So now people are comparing atheists to suffragettes? Hmm.
Women were denied the vote. They couldn’t vote. That’s why they became radicals and demanded their vote. They were systematically denied their rights by the law. Ditto for blacks and other minorities.
This is not the case for atheists.
Atheists may be ostracized by some, demonized by others, but the argument that atheists are suffering the same as minorities or women is just kind of ridiculous.
Well, they were being compared for _politeness_, and while I’m not an expert on turn of the century feminism, I don’t see any reason why that wouldn’t be right. I don’t see that a comparison was being made to the details of the oppression and it seems to me that you’re being obnoxious to make an issue of it. _Every_ movement for expanded rights or recognition needs its verbal (and sometimes even literal) bomb throwers to expand the Overton window, and the claim is that despite paternalistic post-backlash assumptions, feminists were no exceptions.
I guess what I’m saying is that the suffragettes had a reason for their sense of urgency and outrage.
“I guess what I’m saying is that the suffragettes had a reason for their sense of urgency and outrage.”
And that’s what I meant by obnoxious. I wouldn’t necessarily claim that atheists are in the same basket as turn-of-the-last-century women, but their situation isn’t nearly so cushy or their problems so trivial as you seem to think. A much better comparison is being gay, in that (i) it differs wildly by geographic region and (ii) while it’s possible to duck some of the worst of the opprobrium by living in a closet, it means in many places in red-state America, you do actually have to live in a closet. In turn that means there’s no one you can talk to honestly, which is a recipe for loneliness and stress. The Internet is helping (I’m a moderator on the about.com atheism forum and I hear the horror stories and venting) but what’s badly needed is a major closet-busting exercise. I wouldn’t wish AIDS on anyone but there’s no doubt that the silver lining in it was that it forced gay people out of the closet and forced others to realize that they were real people and not all that uncommon. In the same way, I think atheists need to get a bit of ACT-UP about them, and if that transgresses blogger civility codes, too bad.
The subject of the comparison was not the level or degree of suffering or oppression, but the effectiveness of certain political tactics. I think the suffragists were much more successful than today’s atheists, but I don’t know that the tactical comparison holds up that well because part of atheists’ perception problem is that morality is the purview of religion, whereas the suffrage cause was seen by many as morally right.
What’s an Atheist to do? They have no representation in government. They have no widespread forums to oresent their case. They don’t have a netwoek of “preachers” and tax exempt institutions where they can gather and raise funds. Their only defense is to use the Constitution to keep someone else’s dogma out of public buildings, although Congress starts with prayer each session.
This article wasn’t about opression but more about putting the beliefs and spiritual needs of one group over those of another. It was about tactics. Although, I can’t see where Atheists getting mean is going to make the points necessary to disprove the existence of God(s).
As religions demonstrate their hypocricy over time it will be more difficult for rational people to buy into the existence of some unknown entity that created all, knows all, sees all, and controls all, but let’s multitudes of charlatans to use it for there own perverse purposes (RC priests, Evangelical doomsdayers racking in vast summs of moneys, clerics fomenting violence, etc.).
Just before Imus was canned he had someone on who talked about religion, Jonathan Alter maybe, but they had a discussion on believing in God. Their agreed conclusion was why not believe because what do you have to lose? If you don’t believe and turn out to be wrong the fate of burning for an eternity in hell would be a silly price to pay if you were wrong.
Oh, oh, I’ve got to run off to church now…
Who said this?
“I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”
Can we all agree that while athiests haven’t suffered the same discrimination as other opressed groups, they haven’t exactly had a fair shake?
Lessee if I have this straight: I believe there is a God, who created the Universe, and watches over me,and everyone, including atheists.
Atheists believe there is no God, AND that anyone who believes there is a God is a blithering idiot.
Now there’s a formula for popular acceptance: If you begin to believe what I believe, you will also get for free the belief that you were, and nearly all your friends are, ignorant, criminal, deceivers.
Doesn’t exactly induce the “warm and fuzzies”, now does it?
Frank: “I believe there is a God, who created the Universe, and watches over me,and everyone, including atheists.”
Sure, Frank. “watches over” in the same sense that prison guards watch over the men on death row. They keep them in line until they’re dead, then they don’t give a shit about them anymore. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy just thinking about being watched over.
Atheists have nobody to talk to and that is somehow some great crisis? Come. On.
Suffrage was not a zero sum game. Giving women the right to vote did not mean taking it away from someone else.
With religion though, it is a zero sum game. If Christians are right, it means Jews, Muslims, and atheists are wrong. If atheists are right, it means everyone else is wrong. That is a truism. How can you be a true Christian or a true atheist and not take issue with beliefs that run 180 degrees counter to your own beliefs?
What you like to call “extremism” is nothing but basic logic. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Of course that is going to piss religious people off. But why should atheists have to be tolerant of religious people when they do not tolerate our beliefs?
ND: I see you understood the second part of my comment. You sure didn’t understand the first part.
You know, it’s one thing to criticize a person for their beliefs (unAmerican, bad manners, and all that), but it’s really stupid to attempt to criticize people for things they don’t even believe.
And please don’t bother to tell me you know people who believe that because I don’t care.
The comment was addressed to me, specifically, and I didn’t say that, nor would I ever.
Whatever Oliver might think, I don’t like atheists because most of them don’t know anything about religion, but they can mock you for believing in it.
John: Do you understand the difference between “I don’t believe what you believe”, “What you believe is wrong”, and “I can’t tolerate your beliefs”?
Many Christians say the first two, while nearly ALL atheists say the third…
Part of the problem with getting the athiest NON-MESSAGE across v. the suffragettes, is that everyone knows a woman, and can recognize that this person is a woman. Most people even know a woman or two whom they LOVE.
Women are hardly a minority. We see them everywhere, and their unique identifying characteristics are paraded in advertising as desirable.
Not everyone knows an atheist or gay person or a member of any other minority whose minority status is not immediately visible, and those who do not know them, feel free to demonize them.
I don’t like atheists because most of them don’t know anything about religion, but they can mock you for believing in it.
Funny you shoudld say that. It’s exactly the same reason that I don’t like strawmen.
Repack: That was clever, but nonresponsive. If you don’t know what a person believes, you can’t mock him for believing it, can you?
Sheesh. You don’t even have common sense? That’s like saying, “You’d have to be an idiot to believe there are black M & M’s”, because a) There aren’t any, and b) No one believes there are.
Still think it’s a ’straw man’?
“Atheists have nobody to talk to and that is somehow some great crisis? Come. On.”
Well, yes. Seriously. And then there’s having to waste time going to church services to pass as in the closet or because that’s the only social activity. And of course, there’s the ever present fear of really serious ostracization if you get found out. If this sort of thing is not an issue, then freedom of religion is meaningless.
“Now there’s a formula for popular acceptance: If you begin to believe what I believe, you will also get for free the belief that you were, and nearly all your friends are, ignorant, criminal, deceivers.”
Actually yes, because while atheists are committed to believing that religious are peddling superstitious nonsense, they’re not committed to believe that religious people are intrinsically immoral. They’re often a bit mindlessly conservative, especially on gay rights, but they’re not _evil_, and there are lots of issues where there’s common ground to be found. By contrast, compare Psalm 14: ‘The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.’ It’s not that every religious person believes that, but their tradition is saturated with it, and it’s only secularism that’s muted it.
John: Do you understand the difference between “I don’t believe what you believe”, “What you believe is wrong”, and “I can’t tolerate your beliefs”?
Many Christians say the first two, while nearly ALL atheists say the third…
You’re lazy generalizations using phrases like “most” and “nearly all” are tired.
Actually, Frank, you have it backwards. It’s mainly Xtians who insist the latter, some explicitly, but many more implicitly: By their demand that we should restore forced prayer in schools (with, of course, the attendant ostracism of everyone who doesn’t want to participate), and with the screaming denuncuiations every time any atheist suggests we shouldn’t put the 10 Commandments in our courts because this is a nation of laws not religions (and because it suggests anyone who doesn’t believe those commandments won’t get a fair shake in that court), and on and on and on. I mean, how can you claim to be tolerant of someone when you insist that their failure to believe the same way you believe will condemn them to an eternity of horrific suffering?
Again, I think the exact opposite is true, most atheists I know are far more conversant with the real details of the Bible than most fundams. One atheist friend went to school in a Jesuit academy, and he can quote doctrine far better than anyone I know. How many God-believers can really accurately quote ALL of the Ten commandments?
Frank: “I don’t like atheists because most of them don’t know anything about religion…”
OK, frank, here’s what I think I know about religion. In the Bible it says that anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. (Mark 3:29). Seems to me that means that once a person becomes an Atheist, they are pretty much screwed, from the perspective of Christianity.
So if God is “watching over” Atheists, to what end? What do you think happens to Atheists after they die? Do Atheists get into heaven? How does your god watch over people who are forsaken?
“Whatever Oliver might think, I don’t like atheists because most of them don’t know anything about religion”
Really? It’s been my experience that most atheists know more about religion than those who follow it.
“Do you understand the difference between “I don’t believe what you believe”, “What you believe is wrong”, and “I can’t tolerate your beliefs”?
Many Christians say the first two, while nearly ALL atheists say the third…”
Wrong again, Frank. There’s a reason why atheists were ranked the lowest in voter acceptability, because most religious people can’t tolerate atheism.
Also, you don’t find a lot of people trying to outlaw religion, (maybe stop the government for paying for it, but that’s not the same). On the other hand, you will find a lot of religious people trying to create laws that force their religion on others.
Other point for all you people who think atheists are obnoxious. After the massacre at VT several high profile people claimed this happened because of atheism. Whether it was removing prayer from school, teaching evolution, etc.
It was quickly learned that the killer modeled himself on Jesus.
Have you heard one high profile person blame this on religion?
…
Atheists have a long, long way to go before they can be compared to the religious people in terms of obnoxious behavior.
“…while nearly ALL atheists say the third…”
That’s hilarious.
You’re sort of overlooking that a major tenet of many religious beliefs is punishment for the rejection of this or that god. Intolerance of atheism - not to mention other religions — is fundamental to religious belief. Or are you telling me that Jesus will forgive and grant eternal life to those who reject him and deny his divinity?
“I don’t like atheists because most of them don’t know anything about religion,”
I am a former Christian who became an atheist when I learnt a *lot* about my religion. I read the Bible, cover to cover.
No one can hold that many contradictions and evil acts in their head and stay sane. Atheism was my way out of the conundrum. The more someone learns about religion, the less they want anything to do with it.
To the topic: as PZ Myers points out at Pharyngula, the suffragettes were bomb-throwers of the highest order and were constantly being told to “tone it down or you will hurt your cause”.
PZ, Richard Dawkins, etc, are trying to do likewise. They still have a long way to go to approach the likes of Susan B. Anthony in terms of heated rhetoric.
The sum total of your “arguments”: You’re wrong, Frank.
I hasten to add that my criticism was predicated on two things: That because many (yes, I said) know little or nothing about religion, they are mocking things they don’t understand, or things that often don’t exist: “watches over” in the same sense that prison guards watch over the men on death row
One atheist friend went to school in a Jesuit academy, and he can quote doctrine far better than anyone I know. How many God-believers can really accurately quote ALL of the Ten commandments?
See Repack Rider about that “straw man” thingy.
You’re sort of overlooking that a major tenet of many religious beliefs is punishment for the rejection of this or that god.
And what punishment might that be? Which religions? You are exactly who I mean by the critic who doesn’t know what he is talking about.
In other words, you don’t have to learn about religion — just stop mocking things you know nothing about.
And what punishment might that be? Which religions? You are exactly who I mean by the critic who doesn’t know what he is talking about.
The big 3, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have harsh words for non-believers. Arguing that point is ridiculous. If you need an atheist to cite chapter and verse to prove that, perhaps you’re the one that doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
This is off topic, but, being a huge Democrat and a huge supporter of ACORN and other equal economic opportunity organizations, why in the world are we Democrats not taking the FairTax and running with it?
I’ve had several fellow party members tell me that it is regressive and preys on the poor. Unfortunately, I believe they are misinformed. In actuality, the FairTax reimburses all U.S. citizens up to the poverty line and it brings more jobs to American soil! What gives?
Are’nt we the party of social justice? Don’t we condemn the other side for protecting the interests of U.S. social elites too often? This is a chance for American’s to finally shed a regressive tax structure. I employ anyone reading to research what I have said, see it for yourself, and then put pressure on our leaders to make a change for the better!
http://www.fairtax.org
DW
dw2777@uab.edu
John: “Harsh words” for non - believers? You mean the idea that when you are presented with what believers believe to be true, and you reject it, you are a sinner?
Yes, harsh words, indeed. Do they insult, degrade, or dehumanize the person involved? No, they do not.
Did you ever hear of “Hate the sin, love the sinner”? Of course you haven’t! Because first of all, it refutes your ridiculous premise — “Believers are mean to us, so we’re going to be mean back” — and, secondly, it flies in the face of your personal philosophy.
You know that being an atheist marginalizes you, that’s part of its attractiveness. Then you’re going to complain about it?
FYI: The FairTax is a right-wing crock.
Ha! Please Frank. You want to inject an irrationality into the matter that just isn’t there. Atheists don’t disagree with theists because they are “mean”, but because they claim to have answers without proof. Don’t be a jerk and tell me what I believe, because THAT is just the height of hypocrisy.
“Do they insult, degrade, or dehumanize the person involved? No, they do not.”
Oh, frank, you absolutely kill me, man. In one thread you decry the imminent threat of being forced to worship Allah by the evil muslim terrorists and now you want us to believe that the faithful are always polite and understanding of non-believers. Yup. I guess Fred Phelps didn’t get that memo. But leaving the fanattics of all religions aside, you seem to be forgetting, yet again, that no matter how much a christian loves the sinner but not the sin, in their doctrine if the sinner doesn’t accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior he is not going to be saved and will spend eternity in hell or limbo or wherever … but certainly not in heaven. That sure doesn’t strike me as all that tolerant: “I will be polite to you on earth but you will burn in hell for all eternity - unless yoy give up your beleifs and accept mine.” Feel the love
“You know that being an atheist marginalizes you, that’s part of its attractiveness. Then you’re going to complain about it?”
Hoo boy, i don’t even know where to begin unpacking this idiocy. First of all, this sort of implies you accept the fact that aethiests are marginalized in American society. Second, it suggests that you agree with this marginalization because your telling the athiests to just, you know, suck it up. Afterall they chose to believe something that would marginalize them in American society. I mean, like, wow. You sort of just disproved your whole point.
Frameone: “your telling the athiests to just, you know, suck it up.”
That’s exactly right. The Christian attitude that I’ve experienced is that Atheists are fine as long as we STFU about it and live happily in a Christian world playing by Christian rules. Prayer in school, Nativity scenes paid for with tax dollars, God on money, in the pledge, in courts, in Congress. Our rights aren’t being stomped on. Why, we Atheists have just as much right to worship God and Jesus Christ as anybody else. After all, the ever-loving Christian God is watching over us.
This country needs the neo-Atheists. We need people who are willing to speak truth to power, rather than just bending over and taking it.
Frank, if you have a moment, can you address this: What do you think happens to Atheists after they die?
I don’t want to be mocking you for something you don’t believe. If you could tell me what you believe, I’ll adjust my mockularity accordingly.
Thanks.
First, I wasn’t attributing anything negative to being marginalized. I was simply stating a fact: You know that atheists are in the minority — a small minority — and you choose to be in that minority.
If, for example, you choose to believe that humanity has its origin in a mass emigration from another planet, you will be choosing membership in a very small minority.
Do the people in the majority always treat people in the minority well? Unfortunately, no.
I believe that atheists who have led good lives go to a place called Purgatory, while people who have led overtly sinful lives will go to Hell.
Just like everybody else.
I don’t hold the belief that you must find Jesus, even if you’ve never heard of Him, to go to heaven.
Those who mock the religious beliefs of others, whether they are believers or nonbelievers, might want to consider wearing light, loose clothing when they die, if you get my drift.
Well, speaking of atheists, it appears that none other than the “Pope of Atheism”, Dr. Richard Dawkins (author of “The God Delusion” and “The Selfish Gene”) will be on the Bill O’Reilly show tonight (April 23) at 8pm EST.
Here are my entries for the drinking game: Take a drink every time O’Reilly says:
1. “Secular Progressive” or “SP”
2. “You’re not answering my question” (or smirking/rolling eyes/condescension)
3. “far left” or “radical left”
4. “haters”
5. “Shut up! Shut up!”
6. “Cut his mic!”
Aw man I’m late to yet another bash-on-the-atheists-for-being-different thread. Man, teach me to go away for the weekend. What did I miss? Has everyone called everyone else stupid yet? Have I missed the ceremonial lobbing of “No, you’re intolerant!” balls? Hope there’s still some fun to be had.
You’re in luck, Rex, Frank’s sill thrashing about trying to explain himself … bound to be be some hilarity there …
Isn’t it awesome that everyone, not just atheists, who aren’t sufficiently bitchin’ in the eyes of the lord are going to purgatory?
If you damn everybody, apparently, it isn’t intolerance!
Rex,
Sorry you missed the fun up till now. Here’s where we’re at: Frank provided a great link to some loony Catholic site and I’m preparing to mock his beliefs based on the sheer stupidity I’ve found there.
Frank, Holy fuck (no pun intended.) Is this site a fair representation of your religion? I’m looking at the “proof” that heaven exists and I am beside myself trying to decide which part to mock first.
Also, their explanation of Atheism is top-notch. Apparently there are 3 types of Atheists: Agnostics who may believe in God, Materialists who may believe in God, and pantheists who may believe in God, just not one God. But there are (according to the site) positive, or dogmatic, Atheists (which are “the most trenchant form”), “though it may be doubted whether such a system has ever been, or could ever possibly be seriously maintained.”
So, see? Atheists don’t really exist, according to that site.
Anyway, back to the supposed “proof” of the existence of heaven: It is stated that the reward granted to the virtuous in the next life must be eternal. Why? Because the mere thought that “the soul in the next life must merit her continuance in happiness by a continued series of combats … would be repugnant to all the tendencies and desires of human nature.”
There you have it. the tendencies and desires of human nature inform, if not overrule, the will of god.
And that’s just one of a dozen points made in the “brief outline of the principal arguments” for heaven.
Frank, I can only speak for myself, but if I have to choose between swallowing asinine reasoning like that to be part of the majority, and using my brain to join the minority in pointing out the asinine reasoning of the majority, I’ve gotta go with the minority.
“You know that atheists are in the minority — a small minority — and you choose to be in that minority.”
Huh? Atheists are certainly a minority, but I certainly didn’t choose to be in that minority. There is no baptism into atheism - it’s defined purely and simply as the lack of belief in the existence of any God/gods. After reflecting on the matter, I find I do not believe in the existence of any God/gods - end of story. I find the idea of choosing to believe something incomprehensible. You might as well ask me to wiggle my ears or find women sexually attractive. I could _pretend_ to believe in say Christianity and mouth a catechism, and if that’s good enough for you guys then I suppose I could be a Christian atheist, but it’s not in my power to choose not to be an atheist.
Damn it, I’m late to the party too. It looks like things are for the most part in control. While the rest of you handle Frank, I’ll take Oliver.
O-Dub, your posts are getting a bit out of hand. You never have anything to say about atheists except, “Suck it up, stop being a bunch of little bitches.” Why not say something substantive about the clash between theists and atheists? Why not give us your reasoning behind why you feel that atheists should not be outspoken? And comparing all of us to Falwell and Robertson in terms of our rhetoric is not substantive, btw.
Your post here is especially asinine. First off, you seem to claim that atheists aren’t a minority, which is blatantly untrue. Second, you seem to think that atheists are not having their rights systematically denied by the law. Also untrue. God is on our money, in the pledge, and is a core tenet held by 99% of our elected representatives. You have to wonder, with this kind of belief being so central to so many of these politicians’ lives, just how much our national policy is shaped by overtly Christian ideals. Would you say that our right to freedom from religious oppression is not being transversed here? It brings to mind Lynne Cheney stating something to the effect of, “The Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.” Pure, unadulterated bullshit.
For what it’s worth, I don’t wholly disagree with you on your comparison. I don’t think that the overt discrimination against atheists is as great as black Americans or women, especially looked at through the lens of history. However, the difference is certainly one of degree, and not of kind.
I certainly didn’t choose to be in that minority.
Oh no! “I was born that way!”
Sorry, that’s already taken.
You chose it,heathen!
Incidentally, ND, the link was to “Purgatory”. I wasn’t opening the door to a wide ranging critique of Roman Catholicism.
You can type what ever comments you want, but I was just answering your question.
You, of course, saw fit to leap all over the place criticizing this and that, as more proof that criticizing religion is all atheists can do; which explains why they are unpopular and obnoxious.
fd: I certainly didn’t choose to be in that minority. [//] Oh no! “I was born that way!” [//] Sorry, that’s already taken. [//]You chose it,heathen!’
No, really, I didn’t choose it. The very concept choosing to believe or not is incomprehensible to me, and precisely because of that, I _couldn’t_ have chosen not to believe. If your theology requires that I chose it, so that me being thrown to the fires of hell or whatever for not believing is just, then your theology is simply wrong.
Also, now that you mention it, while I am gay (in the sense of exclusively same-sex attracted), I don’t claim to have been “born that way”, and I think other gay people are being sloppy when they say such things. For all I know, I could be gay because of a vitamin deficiency in infancy or having been shown scary pictures of penguins as an impressionable child. The only thing that I _know_ is that being gay manifested itself full-force and fully formed at the earliest moment it sensibly could have, i.e., puberty, and that it’s a totally spontaneous reaction to some people and not others. That is, it’s rather like believing which is a spontaneous reaction to some ideas and not others. And again, if that doesn’t suit your theology, then too bad - your theology is simply wrong.
“You chose it,heathen!”
If that’s what you have to believe to justify your hatred, so be it. We’ll just add it to the list of things you are wrong about.
The very concept of choosing to believe or not is incomprehensible to me
Well, I’m sorry to hear that.
Mark: If you had a reason for bringing being gay into this, please don’t tell me. I enjoy the mystery.
People choose to believe things — is that a radical concept?
CSS: The fact that people choose to believe things is just that — a fact.
Since I don’t have any hatred for atheists, there is no need to justify it.
CSS: Why do you pretend to be intelligent? You’re not fooling anyone, certainly not me.
“I wasn’t opening the door to a wide ranging critique of Roman Catholicism.”
Hilarious. As if the concept of purgatory, a place where small-time non-believers go to be punsihed before they are forgiven, just makes so much freaking sense it was necesary to wonder anywhere on the site to find something to critique.
Of course, who knows if this holy truth will stay one for long, as apparently the pope decided that concept of limbo needed a little updating. Ah, the mysteries of god’s ever unfolding vision … as determined by man. How totally awesomely divine.
“People choose to believe things — is that a radical concept?”
Atheism isn’t a belief, why is it so hard to figure that out?
“Why do you pretend to be intelligent? You’re not fooling anyone, certainly not me.”
If you thought I was smart, I would be worried.
Frank, you’re wrong again. How can one choose to believe in something? I can’t wake up tomorrow morning and say, “Well, shit… I’m tired of the way I’ve been living my life. From now on, I TRULY believe in the existence of the Easter Bunny/Santa Claus/Loch Ness Monster/God.”
No, come on. Even you can realize that’s ridiculous. What someone believes in entirely dependent on the information he encounters, and the way he processes that information. It’s somewhat analogous to sexual orientation in that I couldn’t wake up tomorrow and decide that men are more sexually appealing to me. There’s no choice here, Frank.
Mambochicken23, I think I see Frank’s point of view on this one. You see, he has faith. He has made a concious choice to disregard reality and instead believe in something that he knows logically can’t exist.
For him it was a choice, so he assumes for everyone it must have been a choice.
Of course, there’s a huge difference between choosing to believe something despite all of the evidence against it and not believing because of the evidence against it.
FD: Well, I’m sorry to hear that [the concept of choosing to believe is incomprehensible.
MB: And I could care less about that.
FD: Mark: If you had a reason for bringing being gay into this, please don’t tell me. I enjoy the mystery.
MB: For others’ benefit, I had compared the gay closet to the atheist closet earlier in the thread, and so when you sarcastically invoked the common gay talking point “I was born that way!” (which as I say I don’t particularly endorse), I assumed you were reacting to it. Whether you were or not, it remains a useful comparison for reasons I tried to explain.
How can one choose to believe in something?
Mambochicken: Why repeat something and expect it to make more sense?
What someone believes in entirely dependent on the information he encounters, and the way he processes that information
a. I believe it OR
b. I don’t believe it.
Your Skinnerian / Watsonian view of the world was outmoded and disproven — years ago.
Of course, there’s a huge difference between choosing to believe something despite all of the evidence against it and not believing because of the evidence against it.
“Of course” = I have no idea what that difference might be, or how to explain it, so I’ll just say ‘of course’.
See, Frank, what happened was I followed the link you provided to the explanation of Purgatory. I didn’t see anything about whether or not Atheists could pass through and go to heaven. So I looked up Atheism, which gave me the cornball definition that I mentioned previously. That didn’t answer my question, so I searched on “heaven.” That, of course, was an unexpected jackpot of ridiculousness, and I simply had to share.
The way I see it, there are two kinds of people: one takes information as it is handed to them, accepts it, and that’s the end of it. The other takes that information, has a question, investigates that question, which leads to another question, which they investigate, which leads to more questions… and so on. I am of the second type. (Incidentally, a quality that ultimately led me to Atheism.) So there was no way I wasn’t going to dig around on that site.
Now, with regard to Purgatory, I have a question. According to that site, there are two conditions of the souls in Purgatory. One is that they can no longer sin. The second is that “they are to be delivered.” So once a soul is in Purgatory, they can not sin and they will go to heaven. However, it is stated (in the Bible) that “he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.”
So, if an Atheist, who has spoken against the Holy Ghost, goes to Purgatory, are they going to end up in heaven? It says they can no longer sin, but they have already committed an unforgivable sin. Shouldn’t all Atheists, therefore, go to hell? Purgatory was invented because “some die with smaller faults for which there was no true repentance, and also the fact that the temporal penalty due to sin is [a]t times not wholly paid in this life.” So it’s basically a place for people to be punished after they die until the big guy decides they’ve had enough. How long would that be for someone who denies his existence?
ND: I don’t feel like playing word games with you. If the conditions were such that a person should “speak against the Holy Ghost” AND such that “it shall not be forgiven him”, then that would not be a “smaller fault” (a venial sin), it would be a “mortal sin”, and that person would go to hell.
As I said before, I directed people, via the link, to an explanation of what purgatory was for those that didn’t know.
I don’t care where you went, or what you found. Every time we get into these discussions, I get treated like the “Answer Man”: “How come this?” “How come that?”, and then you make up some bullshit argument based on what you think, for me to unravel for you.
Figure it out for yourselves. The crux of the discussion / argument / debate is, “Are atheists really saying anything or are they just cranky, anti - religious malcontents, who wish they would be taken seriously”?
I say the latter.
Incidentally, C.S. Lewis has proposed an idea which I share: His idea is that no one would want to approach God (in Heaven) in a less than perfect spiritual condition — much as one dresses up to visit company. They would, therefore, want to be “purged” of their imperfections (”purgatory”, get it?) before approaching the Heavenly Throne.
That makes more sense than, “We’re not done with you yet, buddy boy!”
But “mockularity” is so much more fun than understanding, isn’t it? It makes you feel superior, doesn’t it? Too bad there’s no other way for you to feel good about about your self.
fd: What someone believes in entirely dependent on the information he encounters, and the way he processes that information
MB: Yes. So? I don’t happen to know how to process information so as to belive in God. Unless you can explain that to me I can’t meaningfully be said to be choosing not to believe. Compare: somewhere out there is a person who is continually sick because he doesn’t know he’s gluten intolerant. he can’t meaningfully be said to have chosen to be sick because he doesn’t have the information to relate the things he can choose (i.e., eating wheat products) to the condition to be modified.
Now of course very possibly you’ll be able to tell what worked for you, but on past experience of people trying that it’s unlikely to work for me because I’ll recognize it immediately as either illogical or dishonest. And call me wierd, but as a result of information I’ve been exposed to in the past, I tend spontaneously not to believe things when I’ve seen illogic or dishonesty go into the derivation of them.
fd: “What someone believes in entirely dependent on the information he encounters, and the way he processes that information” was quoting mambochicken.
That’s why it was in italics.
Care to try that again?
You’re just being argumentative, and in so doing, proving my original point — that atheists are just contrarians.
Frank, are you actually telling me that I could choose to believe in Santa Claus, if I just tried hard enough? I’m not trying to be disrespectful here, I’m actually trying to engage you on this topic. In reality, you either believe something, or you do not. Why you believe something is because of your previous learning experiences. You can’t believe something, for example, unless you come into contact with the idea, and ideas being immediately previous to it. You don’t choose your beliefs, per se. The only thing you can “choose” is the information that you engage with. It is from that process that you arrive at your belief structure.
Also, I don’t think that you truly understand what you mean by “Skinnerian/Watsonian.”
FD: [...] was quoting mambochicken. [//]That’s why it was in italics.
MB: Is that so? You were quoting _me_ in italics before. And I felt so special…
Isn’t this thread done?
We’re down to the “Golly, Frank, you’re fucking ignorant” stage of this stupid game, aren’t we?
Here’s an example for you (not that I think it will do any good):
Soldiers A, B, and C are in a foxhole.
At a safe distance away is soldier D, observing the whole scene.
A shell lands in the foxhole, and explodes. Soldier D observes a flash, hears a loud boom, and no longer sees soldier B.
Soldier A, stunned by the blast, loses all memory of the blast, and only remembers that a shell exploded, and all that was left of his buddy soldier B, was his combat boots.
Soldier D observes that soldier A saw the whole thing, but A is convinced that he was knocked unconscious by the explosion, and saw nothing.
Soldier C comes to his senses, and “remembers” that he saw soldier B blown to pieces. He is traumatized by the event, and has flashbacks and nightmares for the rest of his life, as therapist after therapist tries to convince him, per soldier D’s account, that he did not see soldier B blown to pieces.
Do A, C, and D believe what they saw?
Which one saw the reality of the situation?
Which one will act as if they observed the reality of the situation?
You see? Things happen, happen to me, happen in front of me, happen to people I know, happen to people known to people I know.
I choose which of those things are clear evidence of God’s existence, and which are not.
I’m not running around like a butterfly collector collecting evidence in a butterfly net. I already believe that there is a God. I don’t need more evidence, and there is no such thing as less evidence.
For the record:
Watson wrote in 1924:
Behaviorism … holds that the subject matter of human psychology is the behavior of the human being. Behaviorism claims that consciousness is neither a definite nor a usable concept…
… The behaviorist asks: Why don’t we make what we can observe the real field of psychology? Let us limit ourselves to things that can be observed, and formulate laws concerning only those things.
Skinner maintained that learning occurred as a result of the organism responding to, or operating on, its environment, and coined the term operant conditioning to describe this phenomenon.
You know, Frank, I wouldn’t think you’d be so snippy about my last post, considering that I warned you well in advance that I was going to mock you.
Nevertheless, I can see that you have no interest in discussing your beliefs. That’s understandable, really, since religion can’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Ask one or two questions yourself and the whole facade might just crumble around you. Wouldn’t want that.
Just for the record, though, my bullshit argument was based on what you think, not me. You’re the one who said that you think Atheists go to purgatory. You provided the link to the explanation of purgatory. I just asked a couple questions regarding the inconsistency of the whole idea.
But whatever. You just go on espousing your beliefs while deriding anyone who questions them, since it’s obviously the only way that you can feel good about yourself.
Also incidentally, C.S.Lewis was an idiot. Why would purgatory exist because humans want it to? How could human desires create a plane of existence where our souls go after we die?
You don’t have to answer that. I know you don’t like talking about your beliefs.
As for the guys in the foxholes, reality exists outside of our experience. Just because you believe something is true doesn’t make it true.
Your analogy doesn’t say anything new, Frank. On top of that, you again demonstrate why you are an inherently unreasonable person. All of the soldiers in your example will believe according to their own interpretation of what they experienced, whether that experience includes post-trauma counseling or not. Everyone is shaped by the events that happen around them. This is an unequivocal truth, and I don’t understand how this could possibly be a contentious point.
“I already believe that there is a God. I don’t need more evidence, and there is no such thing as less evidence.”
—There is such a thing as NO evidence, however. And that’s what you have. Very scientific of you, by the way… to start with a conclusion and then selectively look for evidence to support your conclusion. Very tricky, and the exact opposite of how scientists arrive at truths. Good work.
Finally, I didn’t say that you were necessarily wrong about the two famous psychologists you mentioned, especially Watson. I was reflecting on the utter inconsequential nature of invoking their names on this topic. Watson’s view is outmoded and relatively empty as a means of prediction, as it is void theoretically. Skinner continued his practice to some extent, and for that reason is also quite dated. I am by no means a strict behaviorist, and I don’t see how you could have gotten that impression at all. I study animal cognition and learning theory, which is quite rich in theoretical positions, and still is perfectly congruent with the ideas that I’ve expressed.
BTW, Skinner was correct with respect to your limited critique of him. Operant conditioning is, along with Pavlovian conditioning, one of the major fields of research in animal learning theory.
Frank, it’s not even a fair fight when you’re arguing with me on issues that are not instrumental to my career. Why you decide to tread deep into my home territory without having even a half of a clue is beyond me. Get help.
Here’s how it works…
You can choose to believe 2+2=5.
You do not choose to believe 2+2=4.