Why do we let New Atheists and religious zealots dominate the conversation about religion?

[rug]

They reduce it to thumbs-up, thumbs-down propositions that leave no room for the way most people think about it

Saturday, Apr 25, 2015 11:59 AM EDT
Peter Birkenhead

“Religion” is a big word, maybe too big. It is one of those words, like “artist,” capacious enough to denote both a thing and its near opposite. Religion is the Tao Te Ching and Dianetics. Augustine and Koresh. Hillel and Kahane, Rumi and bin Laden.

So why does the public conversation around religion often seem so cramped and stunted? Why is it dominated by people who are fond of reducing it to thumbs-up, thumbs-down propositions that leave no room for the way most people think about it?

“New Atheists,” such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, and religious TV personalities like Pastor Rick Warren and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach like their conversations tidy. They are big fans of pithy, aphoristic wisdom, and are united in their contempt for those who can’t fit their thoughts about God onto a book jacket. After years of debating each other in person and in print, they have developed the glib instincts and interdependence of perfect comic foils, and a telling habit of inadvertently making each other’s cases.

Richard Dawkins likes to complain that, “religion teaches us to be satisfied with answers which are not really answers at all.” To which the Dalai Lama might respond, “Why, yes, Mr. Dawkins. Yes, it does.” Authentic religion isn’t all that interested in answers–not the kind Dawkins is talking about anyway–but he and his fellow atheists persist in submitting questions to it like, “How old is the universe,” and “Why do earthquakes happen?” and then gloating at the lack of response.

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/25/why_do_we_let_new_atheists_and_religious_zealots_dominate_the_conversation_about_religion/

[villager]

1. Great question -- since both groups are equally rigid, straightjacketed,

...and incapable of "hearing" in any meaningful sense...

[phil89]

26. Nonsense. The "new atheists"

Can be convinced with evidence. There is no evidence for a god though so why should they believe?

[villager]

89. As I was saying. Equally, rigidly straightjacketed...

Down to the Manichean beliefs about the universe.

[cbayer]

2. It's true of those at the extremes in any debate.

Humorless, dogmatic and extremely defensive. They make caricatures out of those that don't share their rigid views and are driven primarily by tribal instincts.

I'm much more interested in those with more nuanced ideas about religion, and pretty much anything else for that matter.

[Fumesucker]

4. Why would someeone be defensive about being an atheist?

http://www.alternet.org/story/153803/why_is_an_atheist_high_school_student_getting_vicious_death_threats

If you take away just two things from the story about atheist high school student Jessica Ahlquist, and the court case she won last week to have a prayer banner taken out of her public school, let it be these:

The ruling in this case was entirely unsurprising. It is 100 percent in line with unambiguous legal precedent, established and re-established over many decades, exemplifying a basic principle of constitutional law.
As a result of this lawsuit, Jessica Ahlquist is now being bullied, ostracized and threatened with violence in her community. She has been called "evil" in public by her state representative, and is being targeted with multiple threats of violence, rape and death.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/08/atheist_that_spoke_against_in.html

Here are just a few of the messages that were directed at Scott on Facebook via comment threads or even to her personal inbox, provided to AL.com. AL.com also verified each comment and chose to withhold the names of the people who wrote them.

"Shoot her for treason."
"Go jump off a bridge."
"I believe in God. 'In God We Trust' should not be an issue. I bet that if she was [sic] fixing to be raped or murdered she would be asking God to save her."
"Get a rope."
"I think this lady is just trying to get some attention, because no guy wants to go out with her."
"Saw her on the news, she's just mad because one of the seven deadly sins is gluttony."
"If you don't believe in God, how can God or the word God offend you? I wish people like this would walk into traffic."
"What's her motto, in McDonalds we trust?"
"She can take a flying leap off Canal Bridge."
"Dump her off at the Iraq border, tell her she's home hit the road."
"Whatever happened to stoning people in the city square?"
"What do I think? I think she will burn in Hell when her time comes."

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/08/08/atheist-author-cancels-seattle-appearance-after-receiving-death-threats-signed-by-gods-little-helper

This weekend, the Atheist Alliance of America is hosting their 2014 national convention in SeaTac. Prominent atheists, including Stephen Pinker and Rebecca Goldstein, are headlining a full docket of panels and banquets and field trips. One author, who publishes under the pseudonym Horus Gilgamesh, was scheduled to attend the convention in support of his new book Awkward Moments (Not Found in Your Average) Children's Bible, a study of the Bible's most contradictory and cruel episodes intended for adults, but presented in the guise of a children's book. At the last minute, Gilgamesh canceled his appearance at the convention after receiving two death threats in the mail this week.

On Monday, Gilgamesh opened the mailbox at his Washington state home to find a letter addressed to both his real name and his pseudonym. The letter, which arrived with a Tacoma-Olympia postmark, began "Do I have your attention now? You think your [sic] so safe to hide behind a fake name to spread lies about God and attacking Christians? You aren't." This is followed by a lengthy quote about putting idolaters to death from the King James translation of Deuteronomy 13. The verse warns that if anyone you know "serve[s] other gods," you should "surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death." The letter ends: "I'll see you up in Seattle next week. You wont [sic] see me." It's signed "God's Little Helper."

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/school-cancels-bible-man-visits-atheist-mom-receives-threats

"At first he did not know that he didn't have to go," she told reporters. "As he got older, it bothered him that he had to sit through this because it's not his religion."

After hearing of the complaint, the Freedom From Religion Foundation wrote to the school warning them that the visits from Bible Man violated the Constitution.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation works "as an umbrella for those who are free from religion and are committed to the cherished principle of separation of state and church," according to their website.

Since the removal of Bible Man from the schools, the atheist mother has said that her family has received threats on social media, including a picture of a burning house on Facebook.

[cbayer]

5. I said extremely defensive.

Defensive beyond what is called for. Defensive to the point of attacking others even when they present no threat. Defensiveness so blinding that one can't even see who's on the same side as you.

Many will stand together to fight against the kinds of actions that you outline here.

[Goblinmonger]

6. so how defensive can you get

when you are at high school girl that gets threatened with being shot and other horrible things? Since you seem to think you know the boundaries, help us out. When she was threatened with rape, what level of defensive can she get on a scale of 1-10?

[rug]

12. You're not a high school girl. What's your reason?

[Warren Stupidity]

17. I thought that you had no questions for atheists.

[rug]

19. I have no qestion about his atheism.

Mt question is why he hides it. Which, as you know, is a different question than simple nonbelief.

[beam me up scottie]

14. Defensive against assholes who compare atheists to religious zealots?

Why would anyone get defensive about comparisons like that from People Who Are Supposed to be On the Same Side?

Defensive to the point of attacking others even when they present no threat.

What kind of threat do atheists post to warrant attacks like this?

[rug]

20. Except he's not comparing athesists to religious zealots.

He's comparing assholes who are atheists to assholes who are religious zealots.

[Starboard Tack]

65. "New Atheists", not "Atheists". Big difference

There, fixed it for you.

Most atheists are not theophobes.

[beam me up scottie]

70. Most DU atheists aren't homophobes, ST.

Who think comparing same sex marriage to marrying a hamster, grandmother or bicycle is acceptable behaviour.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=123723

Or use terms like "genderqueer".

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1230&pid=8780

There, now that we've got that out of the way, please proceed. I love being lectured on morality by hypocrites.

[Starboard Tack]

86. Hopefully, none are homophobes.

Does your use of the term "genderqueer" make you a homophobe. I don't think so. Personally, I have never used the word except in quotes. Do a search. You'll find it used quite often, even on DU. Not my cuppa tea though.

And please, leave my grandma and my pets out of the conversation, as they are all now in the great beyond. My bicycle is a whole other issue, if only I could get it to say "yes".

And yes, I guess we are all hypocrites, including me, but I don't think I've ever lectured on morality.

So, how about them theophobes?

[phil89]

27. Atheists

Ask for evidence before believing. Not seeing how that's defensive.

[cbayer]

28. That is not defensive at all and the discussion is not about atheists in general.

The discussion is about zealots on the extremes.

[Starboard Tack]

63. Not true. Atheists don't believe in god(s), period.

We neither want nor need evidence to "believe" something. Those who need evidence have no understanding of belief. The whole point of belief is that it requires no evidence, no proof.

Those who ask for proof are just spoiling for a fight. Unless, of course, they are so confused that they think science is a belief system.

[MineralMan]

52. What nuance? There are deities or there are not.

Not much room for nuance there. I believe there are no such thing as deities, so religion is a non-starter for me, altogether.

[cbayer]

55. Religion encompasses much more than the simple belief or disbelief in deities.

And many people don't even take a position on that.

Black and white thinking when it comes to religion is without nuance, and that is a non-starter for me.

[MineralMan]

62. In most religions, though, everything begins with a deity or

deities. Without that basis there's no basis for the rest. Societies and social organizations do the same thing, religion or not. No deity is required for people to join together to promote a better society. Logical thinking about human relationships comes to the same basic conclusions as religion. That is because religion, like other societal organizations, create ways of behavior that are of benefit to other members of the society.

Deities are not required.

[cbayer]

64. Belief in a diety is true for some, but not all.

I agree that one does not need a deity to form groups for the promotion of a better society. People form their moral and ethical beliefs with and without religion. Sometimes they reach conclusions that resonate with my own and sometimes they don't.

Does not matter to me whether religion played a role or not. It is the conclusions that I will evaluate them on.

Deities may not be required for you and for others. They may not be required for anyone, but they play a critical role for some and I don't think you can conclude wear those individuals would have landed if they did not believe in god.

Perhaps they would have been more aligned with me. Perhaps they would have been less aligned.

Once thing I believe about religion, though, it that works for you, works for you. You can not extrapolate from there that it works for anyone else.

[MineralMan]

69. Religions can have good effects on society.

They can also contribute to separatism and us/them conflicts. I see the latter more often than the former these days. My family-in-law is made up primarily of ELCA Lutherans, so I'm most often in those churches for various occasions, usually weddings and funerals. That denomination seems more innocuous than many to me, but the focus is still on individual salvation, rather than community responsibility in the broader community.

Quite frankly, most of the ELCA congregations I have observed are predominantly white and middle class. While I'm sure that most of those churches would gladly accept members from other ethnic and racial backgrounds, the congregations don't include them, at least in the churches I've attended.

And then, there are the evangelical, fundamentalist Protestant churches that seem most often to preach separateness and all too often a very socially conservative viewpoint, despite reading Bible verses calling for just the opposite. Their smug and cynical racism and classism offends me deeply.

I'm just not seeing the overall benefit from organized religion. The groups I belong to are predominantly non-religious in their membership. Instead of discussing theology, they discuss society and how it might be improved for the benefit of its members. That's the focus, not worshiping an absent deity. I prefer that approach. I see no benefit in worshiping any deity for the society.

I want less separatist thinking and more community focus. No doubt there are religious organizations with that as the goal, but such are in the minority, based on my experience and observation. Since I cannot and do not believe that deities exist, I see no useful function for worshiping such entities. It wastes time that might be spend in more useful pursuits, it seems to me.

[cbayer]

71. Religion seems to be one area where racial segregation remains very common.

And it's generally self-selected, not imposed.

Whether you see the overall benefit from organized religion really means only one thing - it's not of use to you.

There is much to criticize and much to honor, imo. I know a large number of religiously driven social and political activists. I see an overall benefit from their kind of religion, but I can't really measure the good and the bad and come up with an overall plus or minus.

So I support and embrace those I think are doing good and push back against those who I think are doing bad.

I would also like less separatist thinking and more community focus. One of the ways to achieve that is for religious and secular groups to work together on issues for which they share common ground.

Religious groups that won't work with secular groups and secular groups that reject religious groups really miss the boat, imo.

That doesn't mean that there should be an expectation that you should worship something that you don't believe in, but that those beliefs be recognized as being individualized and not allowing them to dictate the direction of the group, just the individual.

[Lordquinton]

85. The white churches just "self selected" the black folks out

It's so simple.

[TexasProgresive]

3. It seems that's just the way of it.

"The squeaky wheel gets the grease." Spiro Agnew wasn't far off when he spoke of the "silent majority" Small extremely vocal groups force their will over the majority. The Tea Party is one example or the small ultra right Jewish parties that play such a big part in Israeli politics.

I have personal experience with aggressive over assertive people (mostly men I must admit) forcing their will on a majority who differ or are just apathetic. It's the offensive belief, "If I am louder than you, I must be right."

[okasha]

7. It's also

"If I am louder than you, I can prevent your reply from being heard.". It's a way of silencing opposition.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. "Silent Majority" was classic dog whistle racism.

Agnew, seriously?

[okasha]

9. And another way to attempt to silece someone here on DU

is to imply that s/he is a right winger.

Warren haz another fail.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Anyone who quotes notorious right wing idiot

spiro agnew citing a notoriously racist term on a supposedly progressive democratic message board, even here in the religion forum, has some explaining to do.

But I haven't silenced anyone. I simply questioned the propriety of using "silent majority".

You probably ought to take discussions of admirable things spiro Agnew said over to interfaith where nobody will point out just what a shithead Agnew was or how vile a term "silent majority" was.

[rug]

11. Anyone stating the author of the phrase is Spiro Agnew has some explaining to do.

http://watergate.info/1969/11/03/nixons-silent-majority-speech.html

Perhaps you were thinking of "nattering nabobs of nepotism".

You really shouldn't go all McCarthyite on a DU member when your fly is open,.

[okasha]

13. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, RUG!!

That image will be with me forever!

[rug]

21. 12 days after that speech I was in Washington with a half million people answering that speech.

Heady days, weren't they?

[okasha]

23. They were indeed.

And some still to come. We old hands get the pleasure now of mentoring the kids--How to Go Limp for the Cops 101, Non-Violent Demonstration For the Absolute Beginner 205, Organizing a Protest March 317......

[Warren Stupidity]

16. Talk to Texasprogressive.

That would be the person making the claim.

" Spiro Agnew wasn't far off when he spoke of the "silent majority""

[cbayer]

15. Because when you allow zealots to dominate the conversation, they become very emboldened.

Enough successes and enough tribal support and they just up the ante.

In the end, everyone loses.

[carolinayellowdog]

18. Why do we let opinion rather than knowledge dominate the conversation about religious history?

It seems so rare to find anyone who pursues knowledge in the field for its own sake, out of historical curiosity. Everywhere you find people who use knowledge only as fodder for opinionated axe-grinding. Using information to justify opinion rather than seeking information on which to base opinion. For a couple of decades I lamented how hard it was to have a decent knowledge based discussion online with opinion-sharing being secondary and respectful. Back then it was always because the religious zealots interrupted the normal people. Now the anti-religious zealots online are just as profoundly impressed with their own opinions and hostile to genuine respectful knowledge based discussion.

on edit-- there is a certain heretic-hunting character trait that I'd define as sadistic authoritarianism, and the whole dominance/submission aspect of religiosity is tied into it-- but it can and does manifest as anti-religious as well, e.g. Stalin, a former seminarian.

[beam me up scottie]

22. What the fuck is "Authentic" religion?

Authentic religion doesn’t ask us to follow Seven Easy Steps to Nirvana, or crunch numbers to comprehend the Tao. It invites us to encounter the infinite, to engage with it. It is not the opposite of scientific inquiry, but it wants us to place our attempts at a physical understanding of the universe in a broader context by acknowledging the narrow scope of our perception. It asks of us the courage to live consciously, to notice all that we don’t see, and muster the imagination to integrate that vision into the human enterprise.

Apparently Authentic™ religion is whatever the author says it is.

Just like Gnu atheism.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. That is the kind that is not doing something ridiculously embarrassing at the moment.

[beam me up scottie]

81. Ah.

Short window of opportunity there.

[MisterP]

24. it used to be that if someone was ripping up Catholic hosts and screaming that Santa Claus

was the biggest danger to our children it was just Ian Paisley on a bender: now nobody can tell

[Fumesucker]

25. Largely because no one else really wants to speak up against the zealots

And let's face it, putting agnostics on TV against apatheists isn't the most gripping of programming as they fall over each other in their rush to agree that there is no way to know if there's a god and it wouldn't make any difference if there was.

Nope, zealots vs atheists is where the sparks fly even if hopefully not the chairs.

Get a better class of TV viewer and the problem will be solved, the networks will no longer find it necessary to program for the lowest common denominator.

[cbayer]

30. You have hit the nail squarely on the head.

It is what feeds the masses, and not just on the TV.

[Yorktown]

31. Decidedly, Salon hasn't much of substance to offer

From a purely logical point of view, the title question of the article has no merit

Why do we let New Atheists and religious zealots dominate the conversation about religion?

Someone is either:
•A: a doubter/atheist/agnostic = no idea about god(s) and which, or
•B: a believer in one given religion. Then, pretty much a zealot taking some texts seriously

In between is a position which has no real clarity and grounding.
I 'feel' there must be a god, but I don't know which and waht he does?
That makes you a de facto doubter who won't own up to their doubts.

[cbayer]

32. I think you draw the lines much too starkly and, in doing so,

dismiss the vast majority of both believers and non-believers who are not zealots at all.

There are zealots in both camps - those that believe that they, and they alone, have the truth. They are loud, dogmatic and do dominate a lot of the conversation.

But most people are quietly ether believers or non-believers or just not sure.

Are you insisting that someone be on one team or another? What purpose would that serve?

[Yorktown]

33. I think you are muddling the original claim of this bad article.

People can be, in your words, "loud", intolerant even, about pretty much anything. There are loudmouthed centrists in this world. Being loudmouthed, intolerant is a behavior, not a belief.

But the Salon article is making a real mistake:
• it's either you have firm beliefs in a certain god and its doctrine, and, if you truly believe, you are expected to be dogmatic. The creed of that religion IS the dogma. And many of these dogmas expect you to be intolerant (Only Jesus saves, only muslims will enjoy Jennah, etc). If you do not believe in the dogma of a given religion, you just are a poor believer in the realm of that religion.
• OR you are uncommitted/agnostic/skeptical, and, by definition, you have no real religious dogma, ergo, not dogmatic on the theoretical issue of religion. Granted, some among doubters can be loudmouthed and intolerant, but then again, it's a behavioral problem, not a conceptual standpoint.

[cbayer]

34. I like the article and think the original claim is right on.

There are people at the extremes that dominate the conversation. When it comes to religion, the vast majority of people are somewhere in the center, but they are drowned out by the loud mouthed zealots at the extremes.

There may be loudmouthed centrists, but as was pointed out in another post, they rarely garner much attention.

It is not true that you either have firm beliefs in a certain god or its doctrine or you do not, and all available data belies that claim. The expectation of dogmatism may be yours, but it is not universally shared. Your picture of the religious as universally intolerant may be a part of your personal dogma, but it's not the case.

And the claim that the only alternative is to not have any dogma at all is just not grounded in truth. There are nonbelievers who are extremely dogmatic on the theoretical issue of religion. It is those people that the article addresses.

[Yorktown]

35. Again, you confuse attitude and belief

Being loudmouthed, intolerant, rude is a (bad) behavior. Some can call that being dogmatic, but that's a stretch of words if the intolerant person isn't actually defending a black and white platform/dogma.

In a discussion about religion, someone dogmatic follows the text, the dogma of a religion.

You claim "It is not true that you either have firm beliefs in a certain god or its doctrine or you do not". OK, let's take you at your word. Can you be have non-firm beliefs in Roman Catholicism? You might think it makes sense, but the Roman Catholic Church won't think so. Can you hold non-firm beliefs in the Quran, i.e., pick and choose what you like in it? You might think it makes sense, but no muslim cleric will agree with you. Religions are built to hold 'absolute truths'. That's what their foundational books say, that's what their apologists say.

You might want to think there is a middle way: it's not grounded in the foundational dogma of these religions, and it's not supported by their structure and militants, i.e. believers.

[cbayer]

36. No, I don't confuse them at all.

I agree that being loudmouthed, intolerant and rude is bad behavior. When coupled with dogmatic beliefs, it's particularly bad behavior, but likely to draw quite a bit of attention.

You make the mistake of seeing dogma as only religiously based. That is incorrect. There are dogmatic atheists and anti-theists.

Most Roman Catholics have many non-firm beliefs and many of those beliefs are in direct conflict with the position of the church itself. Whether the RCC likes it or not is not the point, it's a fact. Most muslims have non-firm beliefs in the Quran and are clearly cherry pickers. Again, what the clerics think about that is not really relevant.

Do you stand with the RCC hierarchy and the muslim clerics that insist that everyone must embrace the whole if they claim to embrace any part?

I don't just think there is a middle way, I know there is a middle way and I know that is where most humans stand, believers and non.

As the article begins, [The zealots] "reduce it to thumbs-up, thumbs-down propositions that leave no room for the way most people think about it." I believe you may share their position.

[Yorktown]

37. Define your middle way

Your general position is that of Karen Watson: there must be a god out there, and all religions carry some spark of 'His' (Her/Its/whatever) supreme essence.

The only problem with that Disneyland Wonderworld train ride is that it is an ideological dessert jelly. Bright, cheery colors and no calories.

Those who dwell in this zero atmosphere void can happily float and not conflict each other: they have not even decided themselves what they believe in. And, for those of them who did, they never express it in a constructed way. And for the very few who do, they are in essence building new dogmas.

What you call a middle way is the realm of vague ideas. A cloud of loosely held, loosely formulated feel good concepts. Unless you care to prove me wrong here and now: define your middle way, and show me that there is a significant group of people who would define themselves part of your middle way and share the beliefs you are going to set out to define your middle way.

Anyway, I repeat, this poorly written article manages to miss the 800 pound gorilla in the corridor: if someone is a believer in one of the main organized religions, he/she is expected to believe the foundational book of their religion, which is a dogma. Which automatically makes the earnest believer a dogmatic person, in the original sense of the word.

[cbayer]

38. The middle way is the position held by most people on earth.

I don't know if there is a god out there or not. Some people feel more sure than I do that there is. Some feel more sure that there is not. Most people don't know for sure and go with their gut (beliefs).

What's wrong with bright cheery colors and no calories? What would you prefer? Where are you at the dessert table?

Floating happily and not conflicting with others seems a reasonable, if not delightful, position to take. Those who take a hard stand when it comes to beliefs or non-beliefs and feel the need to stay in conflict with others concerning this are not in an enviable position, imo.

But they do dominate the conversation, which is what this article is about. They speak for a marginalized few.

Again, you could not be more wrong about your conclusion. If someone is a believer, it doesn't matter what anyone "expects" of them. What is important is where they actually are, and the data supports that they are all over the place.

It is only the dogma of non-belief that insists on it being otherwise.

[Yorktown]

41. I am not surprised you did not define anything

Once you remove the attitude problems from the table (yes, Richard Dawkins can be intense at times), the ideological question is much more clear cut than you try to believe it is.

• Either you believe in a dogma codified in a book and one school of interpretation
• Or you say you are a doubter/skeptic: attitude aside, it is not intellectually dogmatic; people in this category just say they have no evidence of anything supernatural.
• Or you are in your weightless third way void which has no shared corpus. There is no conflict because everyone in that twilight zone has some ideas loosely defined and loosely held. No corpus, in short, not much consistance. It's not un-dogmatic, it's a fog.

[cbayer]

45. We are going to have to agree to disagree here.

You are expressing a rather rigid idea of what religious people are. That is, you think they necessarily believe in a codified dogma and one school of interpretation. I think you are dead wrong and I think the data backs me up.

Dogma is rigid thinking that does not allow for alternatives. It can be held by both believers and non-believers. We may be using different definitions, but if you only apply it to believers, I think you miss the entire point.

Fog is ok, particularly when you are in territory in which there are not definitive answers. It causes you to move slowly and thoughtfully and to watch out for obstacles, including other people.

[Yorktown]

47. I agree we disagree on quite a few points

Before answering, I do wish you would stop trying to paint my opinions as 'rigid'. Beyond the fact it doesn't match my general attitude, it's pretty easy to find in your sentences in your face rigidity ("I think you are dead wrong&quot and unbacked claims ("I think the data backs me up&quot

We do disagree on what religious people are. I do think they necessarily believe in a codified dogma and one school of interpretation, because it is the very definition of a 'believer'. The believer believes in a doctrine. If not, call him whatever you want, but not a believer.

We also disagree on words. You seem to have decided that "Dogma is rigid thinking that does not allow for alternatives". That is the loose, allegorical use of the word. This use is particularly unfortunate in a discussion about religions, which are ideologies defined by a dogma.

Finally, we disagree on what constitutes rational discussion. When you write that "Fog is ok", then it ends the discussion. Discussing ideas, ideologies or human groups without clearly defining them allows great latitude in the discussion. Because people in that discssion quite literally don't know what they are talking about.

I can't discuss the validity of a third way if you can't bother to define it. And if it's just a feel good notion that most people are well meaning and ask themselves if there is something beyond the material world, it's nice, but it's not a way. it's a limbo.

[cbayer]

50. What word would you prefer if you don't like rigid?

It seems to me that you keep insisting that religious people are a certain way. You have a description for them that flies in the face of actual data and you seem unwilling to accommodate that fact. I'm not sure what a better word would be, but I'm willing to consider whatever you suggest.

Thinking you are dead wrong is my opinion. Saying there is data that backs me up is a claim that I can, well, back up.

The definition of believer is simple - it is someone who believes in the existence of god(s) based on faith and despite the lack of evidence. Your introduction of concepts of doctrine and dogma go far beyond that. You don't get to decide what a believer is beyond that simple definition.

Yes, discussing ideas, ideologies or human groups without rigid definitions does allow great latitude in the discussion, which is exactly the way it should be when one is discussing something like religion. Attempts to stereotype and rigidly define others is what leads to the end of the conversation… which is where I think we find ourselves.

The "third way", which is the way in which most humans find themselves, can not be defined other than to say it encompasses everything that those at the extremes are not - rigid, dogmatic and very, very sure of what they dis/believe.

You don't have to validate it, it is what is. Where are you on this spectrum, by the way?

[Yorktown]

51. You live in a universe of which you make the rules. Problem: it's a dream world

I do not "keep insisting that religious people are a certain way", it is their rules, not mine.
Your definition that a believer is just someone who believes in the existence of god is just that, your definition. It's also demonstrably false.
• Being a Christian goes demonstrably far beyond your fuzzy feel good minimum common denominator. Nearly all the Christian denominations would require 1/belief in the ressurection of Jesus and 2/ belief in the sacred nature of the Bible to consider someone a Christian. = written dogma
• Being a Muslim goes demonstrably far beyond your fuzzy feel good minimum common denominator. All Muslim denominations would require 1/belief the Quran is the word of God = written dogma
• Being a Hindu or a believer of theh goes demonstrably far beyond your fuzzy feel good minimum common denominator. Basically, hindus and folk believers follow the guidance of the local shaman on how best to propitiate the gods. oral dogma.

Now, as for the facts, the Pew Research Center 2050 projections: religious dogmatisms will be on the rise: Christianity 31% (+0), Islam 30% (+7), Hindu+Folk 20% (-1). Total dogmatic =81%.
The not very dogmatic Buddhists decrease to 5% (-2) and the even less dogmatic unaffiliated, including agnostics, will decrease to 13% (-3)

I don't know how to sugarcoat the fact that facts don't bear out your mellow universe.
No, the majority of believers are not just positive philosophers detached from dogma
And the categories on the rise hold rigid dogmas far beyond mere niceness and a benevolent god.

[cbayer]

53. Lol, we all live in universes in which we make the rules.

We are talking about believers here. The definition is simple. When you start adding qualifiers and defining subgroups, you can then deepen your definition.

The same can be done with it comes to nonbelievers. It is a simple definition until you start to look at the differences and divide people into subgroups.

This article talks about certain kinds of believers and certain kinds of non-believers. It points out that they share some things and that they tend to dominate the conversation, even though they represent only those on the margins.

The PEW data is interesting and appears to have much to do with birth rates within certain cultures that have religious affiliations.

The facts very much bear out my mellow universe. There are dogmatists and there are degrees of dogmatism and some of those people are religious and some are not.

OTOH, some dogma is a-ok with me. Taking care of the poor, social justice, economic equality, civil rights - all dogma I am glad to support and a reflection of a nice and benevolent god, if there is a god.

It's critical to be able to distinguish the good dogma from the bad dogma. If you see it all as bad, you are going to miss some very important opportunities to work with those that share your beliefs, even though they are religious believers.

[Yorktown]

56. you keep using words in a loose way, overlooking data and moving the goalposts

You stated that believers was a vast group merely defined by believing in a god.

I proved you were wrong, i.e that the vast majority of actual believers belong to religious groups which require believing in dogmas far more detailed than just a fuzzy mushy belief in goodness and a supreme being.

It is particularly disingenuous or very loose reasoning to try to assert I added qualifiers and determined subgroups. You reason in vague generalities. I tackle the subgroups which define the general group of 'believers', and thus am able to demonstrate the reliance on dogma in the religious groups as they exist, not as you make them up with vague words.

It is also remarkably disingenuous to try to cover your tracks by a quasi disclaimer ("OTOH, some dogma is a-ok with me.&quot . I wish you were joking, but I know you're not. Back to number crunching and facts again, again based on the Pew 2050 numbers:
• 30% Muslims: death for homosexuality, blasphemy or apostasy
• 15% Hindus: caste system perpetuating the caste of the intouchables
For good measure, throw in Christians against condoms in Africa or stem cell research
For more than half of the world population of 2050, dogma will most definitely NOT be a-OK.

[cbayer]

59. What data am I overlooking? I have yet to see you present a single point of data.

You proved nothing about my definition of believers except that there are subgroups that warrant more definition.

Religious groups that require believing in dogmas? Really? What happens if they don't. The vast majority of catholics openly violate the churches dogmatic position on birth control. Should they be afraid? Excommunicated?

In saying that I support some dogma, I in no way say I endorse it all. I stand strongly against sanctions for homosexuality, blasphemy and apostasy. The caste system, by the way, came from a completely secular source, but it is interesting that you are making it a religious issue and a further testament to your general view about religion.

Dogma was a great movie by the way. One of my favorites.

There are many things you can take me to task for, but being disingenuous is really not one of them. So far we have managed to keep this civil and avoided making it personal. I hope that we can continue in that vein.

[Yorktown]

60. No. I invalidated your definition of religion.

You proved nothing about my definition of believers except that there are subgroups that warrant more definition.

No.

By going to what constitutes the basis of belief (= the set of different individual religions), I proved with numbers that your theoretical umbrella to explain religion was missing the point.

Your definition was something vague, and vaguely benevolent (mere belief in the existence of a god)

But the practice of religion is defined by rigid dogmas for 81% of the 87% of believers. Which proves your definition was 93% wrong.

Besides, you also seem to overlook that the growth of religious populations 2015-2050 will occur in countries were the practice of religion is at its most dogmatic = muslim countries + African Christianity.
These two groups share the criminalization of homosexuality. That's a much tougher cookie than just belief in goodness and a something undefined in the sky.

[cbayer]

61. But I never offered a definition of religion. Assuming that you think I did, what do

you think it was?

If you want to take the position that the definition of believer includes more than the simple fact that someone holds a belief, then you must be prepared to accept the same for non-believer. And I don't think you really want to go there, do you?

My definition is not vague at all. It is very clear - the mere belief in the existence of a god. As for non-believer, the lack of a belief in the existence of a god.

Ok, now I think you are just making up data. Where do you get the numbers for religion being defined as rigid dogmas? Did you know that 83% of statistics are just made up on the spot? It's true.

I share your concern about the growth of religion in populations that tend to be very intolerant. I also am concerned about non-belief adopting some of that same intolerance and expressing it primarily in prejudices towards those that hold religious beliefs, merely because they hold religious beliefs.

At any rate, it seems clear that you are beginning to see the nuances and grey areas that characterize this whole issue. That is exactly why we can't let the zealots at the extremes dominate the conversation.

[Yorktown]

66. You offered a view of religion which was demonstrably wrong

Namely, in this passage:

You are expressing a rather rigid idea of what religious people are. That is, you think they necessarily believe in a codified dogma and one school of interpretation. I think you are dead wrong and I think the data backs me up.

This says: "data says the statement that religious people believe in a dogma is wrong."

I demonstrated your denegation was false by pointing out that 81 of the 87% believers hold dogmas.

Those statistics were not made on the spot, but came from Pew Research.

I am not beginning to see nuances of grey, I keep saying your vague generalities are not backed by data.

[cbayer]

67. You saying something is demonstrably wrong without demonstrating that it is

actually wrong doesn't really mean much.

Clearly I was objecting to your definition. I never said that the statement that religious people believe in dogma is wrong. I said that your interpretation that all religious people believe in a codified dogma and one school of interpretation is wrong.

And you have offered nothing to counter that, other than a very weak meta-analysis that mentions "dogma" once and without even a definition.

I still want to know where you get this 81-87% statistic. Are you going to offer up a link or not? Can you even define "hold dogmas"? And even if it were true that they "hold dogmas", that would mean that 13 - 19% of them "hold" no dogmas, right?

That right there turns your entire premise on it's head.

If you are not beginning to see shades of grey, then I'm going to feel comfortable continuing to use the word rigid when describing your views about religious people.

[Yorktown]

72. Do you always answer besides the point on purpose?

I showed you subgroup by subgroup, with the dogmatic rationale and the subgroup weight in 2050, that the quasi totality of religious believers do believe in a codified dogma. (and even the exceptions to my eyes, buddhism or jainism are up for debate)

a very weak meta-analysis that mentions "dogma" once and without even a definition.

I did list the core dogmas of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism.
I do not suppose you expected an academic generality on what religious dogmas are?
But maybe you did. I got the feeling you like generalities.

I still want to know where you get this 81-87% statistic.

Go back to the post, it's written in plain English.

that would mean that 13 - 19% of them "hold" no dogmas, right?

Fake inference. Maybe good in debate club. Not interested.

If you are not beginning to see shades of grey

Who do you think you are?
If, like most individuals, I can see shades of grey, it does not follow I should imagine them where there are not any. namely here, religious people follow dogmas, no grey. (again, save -maybe- for buddhists and jains)


Anyway, you are going round in circles and straying from the OP's contention. The main point is that the debates about religion in the media take place between atheist/agnostics and dogmatic religious people, because, as I pointed out with my subgroups of believers, committed religious people are supposed to stick to their dogmas, or they would be straying from what defines their religion.

Again, the fact that these religious leaders express their views abruptly (dogmatically, to use that second meaning of dogmatic) or suavely is mere form. The ideological dogma (this time, in the literal meaning) they represent is unyielding.

And the precious few people whom you would apply your vague "third way" term to wouldn't be invited because nobody would know which to invite: they do not have a shared corpus, therefore no representative.

[cbayer]

73. Sorry, I think your points have become lost here. It's been nice talking to you and glad we could

keep it civil.

I look forward to seeing you again and engaging in another discussion.

[Yorktown]

54. Oh, and btw, research data invalidates your views on 'dogmatism'

Sociologist Phil Zuckerman analyzed previous social science research on secularity and non-belief, and concluded that societal well-being is positively correlated with irreligion. He found that there are much lower concentrations of atheism and secularity in poorer, less developed nations (particularly in Africa and South America) than in the richer industrialized democracies.[84][85] His findings relating specifically to atheism in the US were that compared to religious people in the US, "atheists and secular people" are less nationalistic, prejudiced, antisemitic, racist, dogmatic, ethnocentric, closed-minded, and authoritarian, and in US states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average.

[Warren Stupidity]

57. Those facts have been pointed out in this forum repeatedly but there are other ways of knowing

in force here, so "new" atheists are dogmatic, fundamentalist extremists just like religious zealots. The perfect people are all Authentic Religious and faitheist or apatheist apologists for religious idiocy.

[cbayer]

58. I find it kind of disturbing when people

pull a meta-analysis out and present it as "research data" that invalidates someone else's views.

https://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf

It would behoove you to take a close look at Zuckerman's 2009 meta analysis before embracing his findings. The word dogmatic is used one time in his paper and not even defined.

This is not research, it is an analysis of the literature done by someone with a very specific agenda. In other words, it really fails as science. What it does do rather successfully, imo, is dispute some of the stereotypes of atheists that really have no basis in reality.

I think some of his demographic data is probably accurate, but his other conclusions are very poorly supported. Sociological analyses are fraught with difficulties because of the huge number of variables and the rather insurmountable challenge of adjusting for them.

There are, of course, other articles that have reached the opposite conclusion. I invest very little in these kinds of studies.

[carolinayellowdog]

39. depends on who "we" are and what "conversation" but in my observation online...

"We" members in a dozen or more different, mostly defunct, fora in which informed conversation about religion was an objective, were friendly, respectful, well-informed, and having fun getting to know one another across "party lines" of belief and disbelief. Most of us, by far, were not dogmatic authoritarians seeking to form an in-group that would punish and humiliate the out-group. But most of us ended up giving up and leaving. Over and over in many different contexts.

And it was never a matter of the will of the group "letting" hostile, aggressive dogmatists dominate and thereby destroy the conversation "we" were trying to have. In every case, it was well-meaning but idiotically naïve moderators and group owners being seduced by false equivalencies and "erring on the side of freedom of speech and thought" as they saw it, allowing the hatemongers to attack everyone else relentlessly and personally until they just gave up.

Trolls always drown out everyone else, not because they are determined to sow alienation and always have the last word, but because those who should know better keep allowing it. Intimidation tactics work on listowners and moderators as well as on the members who are targets thereof.

[cbayer]

40. "those who should know better keep allowing it"

And that is exactly right. It's not just the moderators and group owners, it's the participants who live to engage others in a hostile, aggressive and dogmatic fashion.

We have the tools here to prevent that, at least insofar as it impacts our individual experience, but too few use those tools.

The in-group punishment and humiliation continues, but it becomes meaningless without an audience.

[beam me up scottie]

80. "it's the participants who live to engage others in a hostile, aggressive and dogmatic fashion."

You shouldn't talk about rug like that, cbayer.

[MellowDem]

42. Why do titles with loaded questions get posted?

The conversation about religion is non-existent in the mainstream, kinda like the conversation about race. Why? Because it forces the privileged majority to own up to their privilege to have any sort of conversation, which the religious don't want to do. And, it points out the total bullshit and bigotry of religion, and the cognitive dissonance many believers have. In short, it makes them uncomfortable.

The only people then willing to talk about it are the zealots, who have little dissonance as they are more consistent and honest in their positions, and people who are willing to stand up to the privileged bullshit.

Many believers are cowards, identifying with and supporting explicitly bigoted belief systems, while at the same time getting in a huff if that is pointed out. They are the epitome of privileged entitlement.

It's as if a KKK member were to get upset at someone for pointing out it has a racist ideology, because she doesn't believe in racism personally, and there's lots of history, tradition and culture there she likes that keeps her identifying as such.

Only the fact that it's such a majority is what makes that possible for religion, but it's starting to fade, and many people are identifying with it less and less because they really what bullshit it is to identify with a hateful belief system.

[rug]

74. They tend to be attached to the article.

[MellowDem]

77. At least the articles you post...

I imagine there will be more in the future, as there has been in the past. These sort of terrible articles tend to be posted here quite a lot. They always read like Fox News op-eds.

[rug]

78. Are you in the habit of altering headlines if and when you start an OP?

You can take it up with Salon. In fact, somebody just posted another article from Salon in here. Quick, go see what the headline is.

I'll save you the trouble: here it is:

"Bill Maher, American hero: Laughing at religion is exactly what the world needs"

Gee, I wonder if you object.

[MellowDem]

82. That title isn't a loaded question...

I don't object to the correct title being used, but the article being posted at all is pretty sad. Again, it reads like a Fox News op-Ed. The use of such a loaded question in the title just foreshadows the terrible reasoning to come, not to mention demonization. On a progressive website, I don't even know what use it has.

The article you mention, on the other hand, isn't a loaded question, or creating a strawman, or creating a caricature to demonize through false equivalences.

Religions are ideas. A title exhorting that we laugh at them isn't out of place on a progressive site. We have quite a few of those every day. I would hope we wouldn't engage in strawmen and demonization of marginalized groups, and I know it happens, but I think such opinions are out of sync with progressivism.

[rug]

83. No, not in the slightest.

Why there isn't even a question mark.

Keep posting, mellow. You're proving his point.

[MellowDem]

84. What point?

Anyone that seriously believes there is a conversation about religion in mainstream US society isn't paying much attention. Anyone who calls all atheists that speak out "new atheists" and then compares them with religious assholes is just engaging in demonization. Most people don't put much thought to atheism or religion.

Apologists like the author of that piece are engaging in the worst of "have your cake and eat it too". They want their religious identity to come with zero criticism. They want their ideas and belief systems to be respected because they're religious. They think it's equally as bad to have bad religious ideas as it is to criticize said religious ideas.

They are privileged believers that want to label their brand of religion the only "true" religion, as the author ridiculously does, and want to be able to shed anyone they disagree with as not "real" believers. It's intellectually dishonest bullshit meant to justify keeping themselves comfortable. They can disavow the beliefs they don't like as not real, and therefore any criticism of said belief is now "unfair".

There was no good point to the article, just "I'm comfortable with my beliefs, don't criticize them or you're as bad as the biggest religious asshole out there!" That's not a point. That's a whine. An oft-repeated one.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

43. ...

https://xkcd.com/774/

[cbayer]

46. So trite. It gets dragged out anytime someone takes issue with dogmatic, non-believing

zealots.

It is meant to merely dismiss any criticism one might have by turning it back on the critic.

But, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to anyone that holds a different opinion. Right?

[MellowDem]

49. Looks like this post hits a nerve with you...

And the term "dogmatic, non-believing zealot" is so ridiculous that it makes your criticism pretty hollow to begin with, like, you may no even understand what atheism is, or, you're creating a strawman of atheism to attack.

The main reason people don't like many religious zealots is because they don't like their ideas. The reason people don't like atheists that speak out is because their fee fees are hurt. It's a bit of a difference.

[beam me up scottie]

79. The reason people don't like atheists that speak out is because their fee fees are hurt

And it because it terrifies them.

What if believers start asking questions...

[rug]

75. ...

“Can you just once get to the damn point without the usual embellishments?”

[Lordquinton]

76. Irony, thy name is Rug

[MellowDem]

44. And a good summary of why this article is terrible...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/04/26/salon-writer-wonders-why-the-new-atheists-dont-criticize-the-kind-of-faith-that-doesnt-exist/

These articles always seem the same. Dripping with privileged entitlement, building and attacking straw men, demonizing a marginalized group. They're so consistently disgusting.

[Yorktown]

48. Well said. The article title oozes disingenuity.

Oh, well, the author got an article published, isn't it what counts?

[KT2000]

68. crazy people rule

whether it is in the workplace or the home - the crazy person has control. No one wants to set them off so they conform to the crazy person's wishes. This can be using a fundamentalist position on religion and any other successful means of controlling the situation.

Just look how most politicians are cowering to the religious fundamentalists in our country now.

[Starboard Tack]

87. I don't think we do let them dominate the conversation.

Zealots have no interest in conversation. Their questions are insincere and are only meant to lure lost sheep into the fold, wherein lie all the answers.

They claim to reveal the truth, as it was revealed to them by God, science or the man in the moon.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218190524#post55

Empty vessels make the most sound.

They don't even have conversations with each other http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1230&pid=40171

[rug]

88. Of course not. But it's not for lack of trying.