before them.

But they are/were all men of modernity. Rational men who knew that enslavement, apartheid and discrimination was unjust, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2010:24-39&version=KJV">even if Jesus didn't always say so in his times. They were men who (had they lived back when Christianity was adopted as Rome's state religion) would either have been enslaved or put to death for stating the very things that they are now held in esteem by us. Attempting to cobble their esteem and rationality onto religiosity as if it had any relevancy for or with religion is not only pointless but disingenuous as well. Disingenuous because you ignore all the religious cretins such as the one's I've alluded to. You're quick to tout Tutu, but you wish me to ignore Hagee? I don't think so. They are merely different branches from the same tree. Likewise, the things that MLK and Desmond Tutu stated all could have been otherwise put forth without the taint and ignorance of religiosity.

However, who would have listened to them? No one. They knew their audience. And thus they used a religious format which was and unfortunately still is more acceptable to people. People who would have run away had these men attempted to lead others as non-believers. In other words: they used the fairy stories to gain access and trust in order to advance ideas that were themselves contrary to what one will find in the bible.

Which goes precisely back to my point. Religion is a format for advancing civilization over barbarianism in a format that was designed for the child-like mindset. In other words: For adults who are not prepared to take responsibility for their actions.

- But as Bishop Spong (above link) said: It's time to grow up!

"The church hates a thinker precisely for the same reason a robber dislikes a sheriff, or a thief despises the prosecuting witness. Tyranny likes courtiers, flatterers, followers, fawners, and superstition wants believers, disciples, zealots, hypocrites, and subscribers. The church demands worship -- the very thing that man should give to no being, human or divine.

To worship another is to degrade yourself. Worship is awe and dread and vague fear and blind hope. It is the spirit of worship that elevates the one and degrades the many; that builds palaces for robbers, erects monuments to crime, and forges manacles even for its own hands. The spirit of worship is the spirit of tyranny. The worshiper always regrets that he is not the worshiped.

We should all remember that the intellect has no knees, and that whatever the attitude of the body may be, the brave soul is always found erect. Whoever worships, abdicates. Whoever believes at the command of power, tramples his own individuality beneath his feet, and voluntarily robs himself of all that renders man superior to the brute."

Robert G. Ingersoll

[wookie72]

45. You clearly don't understand any of them.

You fall for the Hitchens "they weren't *really* religious people" trope, which some people claim about Obama (in other words, they'd rather him be a liar than a religious person). Tutu and King's activism was *informed* by their religion, and no amount of quotations will make that any less true.

I'm not asking you to ignore Hagee, I just wanted to point out that categorical statements like "all religions infantilize people" or "all religion is poison" requires dealing with people who do good in religion's name. In other words, the onus is on you. And saying "they were good in spite of their religion" isn't an answer.

[DeSwiss]

46. Firstly, I haven't "fallen" for anything.....

...because I never said that they weren't "really religious people" I said they weren't "merely" religious people. That's different in case you don't get the point.

As for what else King and Tutu may have been informed by, I'd say that they were most likely informed by the reality of their blackness while living in a hostile land that hated blackness. As was I. So when one has been spit upon and cursed and called everything lower than dirt, when you've been pummeled by a crazed white mob who's contorted faces of hatred seem surreal to you, and when you've been jeered at and call a n***** to your face if you haven't before then you will definitely learn what fear, what hatred and what anger truly is. Like King and Tutu, I learned all those emotions first hand just like they did. So I spoke from experience, not an academic exercise.

Likewise, I never said: "all religions infantilize people." Nor did I say: "all religion is poison." I happen to appreciate various aspects of Taoism, Buddhism and a few others. The Abrahamics by contrast as I said earlier, are mostly ripped-off versions of more ancient religions with a bit of their own retched history thrown in. And knock-offs are rarely better than the real thing.

So if you must make-up things to argue against then I'll leave you to argue with yourself. That should work much better for you, as you clearly are no match in this instance. Simply misconstruing what others say and then arguing your own straw-men points may be fun for you, but I just find it boring.

- Have a nice life!

[wookie72]

47. Actually they were informed by their religions.

I'm sorry about your personal experience. However, if you've actually read the works of either Tutu or King, you'd see that there was one thing that kept from reacting with despair in the face of that hatred, and that was their faith.

And you are presenting a strawman with your arguments about Abrahamic religions. What you see as knock offs I see as... evolution. And "their own wretched history?" I think there's nothing wretched about a carpenter from the ass-end of the Roman Empire leading a revolutionary group based on compassion. But that's just me.

[struggle4progress]

51. This is the PZ Myers who throws temper tantrums over communion wafers, isn't it?

[skepticscott]

52. No, it's the PZ Myers

who gets angry and outraged at the sheer stupidity that superstition instills in human beings:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php

And did you have any substantive argument to make about the OP?

[cleanhippie]

53. Typical. Attack the messenger instead of discussing the point.

[skepticscott]

54. And why, one wonders

did you not follow your own condescending advice and put Myers "temper tantrum" in context, by linking to it yourself and letting everyone see just what he was angry at?

Care to explain?

[skepticscott]

55. And still no answer about putting things in context?

Maybe you ought to get off your high pseudo-intellectual horse until you prove yourself capable of following your own arrogant dictates.

[skepticscott]

56. Crickets

Or a lot of trouble finding something to cut and paste here.