Thread: Atheists

Originally Posted by KT.

Are you therefore saying their intentions are some sort of justification for their homophobia?

pretty much, yeah. In their view, they have a moral imperative to improve the lives of people around them the only way they know how. If they didn't do it, they'd be knowingly damning someone's soul, which is also a social faux pas, I imagine. Given their choice, and put in their shoes, what choice would you make?

If you're talking about the extreme gay haters, that's an outlier thing.

Originally Posted by gwahir

i've said this many times, maybe not in this thread, but the difference is: atheism HAS NO DOCTRINES. it's a lack of doctrine. it just means there's something you don't believe in. atheism and science are mostly found in the same places, but atheism does not teach science. we're (i assume) all atheists about zeus, odin, and so on, without implying that there's some doctrine that goes along with not believing in zeus and odin -- people who call themselves atheists today are just atheistic about one more god.

ok, so please understand that everything you quoted there is to be read with eyes fully rolled.

Second, to say there's no finite link between atheism and science is to pay no attention to their culture. Who are the big names in bigtime atheism? Dawkins, Harris et al. Tell me there isn't a substitute set of rules to live by presented by them, in the name of something larger than them.

Originally Posted by gwahir

furthermore, the day that someone does something truly reprehensible in the name of atheism, or that can IN ANY WAY be linked to his atheism, i will be the first one to go whoa, guys, we have to deal with this. but it doesn't happen. show me i'm wrong here.

I note the distinct lack of doing something reprehensible in the name of science. The distancing your doing with this name is the same distancing moderate religious folk give to extremists with the same belief system. I don't think I need to name groups of people doing horrible things in the name of science.

Originally Posted by gwahir

this is apologism. how about the vatican's shielding of child molesters? is that being done by "fringe extremists", and what are the social and cultural and political factors that lead to it?

I can't name the political factors that gave the extremists power because I've never studied that history, but I'm sure if you look it up, you'd find out. The social and cultural factors that lead to shielding molestors was probably protecting the image of the church and trying to stymie the subsequent loss of adherents, even though it is distinctly against several doctrines in Catholicism.

More important is the fact that the extremists in power do not constitute the majority of Christians, or even Catholics. The truly faithful, fundamental people are in much fewer quantity than you think.

Originally Posted by gwahir

what about comfortable, middle class families who abuse their children not sexually or physically, but mentally, because they're "dirty", or somehow not acceptable to their god?

What about the ones that do that without mentioning God? Because they aren't acceptable to the neighbourhood, or the family values or whatever group of virtues the children are apparently not fulfilling? Are you saying it's somehow worse because religion is involved?

Originally Posted by gwahir

and what about the majority of america, who simply teach their children to be suspicious of science and education? i submit that it's a form of abuse to ruin someone's mind like that. let's call it intellectual abuse.

What about specific Australians who make sweeping generalizations about population in an argument in the name of science and education? Let's not give into fallacies here.

If you're saying it's a form of abuse to limit someone's education on general topics, you must understand this is a 2-way street. Given the choice, I'm sure there's a few who will end up turning away from science and education anyways. Also, you do realize that instead of religious fanatics, this also applies to blue-collar workers, right?

Originally Posted by gwahir

the more moderate, sensible members of any one community -- whether it be a religious, national, ideological or cultural one -- need to be the first to come out decrying the actions of extremists and look at fixing things. instead, moderate religion has a real problem with denying, ignoring and distancing itself. when a passage in the bible literally says "gays are an abomination who should surely be put to death", and then someone quotes it when they kill gays, that's not taking a doctrine out of context. that's basic literacy and following clear instructions.

would you give this moral imperative to moderates who live in an oppressive regime?

Originally Posted by gwahir

there are grey areas, certainly. but frankly, a lot of the worst, most bloodthirsty, most "dark age" passages in any religious text aren't exactly "grey". you can make arguments for them to be non-literal, but what possible non-literal -- but still acceptable -- reading is there for "you shall surely put gays to death"? or the koran's many passages about killing infidels till there's nobody left but them? for religion to mature along with modern thought, its followers must be willing to examine these things, and answer them satisfactorily.

and the only satisfactory answer is "they are bad passages, and we must excise them from our religion".

Cool. Can you give me a list of the passages so they are actually in some kind of context? I'm still falling back on my whole argument that this shit is all perpetrated by extremists who gain influence (fanaticism has this kind of effect), but these extremists have no voice when times are not so hard on a population

Originally Posted by gwahir

i agree with this. it doesn't make them bad people. it makes them good people infected with bad teachings.

i can't argue that.