Religion
Related: About this forumIrreverence isn't bigotry, because ideas and beliefs are not people.
I find it curious how ANY criticism of religious beliefs is labeled as bigotry right off the bat, just because the criticisms are irreverent. And I do mean any criticism, no matter how mild. Unless the unbeliever at least fakes reverence, they are bigotted by default.
Not saying the attitudes are tolerant, on the contrary they are quite intolerant, but of beliefs and ideas, not necessarily people. Apply this to any other part of human discourse, and you will see how ridiculous the label of "bigot" is thrown around so carelessly. Politics is a classic example, Democrats are, using this religious definition of bigotry, bigotted against Republicans, liberals and conservatives are bigots as well, and moderates are bigotted against what they label as extremes. Sports fans are bigotted against those of opposing teams, etc.
The issue is this, your ideas about God, Jesus, Muhammad, take a pick of deity and/or prophet, do not automatically deserve respect, no more so than a Yankees fan's beliefs that they are the greatest team in the country deserves respect from a Red Sox fan. Ideas and beliefs only merit respect if they can stand up under scrutiny, regardless of source.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...they think of it as bigotry. It's not just a religion thing, any deeply held belief can trigger such a response if that belief is criticized.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I don't expect my ideas and beliefs to be respected by default. Never have, yet tell someone you don't believe in their God seems worse to them than you kicking their dog.
deacon_sephiroth
(731 posts)Why oh WHY do theists get so hurt/mad when you disagree on this ONE topic.
I've seen family remove family from homes, facebook, etc, over this single statement.
I find one of the best explanations I've come accross was put forth by a cartoonist on Youtube.
Dorian Gray
(13,493 posts)respect, but they also don't deserve disrespect. They don't deserve anything.
I think that I am a flawed human being, and I probably have some prejudices, but I try to think about the experiences and realities of everyone around me and not immediately declare that they are stupid or dumb for believing as they do. Sure, sometimes I think it, but I try to re-think why I think that way.
Anyhow, in the end, I love irreverential humor, so I guess irreverence doesn't actually bother me too much, but I can see why it bothers other people. And I do think that we all (in the Religion group) need to listen to why other people are bothered by what we say and consider whether we want to say it. Some of us like the argument. Some of us like to get one liner digs in. Some of us want to try to reach some sort of middle ground or understanding. Some of us are just tired of the same old arguments day in and day out and don't post nearly as much as we used to.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)is the answer.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)mr blur
(7,753 posts)Dorian Gray
(13,493 posts)You've said it before, and I believe you've made your position perfectly clear.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)So what's your point?
Dorian Gray
(13,493 posts)I see how you feel about this topic. You said that you feel disrespect is warranted when something doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I think you've stayed true to yourself in past and current topics.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Dorian Gray
(13,493 posts)Response to cleanhippie (Reply #34)
Iggo This message was self-deleted by its author.
Iggo
(47,552 posts)I let you speak, now shut the fuck up.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Then why is my criticism of atheism so often referred to as bigotry?
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Too bad (for the rest of us) many believers are unable to deal with the fact that their ideas cannot stand up to scrutiny.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Respect is something you earn by interacting with others, not by thinking you are smarter than others. If a person expresses views of intolerance of another, based on the other's spiritual beliefs, then he demonstrates his bigotry by his actions and loses respect of those who disdain bigotry. Nothing breeds intolerance more than militant religious sects and militant atheists, who think they have the only answers.
Respect is gained by giving up something, not by standing one's ground.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I keep seeing people use those words, I don't think they even know what they mean.
So if I am intolerant of the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ Christian(google them), I'm the one who is bigoted? Give me a fucking break!
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)and then I may have a look at what you believe.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)it's most likely going to be considered bigotry. It's bigotry. However, criticism does not necessarily imply irreverence.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)and tell the atheists there that they are just like Stalin and Pol Pot?
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)I don't doubt there may be that going on somewhere--but not here. Who is the "you" referred to in your first sentence? if I even encounter anyone who does that, they would get my opinion about bigotry in a great hurry! I wonder if you would take the same stance if you ever heard someone say the same thing about religion.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I don't give much credibility to your perception of what is said in this forum. If you are honestly telling me that you haven't read, from the person I responded to, that anytime atheism is organized it is akin to Stalin and Pol Pot and the KKK, then I don't know how to continue the discussion with you.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)I'll refresh your memory: It was on September 14, 2011.
-You asked me to elaborate on the claim that people on this board compare atheists to Stalin, etc.
-I named a DUer who engages in that exact behavior.
-You agreed that the person in question does it and changed the subject.
Now you deny any knowledge?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)even those who claim to be Christian here don't take it that seriously, we have a lot of atheists, agnostics, and GLBT people in my workplace. We tease each other occasionally, and if we have an opinion on something, we certainly aren't quiet about it, regardless of who is around.
To give an example, one day supervisor, a coworker and I ended up talking about Catholicism. We generally don't talk about religion, at least with my supervisor, she was actually surprised that I told her I was raised Catholic, the other coworker was slightly less surprised, out of the 3 of us, I was the only non-Hispanic. My supervisor was from Colombia and my coworker from Chicago. Anyways, so we, realizing we had a common religious heritage, started immediately to make fun of the Church, express our opinions on the child abuse scandals, and basically eviscerate the Church from its most sacred beliefs to its current actions with total irreverence.
I'm sure, if an actual religious Catholic was around, they would have had their ears turned red, but it still wasn't bigoted, we weren't attacking people, but an institution and its silly beliefs.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)about politics, race, religion, etc., but if someone is feeling harassed for their beliefs, or if an employer or supervisor makes an offhand remark about a person's religion or does anything that could be considered discriminatory, they can face discipline and lawsuits just as easily as if it was sexual harassment.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)but I have never seen what you describe. There is lots and lots of criticism of religious beliefs that are not labeled as bigotry. What is labeled as bigotry are statements of complete intolerance of those individuals or groups that are religious. Bigotry was used to describe the author of the "Occupy Religion" article. He wasn't expressing irreverence. He was expressing bigotry. And he wasn't aiming it at particular ideas or beliefs but at individuals and groups.
I would posit to you that it is individuals who merit respect, not ideas and beliefs.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)he rightly criticized the hierarchical nature of religious organization(and other groups) that are participating in the Occupy movement, which is grassroots, as diametrically opposed to each other in organizational structure. He also criticized their appeals to authority(Godhead in his words), and was flabbergasted that something such as segregation, when wrapped in a spiritual context, is considered acceptable, even by progressives.
He also criticized the beliefs of many of these organizations and people that are homophobic, misogynistic, etc.
I see no bigotry there, the fact that you do is your problem, not his, and certainly not mine.
Your post only reinforces the point I was making.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)See, we saw it differently.
There are many hierarchical organizations involved in the OWS movement. There are also many religious organizations that do not appeal to a Godhead as the authority over their decisions or actions, but completely believe in free will and see their god only as a point of guidance.
The fact that I see bigotry there is not a problem, it's a perspective. Same goes for you - it's just your perspective.
I will continue to maintain that anyone that paints religion with such a broad brush, condemns it in it's entirety and rejects any person that adheres to it is a bigot. Just like a racist or homophobe.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)is that a broad brush attack? No, its my opinion on the beliefs of the Church on homosexuality, choice, and contraception.
The defenses will then come up: "Oh but not all Catholics believe that!" and other statements to that effect, and you know what I say to that, so what, what does that have to do with the statement I just made?
If I instead said that all Catholics are homophobic, misogynistic assholes, that would be bigoted and inaccurate. You seem to confuse the two. The author of the article you call a bigot is no more so a bigot than I am.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I would also say that someone who says that there is a problem with sexual abuse of children in the Catholic Church would be stating a fact. However, if they say all priests are pedophiles, they would be making a bigoted statement.
In the article, the writer makes broad brush statements about "Religious leaders, such as priests, ministers, clerics, clergy, and acolytes et al,". He makes sweeping generalizations about these people, what they think and how they behave. Not only is he wrong, he is displaying overt bigotry towards these people, who comprise a group of indescribable variability.
He does the same thing towards "Supposed adherents to religions".
These are attacks on people, not institutions.
He then has the audacity to state, "Intolerance cannot be tolerated, regardless of how it is dressed up and justified." But then again, hypocrisy often underlies bigotry.
I guess if I saw you say the things he has said, I might consider you a bigot, but I have not seen that.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)First off, I don't see this as generalized, but rather a statement of fact, it lacks nuance, it doesn't specify the religion, but its no more bigoted than saying the Christians exert their leadership by claiming to be followers of Jesus Christ. That's just a statement of fact, he generalized the supernatural to cover all religions, but I don't see where it is bigoted or inaccurate.
Supposed adherents to religions, whose holy scriptures claim that their god is the only true god, and that all other religions must be shunned, and whose followers must be either converted or killed, should not be praying together.
This is yet another statement that is even more a statement of fact, rather than bigotry, granted he could have been more specific, like specifying the Abrahamic Religions, which I think is what he's talking about, but generally this is an opinion on the incongruity in people worshiping together who hold, in many cases, incompatible beliefs, and that's putting it lightly. Again, not bigotry, can you give an example of bigotry from his article?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Who is to say which of our perspectives is the truth? No one can. We are reading the same thing and receiving a different message.
In my experience, the same dichotomy underlies most religious groups or believers. Yes, there are some people and institutions that insist on a single interpretation of the bible, see only one way to heaven and have a description on god that is immutable. But most people I know who would say they are religious completely reject that and object to being categorized and judged based on the position of what they consider the fringes.
Ron Obvious
(6,261 posts)Religious beliefs are not innate, immutable characteristics of an individual, but a set of beliefs about the workings of the world and therefore not immune from criticism. No set of beliefs should ever be immune from scrutiny -- that's how we advance as a society by discarding false beliefs. Well, at least in theory.
For example, I understand that Mormons believe that American Indians were the lost 13th tribe of Israel. Archaeological and historical evidence, and more recently, DNA evidence have conclusively shown this to be false. Yet, as far as I know, this is still a Mormon belief.
Why should I respect this notion, proven to be utterly false, merely because it's religiously held? It deserves mocking, and doing so is not bigotry.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)The source of the irreverence can also be bigotry, so it is impossible to separate the idea.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)not a problem for the ones mocking those beliefs.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)There is little difference between the mocker and the mockee.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)one that assesses and evaluates every other point-of-view from that same extremely narrow perspective. For that reason I feel that giving any respect to such a mentality is misguided, and potentially dangerous as history demonstrates.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)what I find fascinating is the concept of "narrow-mindedness" as you define it being so, well, narrow. Accepting the evidence and fact is somehow a narrow perspective.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)can be used to describe much of atheistic reasoning, are human constructs, purposely "invented" to eliminate any form of religious, metaphysical, intuitive, a priori, etc., types of reasoning. It is in that context that I consider it to be extremely narrow-minded. Not good or bad, by itself - simply narrowly focused. And, history does show that attempts minimize or to eliminate others' points of view, by the use of ridicule or even violence has been very dangerous and oppressive to free thought and expression. So when I see people like PZ myers, or Maher, and several others, openly ridiculing others' religious beliefs in their very "bolshevician" style, and receive applause for it, it's time to sit up and take notice.
tama
(9,137 posts)with a valid point quite clearly expressed. 
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Talk about narrow minded! Indeed you seem to have a one track mind.
As far as your other contention, first off, the other types of reasoning are human constructs as well, the idea of logical positivism is to eliminate bias so we can separate fact from opinion, knowledge from belief.
Seriously, Maher and PZ Myers use a "Bolshevik" style?(learn to spell these things correctly) I don't see how anyone can take you seriously on this board.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Response to cleanhippie (Reply #44)
Post removed
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)To be able to keep that shit up for so long is Oscar worthy.
But I'm not convinced its an act. TOO much detail, especially about the Soviet era stuff. No, not a Poe, a true believer. The most dangerous kind. Makes one wonder when people will sit up and take notice.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)that "atheism equals communism." Never have, never will. As far as "logical positivism" - nowhere did I say that it was the only "human construct", but it was invented to eliminate other forms of reasoning. AND, it was NEVER designed to be applied to anything other than scientific or materialistic thought, by its own admission, and yet that is exactly what many skeptics and atheists attempt to do.
As far as the "Bolshevik" style" of Myers and Maher, if you compare their attitude and words, they are very similar.
So, I will stick by with my opinion because it is grounded in fact. You can fling ad hominems and red herrings all you care to, but that hardly "demolishes" a factual argument.
However, you did catch a typo, so I'll give you credit for that.
lazarus
(27,383 posts)your post seems to be saying that atheism is a thought process. That's incorrect.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. That's it.
Please share how a lack of a belief in a god or gods is potentially dangerous.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)lazarus
(27,383 posts)I know I'm an atheist. My atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. The thought processes that led to my atheism are separate from my atheism, since my atheism is simply my lack of belief in a god or gods.
Word games can be fun, in the right context, but I'm more interested in a discussion here.
Also, still looking for why atheism is potentially dangerous.
tama
(9,137 posts)perhaps humblebum didn't mean atheism in general - as you define atheism - is potentially dangerous, but that the thought processes he perceives as prevalent in his favorite atheist discussion partners are potentially dangerous. With the implication that these thought processes should by no means to be confused with the persons of those atheists, nor with atheism in general, as you define it.
But just guessing here, hopefully humblebum can clarify his own thought processes concerning your question.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)However, any group that espouses ridicule, or mocking, or contempt, or hatred - anything derogatory against another group or their ideas is potentially dangerous. History proves that it does not take religion to trigger atrocious behavior.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)
tama
(9,137 posts)that the us-against-them mechanism we all are familiar with and have experience from, is always potentially dangerous - but there is also important difference between potentially and actually dangerous.
I believe the message of universal compassion that is inherent in most of worlds religions has lot to do with liberation from us-against-them mechanism, socially and individually, but of course it also needs to be said that the (hierarchically) organized religions tend to rely very much on that mechanism.
PS: there is also lot of wisdom in the advice to turn the other cheek, and similar lessons about learning most from one's perceived enemies. I googled "metta bhavana", a meditation practice related to this matter, and this was the first link: http://www.wildmind.org/metta/introduction
humblebum
(5,881 posts)arrive at their conclusions or verbally justify their non-belief by using the methods already stated. BTW, I used to be one many years ago, and guess what? It is a thinking process, regardless. If you can organize around it, and in the name of it, you have rationalized it in your mind. It's a thinking process.
lazarus
(27,383 posts)thinking processes lead to atheism.
This is like saying diabetes is a bad diet, or cancer is a way of smoking cigarettes.
As for the us vs them mentality you find dangerous, I would posit that we atheists didn't start it.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)And I'll stick by my words.
lazarus
(27,383 posts)what you're saying doesn't match with the accepted usage of the English language.
Atheism isn't a way i interpret anything. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Do you not accept that definition of atheism?
Is my obesity a diet?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)No joke, that is an exact quote from him, "where you see contradiction, I see confirmation."
Now you know why you are dealing with. If that doesn't tell you that you are wasting your time with him....
lazarus
(27,383 posts)
I couldn't in good conscience post in R/T as a moderator, but I definitely know the players.
I'm just curious how far this will go.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)and has been for some time.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)mean that it cannot become a thought process, if indeed you think as an atheist thinks. I believe you are the one who first brought up the idea of the thought process thing. Atheistic thought is most assuredly different from that of the non-atheist.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)re·al·i·ty [ree-al-i-tee]
noun
1. the state or quality of being real.
2. resemblance to what is real.
3. a real thing or fact.
4. real things, facts, or events taken as a whole; state of affairs: the reality of the business world; vacationing to escape reality.
5. Philosophy. a) something that exists independently of ideas concerning it. b) something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.
no "other ways of knowing" involved, just straight up reality.
lazarus
(27,383 posts)Long before i entered this thread:
"humblebum
39. I consider atheism to be extremely narrow-minded, narrowly focused, and generally
one that assesses and evaluates every other point-of-view from that same extremely narrow perspective. For that reason I feel that giving any respect to such a mentality is misguided, and potentially dangerous as history demonstrates.
humblebum
41. The "positivist" method or "logical positivist" or 'logical empirical method", each of which
can be used to describe much of atheistic reasoning, are human constructs, purposely "invented" to eliminate any form of religious, metaphysical, intuitive, a priori, etc., types of reasoning. "
You clearly said it's a type of reasoning, twice. You also said it's a mentality that leads to other things, which is also clearly wrong.
As for thinking as an atheist thinks, how's that? Many Buddhists are both atheists and mystics, and i can assure you we have very little in common. Sam Harris is a popular "gnu atheist", and we disagree on several major issues.
I'm an atheist. Tell me how I think, then, because of my atheism.
I'll save you the trouble of trying. The truth is, I have a world view that is opposed to magical thinking. This results in my being an atheist. You have it exactly backwards.
I suspect this is because you don't really understand the mindset that leads to atheism, and the lack of organization and rigid creed. There isn't an atheist Pope handing down edicts. There isn't an atheist Bible that tells us all how to think. We all arrived at our atheism in different ways, through different paths.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
You're gonna need it.
I used to post on Usenet, I can do this for months.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)did not say ALL atheists. You simply chose to ignore the word "generally." I'll stay with my opinion, thanks.
And, you said, " I suspect this is because you don't really understand the mindset that leads to atheism." - Like I said earlier, I was associated with a group of campus atheists many years ago before it became as common as it is today. Unless you are rather advanced in years, I have probably had more experience with non-belief than yourself. No offense intended. When you are using terms like "thinking process" (which you claim I brought up first, but have yet to see where) and "mindset", you are dealing with equivocation. As such, your denial of this and labeling of that really amounts to you confusing yourself. I feel quite comfortable with what I have said.
lazarus
(27,383 posts)none of what you have just said in this post accurately reflects reality, as I showed in my previous post. I am dealing with equivocation, however, it's yours.
Here it is again:
humblebum
39. I consider atheism to be extremely narrow-minded, narrowly focused, and generally
View profile
one that assesses and evaluates every other point-of-view from that same extremely narrow perspective. For that reason I feel that giving any respect to such a mentality is misguided, and potentially dangerous as history demonstrates.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to humblebum (Reply #39)
Sun Jan 8, 2012, 05:51 AM
Humanist_Activist
40. I'd love to see examples of this danger, so I can demolish them with evidence...
View profile
what I find fascinating is the concept of "narrow-mindedness" as you define it being so, well, narrow. Accepting the evidence and fact is somehow a narrow perspective.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #40)
Sun Jan 8, 2012, 06:51 AM
humblebum
41. The "positivist" method or "logical positivist" or 'logical empirical method", each of which
View profile
can be used to describe much of atheistic reasoning, are human constructs, purposely "invented" to eliminate any form of religious, metaphysical, intuitive, a priori, etc., types of reasoning.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)an objective reality about much atheistic thought.
you did it again.
Have you ever been an atheist, other than when you were born, before you were taught your religion? (We all start out as atheists, after all.) The reason i ask is, you seem to be confused about how atheism 'works'.
Once more: Atheism is a lack of belief, not a thought process. As a way of understanding this: Obesity is not a diet. Skinniness is not a diet. Diet leads to obesity. Certain ways of thought lead to atheism.
And those ways of thought are wildly different, which is why atheists are a monolithic group that all think the same way.
If atheism is a thought process, how does it inform my beliefs about abortion, for example?
humblebum
(5,881 posts)First of all, To say that people are born atheists is impossible to know. If indeed there is an a priori knowledge of diety, which appears likely, then you have no case. But in any instance, you do not know. And, as far as all of your red herring comparisons, you're spounting nothing but blather. And, if we are all born atheists, then how is it that something leads to atheism? Also, To say that "atheists are a monolithic group that all think the same way." is ridiculous.
We are born atheists, because belief is learned or developed over time. What evidence do you have for being born with a knowledge of deity, if it's so likely?
Red herrings? Once again, you know the words, but not the definitions.
We are born atheists. We are then indoctrinated into religions (most of us). Then various thought processes lead us back to atheism.
I note that you've tried to abandon your repeated claims that atheism is, itself, a thought process.
And saying that atheists are a monolithic group that all think the same way is ridiculous, which is why I didn't say it, but said that your position that atheism is a thought process leads to that conclusion.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)that has already been found to be equivocal. there is absolutely no way that one can objectively state that we are born atheist. That is just more unsubstantiated blather by radical atheism.
As far as, "...you've tried to abandon your repeated claims that atheism is, itself, a thought process." - I haven't changed my opinion one bit. So, I'll stand by what I've said. Atheistic thought does indeed exist.
And yes you did say "that atheists are a monolithic group that all think the same way." If you want to continue, have a ball.
deacon_sephiroth
(731 posts)by definition would simply be thought that's not theistic, so if there is such a thing as "Theistic thought" (which I just personally define as being dogmatic self absurbed delusion), then all other thought would be atheistic in nature. Anytime your not thinking about a god, you are guilty of atheistic thought.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)lazarus
(27,383 posts)"And those ways of thought are wildly different, which is why atheists are a monolithic group that all think the same way. " Note that the two clauses contradict each other, one's first clue that sarcasm is involved. You're welcome.
If we're not born atheist, how is it that some of us are born believing in one god, and some born believing in multiple gods? How is it my 2 month old granddaughter supposedly believes in god when she doesn't even have object permanence yet?
So, the atheist thought process, how does it lead to an opinion on abortion, for example?
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 13, 2012, 03:38 PM - Edit history (1)
in one god, and some born believing in multiple gods?" I referred to an a priori knowledge of diety, not a specific identity or concept of a god or gods, or supernatural existence.
"So, the atheist thought process, how does it lead to an opinion on abortion, for example?" You tell me.
lazarus
(27,383 posts)deities are supernatural, so how can one be born with a knowledge of a deity (one or many?) but not the supernatural? And how can one have a knowledge of deity before object permanence.
""So, the atheist thought process, how does it lead to an opinion on abortion, for example?" You tell me."
No. You're the one who thinks there is such a thing as an atheist thought process, so you tell me what it leads to.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)the rest of your statement makes no sense. i can only assume that you are now telling me atheists don't think, after telling me they all think alike. What gives?
deacon_sephiroth
(731 posts)no one is born believeing in anything, and "atheist thought" (as previously defined as: any thought not involving god in the thought itself) will lead people to whatever opinions they would normally have in the absence of sky-dictator TELLING them what to think
EXAMPLE:
my wife: Atheist -- pro-life -- Refers to her personal experience with friends and neighbors who have had multiple frivolous abortions according to her.
myself: Atheist -- pro-choice -- Refer to my own personal experiecnes with the burgeoning foster care system, poor families that cannot support a child, rape victims etc.
I refer you to Steven Weinberg, who will confirm my statement that in the absence of the sky-daddy, you CAN think for yourself, LOTS OF PEOPLE DO, and they do NOT always agree on everything because free thought DOES NOT force you to agree.
I'm sorry if I seem like I'm SPELLING THAT OUT, but it apparently must be done.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)did I say that atheists cannot think for themselves, nor even suggest it.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)suggested that there exists an a priori knowledge to actively believe. So if there is a natural innate characteristic to be curious about anything metaphysical, supernatural, etc., it can hardly be said that everyone is born atheist. The honest answer is to say we do not know.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 13, 2012, 04:07 PM - Edit history (1)
"'atheist thought' (as previously defined as: any thought not involving god in the thought itself)"
Or was it atheist thought that led you to such a definition?
So I guess that would mean that when a believer is in religious services, he is a believer, but if he is bowling or shopping and not thinking about God, he is an atheist? Wow!
tama
(9,137 posts)there are also atheist Discordian, infallible, popes, and all of us have been nominated. 
As for Buddhism and opposition to "magical thinking" (a very vague term, so far), I've come by the Buddhist teaching that meditation etc. leads to the awakening of siddhis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhi), which could be said to involve lot of "magical thinking", also in the koan-like aspect. But of course the Middle Path advices to not to get too attached that phase either...
ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)In fact, I'd argue that getting bent out of shape over it is borderline blasphemous, since it sort of implies that you need to "protect" or "stand up" for God and God isn't capable of handling things Himself. A lot like the reaction to those Mohammed cartoons published in the Danish press. Say all the blasphemous and disrespectful things you want. I'll simply ignore them.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)If challenging someone's ideas about economics, history, dating advice, Chinese cooking spices, physics, or driving directions isn't bigotry, then neither is challenging his or her ideas about gods.
challenging someone's ideas about love and freedom?
Deep13
(39,154 posts)I've been told numerous times that I have a naive view of the world because I focus on the potentially positive nature of humanity which certainly includes ideas like love and freedom. I think those criticisms are often wrong, but I cannot claim they are bigoted. They are not criticizing a person based on some innate characteristic that he or she cannot control and has no relevance to anything anyway.
I would never judge a person simply for being a Mormon, for example. Most people are indoctrinated into religious identities as children and simply never question it. And in much of the world, one does not have the liberty to question it safely. But, if someone believes and acts on the ideas that Black and American Indian people are inferior races because the Mormon religion teaches that, then I am going to feel free to disagree and to claim that such views are delusional and immoral. Likewise, if someone makes a factual assertion--there is a god or we are all sinners--based on religion, I may also feel free to disagree and point out that there is no basis in reality for those ideas.
tama
(9,137 posts)why words like "naive" and "childish" are used in negative manner...
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Yet, I see the mean-spirited nature of conservatism as lacking in understanding. After all, we are only hear for a short time and one cannot take his riches with him.
Childish can mean immature, but it also means someone who wants to understand and is actively searching for answers. I hope I never outgrow that aspect of it.