Religion in today's society

[Sheepy Lamby]

"Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's"
When religious and non-religious fundamentalism invade politics and the media then we have a real problem.
The great mistake of society is the pushing religious tolerance when all religion and atheism have "agendas"
Here in Canada religious tolerance is accepted but political and advocacy groups associated to every religious and non-religious doctrine defend their own interests and are pushing politicians for discriminative laws (under the table and offering votes) to assume supremacy claiming "freedom of expression" (only for them) and denouncing hate crime (when they are under criticism)

 

[Schaden Freude]

You do make a decent point. Although freedom of expression and freedom to choose your own religion should also be protected, the separation of power should remain. We should have secular, democratic governments rather than theocracies, because when one religion starts to pervade legislation, minorities of another religion might be isolated and rendered vulnerable, whether that was the legislator's intention or not. In medieval England, the Church, the King's Council (legislators), and the Judges were all separate for a reason. Once one group starts melding into another, laws start become culturally "coloured", due to the inexorable relationship between religion and culture, and that can often leave certain minorities to fall through the cracks. If we all are to be equal in front of the rule of law, the government and the judiciary must be impartial, discrete from religious bodies.

You can practice your own religion, but the creation and enforcement of laws cannot be coloured by one religion or another.

 

[Silver Soul]

Well there's the moment where religion really get put first over family second unfortunately. A gay son of a Christian Family in Georgia made an intervention with his family so he would announce to them about his sexuality and then... results were not pretty.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...ay-video_n_5731462.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

Believing homosexuality is a choice? Check.
Anti-Science? Check
Putting religion over any sense of logic? Check
Contradiction of family values by disowning their own child? Check.

Isn't Christian fundamentalism grand?

 

[Sheepy Lamby]

You do make a decent point. Although freedom of expression and freedom to choose your own religion should also be protected, the separation of power should remain. We should have secular, democratic governments rather than theocracies, because when one religion starts to pervade legislation, minorities of another religion might be isolated and rendered vulnerable, whether that was the legislator's intention or not. In medieval England, the Church, the King's Council (legislators), and the Judges were all separate for a reason. Once one group starts melding into another, laws start become culturally "coloured", due to the inexorable relationship between religion and culture, and that can often leave certain minorities to fall through the cracks. If we all are to be equal in front of the rule of law, the government and the judiciary must be impartial, discrete from religious bodies.

You can practice your own religion, but the creation and enforcement of laws cannot be coloured by one religion or another.

Here in Ontario we have seen already friction in the school system between Sikhs and Muslims. Authorities here don't really care because they are (still) minorities. But this situation reflects the fail of multicultural societies to mix in the same place people with religious differences.

Well there's the moment where religion really get put first over family second unfortunately. A gay son of a Christian Family in Georgia made an intervention with his family so he would announce to them about his sexuality and then... results were not pretty.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...ay-video_n_5731462.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

Believing homosexuality is a choice? Check.
Anti-Science? Check
Putting religion over any sense of logic? Check
Contradiction of family values by disowning their own child? Check.

Isn't Christian fundamentalism grand?

The point with Christianity is that it has been shaped with time, as an example we talk about polygamy, which was normal thousands of years ago and now forbidden.
It is a matter of time that being LGBT is going to be acceptable in that religion. The (Christian) United church of Canada is LGBT friendly.
I am pro or against this, I just point that religious values change.

 

[Baba Yaga]

I don't think anyone is arguing that religion doesn't change. The problem is that it doesn't ever change without a fight. The Catholic church, for example, didn't carefully examine the evidence and come to the conclusion that the earth wasn't flat anymore. They were forced to concede the point. Religion doesn't naturally evolve with the change of the times on its own. It's dragged kicking and screaming every time.

 

[Silver Soul]

And that's the sad part. Whether it is civil rights for minorities or slavery regardless, the religion is always dragged kicking and screaming because it wouldn't benefit them in regards to oppressing others. Now in a small town of Seminole, Texas; a 5-year-old Navajo boy wasn't allowed to intend school because his hair was long. Now in his religion, his long hair is considered sacred so not only that would be against the 1st Amendment but also the 4th Amendment in regards to discrimination.

http://houston.cbslocal.com/2014/09...r-old-boy-home-because-his-hair-was-too-long/

So in Texas, Christianity is the ONLY religion allowed to have religious freedom apparently. Thanks Rick Perry!

 

[Baba Yaga]

In relation to the Big Accomadationist Debate:

People like us are infamous for words like ‘privilege’, ‘splaining’, ‘problematic’; part of the power of concepts like these is that when transferred between activist contexts they expose parallels. I’m deeply aware there can be only limited analogy between atheism and the concerns of more marginalised groups, and would hate to devalue their language. But I’m convinced of the following:

It is a form of privilege to be an atheist who’s never experienced religious abuse, as many of us have who are antagonistic.

It is privilege blindness to expect — without a clue what we’ve experienced or what it means to us — that we give up our self-expression so that you can form alliances with faith communities that deeply injured us.

It is tone-policing if when you’re not telling us to shut up about it, you’re telling us how to talk about it. How dare you tell us to be more respectful.

It is splaining if your answer when we detail histories of religious abuse is ‘Yes, but’ — or if you tell us we can’t blame religion for it since not all believers do the same. We know the details. You don’t.

It is gaslighting dismissing justified anger about widespread, structural religious abuse by telling us we’re bitter or hateful.

It’s civility politics implying our anger, bitterness or hatred is just as unacceptable, siding with the aggressor by prioritising believers’ feelings over ours on the false pretence of neutrality.

It’s respectability politics implying we need to earn an end to bigotry we face by getting on politely with believers, throwing those of us under the bus who can’t or won’t sing kumbaya.

It’s internalised bigotry shaming atheists for being stereotypical — smug, scornful and the rest — for letting the side down, instead of asserting our collective rights however we express ourselves.

It is victim-blaming to treat atheists who are stereotypical as a legitimate cause of anti-atheist bigotry or hatred.

It is tokenisation to impose on any individual the burden of representing atheists so our collective status can be judged by how they act.

And it is deeply, deeply problematic to cheer for snarky, confrontational firebrands of social justice who take on mass structures or beliefs that ruined their lives… then boo snarky, confrontational atheist firebrands off the stage who’ve survived religious abuse.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/godless...lice-stop-telling-me-how-to-discuss-my-abuse/

Thoughts? What are people's opinions about confrontationalist approaches to religion? Does it do more harm than good? Should vocal atheists just pipe down and stop making such a fuss? If your answer is yes, I'm really curious on hearing your thoughts.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

My thought are that from the portion you've quoted, the blog post is expressed very poorly. One statement gives the implication that non-religious people have a right to hate religious people. It is arrogant to claim "We know the details. You don't." The common, modern oversimplified concept of the Crusades is a very good reason to know that sometimes non-religious people don't know the details and instead alter the details to their own ends.

However, the latter three of those statements you quoted seem to be pretty much on point.

I enjoy hearing vocal people of all belief systems. I think it is wrong of them to turn that into hatred. I think it is illogical of them to make erroneous claims in an effort to take down religion. The "Jesus didn't exist" people, whose opinions are spread much more by internet articles and blog posts than by scholarly publications, might be the best example of that.

 

[Sheepy Lamby]

Why, as an atheist, I have to buy a book about how bad is "god"? Does it make me better atheist or person?
Why, as a muslim, I feel offended when someone says: "merry Christmas"?
Why, as a christian, I have to blame other religious groups and ask them to leave "my country"?
The problem with society now is that people feel over-sensitive when their faith or believing are attacked, and feel entitled to be aggressive (and even kill people) just to defend theirs.

If we talk about LGBTs... what is the problem with them?
Do we have to hate them because our "sacred books" are against them?
The only reason, IMO, is censurable from some LGBTs is their exhibitionism. (e.g. walking semi-naked in parades)

 

[Mr Dragon]

Why, as an atheist, I have to buy a book about how bad is "god"? Does it make me better atheist or person?
Why, as a muslim, I feel offended when someone says: "merry Christmas"?
Why, as a christian, I have to blame other religious groups and ask them to leave "my country"?
The problem with society now is that people feel over-sensitive when their faith or believing are attacked, and feel entitled to be aggressive (and even kill people) just to defend theirs.

If we talk about LGBTs... what is the problem with them?
Do we have to hate them because our "sacred books" are against them?
The only reason, IMO, is censurable from some LGBTs is their exhibitionism. (e.g. walking semi-naked in parades)

None of this makes sense, and it all misrepresents the majority of people from those faiths.

Most books about arguing against God are not for "God is not a good guy" it's arguing against his existence from a Philosophical/Scientific point of view, which is completely valid. Most of these books are not necessarily aimed at people who agree with the author, the books are argumentative for a reason. I also feel like you may think that Atheists merely dislike God. I have nothing against God, his non-existence has stopped him from doing anything particularly offensive.

Muslims are not de-facto haters of other religions, and most'd probably be fine with you saying merry Christmas to them.

 

[Sheepy Lamby]

None of this makes sense, and it all misrepresents the majority of people from those faiths.

Most books about arguing against God are not for "God is not a good guy" it's arguing against his existence from a Philosophical/Scientific point of view, which is completely valid. Most of these books are not necessarily aimed at people who agree with the author, the books are argumentative for a reason. I also feel like you may think that Atheists merely dislike God. I have nothing against God, his non-existence has stopped him from doing anything particularly offensive.

Muslims are not de-facto haters of other religions, and most'd probably be fine with you saying merry Christmas to them.

Dear, I was using real life examples of some people behaviour, do you get the idea?
Your last statement is absolutely biased and senseless. (I am not muslim btw)
When atheist books are bought by "believers", they are used to attack atheism. Atheist readers just use them to feed their ego (and waste money I rather use to feed homeless person on the street)
and... seriously...I understand the word "A-theos" Atheists don't believe in "gods".
Just FYI, I am atheist, but I refused to make richer an alcoholic or a bitter guy 3 times married (you know the 2 guys I am talking about)
"Modern" atheism worships rich guys who write to become richer thanks to people who want to feed themselves with more ego, and spreads the idea of spreading its ideas through hate and sarcasm rather than logical explanation and common sense.

Sincerely, how can you try to let people understand there are no "gods" and change their mind when you attack them?

 

[Brutaka]

Just FYI, I am atheist, but I refused to make richer an alcoholic or a bitter guy 3 times married (you know the 2 guys I am talking about)
"Modern" atheism worships rich guys who write to become richer thanks to people who want to feed themselves with more ego, and spreads the idea of spreading its ideas through hate and sarcasm rather than logical explanation and common sense.

I'm going to say upfront that I'm a fan of the Horseman you refer to for their rhetoric, but I recognize that they have harsh critics mentioning much of the same as you. Though mentioning the alcoholism and marriage has nothing to do with their positions, so it's wrong to bring it up where it isn't important.
The atheist movement spearheaded by the Horseman focuses less on logic, I agree. However, they don't focus on "hate" specifically, they employ a more emotional, argumentative style to their speeches. This is because of the unfortunate truth that their opponents don't completely value logic and rational explanation (after all, look at the ideas these people have internalized), and would thus be unmoved by it. It takes careful ridicule to get to those people (I'm partially thankful that Hitchens is gone, because while I loved his rhetoric, he tended to get a bit too fiery. With Dawkins now the spearhead of the front and Ayaan Hirsi Ali filling the vacancy, the movement focuses more on Dawkin's method of ridicule than powerful word choice).
It takes all kinds to fight any kind of battle. We need those that can fight with science, those that can fight with logic/reasoning, those that can fight with emotion, those that can fight with historical content, and even those that can fight with rhetoric. All points together create a powerful front, and the atheist movement wouldn't have gotten as big and prominent as it is today without people like Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hirsi Ali.

 

[Sheepy Lamby]

I'm going to say upfront that I'm a fan of the Horseman you refer to for their rhetoric, but I recognize that they have harsh critics mentioning much of the same as you. Though mentioning the alcoholism and marriage has nothing to do with their positions, so it's wrong to bring it up where it isn't important.
The atheist movement spearheaded by the Horseman focuses less on logic, I agree. However, they don't focus on "hate" specifically, they employ a more emotional, argumentative style to their speeches. This is because of the unfortunate truth that their opponents don't completely value logic and rational explanation (after all, look at the ideas these people have internalized), and would thus be unmoved by it. It takes careful ridicule to get to those people (I'm partially thankful that Hitchens is gone, because while I loved his rhetoric, he tended to get a bit too fiery. With Dawkins now the spearhead of the front and Ayaan Hirsi Ali filling the vacancy, the movement focuses more on Dawkin's method of ridicule than powerful word choice).
It takes all kinds to fight any kind of battle. We need those that can fight with science, those that can fight with logic/reasoning, those that can fight with emotion, those that can fight with historical content, and even those that can fight with rhetoric. All points together create a powerful front, and the atheist movement wouldn't have gotten as big and prominent as it is today without people like Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hirsi Ali.

Fight for atheist rights is important (like a politician in US who attended a ceremony wearing a spaghetti strainer), the problem is to fight mocking other religions in a selective way: Cristianity, because if atheist mock publicly Islam they would be killed... so it good to pick on the weak kid and not on the bully, right?
Some people from developing countries became atheists because of Islamic regimes abuse, their testimonies denouncing what they suffered are valid and understandable.
But to hear someone giving a speech drinking alcohol... no, I don't buy it.
I became atheist because of common sense like other people, not because I bought a book or listened to a rich guy talk about atheism.

 

[Baba Yaga]

Wooooooooooowwwwwww.

The New Atheists critique all religions, and this "selective critique" you're thinking of is imaginary. If you don't think The New Atheists criticize Islam for example, you're just ignorant of their work. 3 of the horsemen, save Dennet, have made sharp critiques of Islam. You may hear about them criticizing certain religions more than others, particularly the Abrahamic faiths, but that's just because the Abrahamic faiths are the most widely held and causing the most problems. You won't usually hear anti-theists criticize say, some random and obscure tribal religion in Papua New Guinea. That's not selective, it's just good priorities.

Just because someone's drinking alcohol doesn't mean every statement that comes out of their mouth is suddenly ******** and not valid. Congratulations on becoming an atheist the way you did.

 

[Mr Dragon]

For me, the reason that "New Atheists" attack and ridicule beliefs and use emotive techniques in argument is more because they know that by arguing using logic alone is a losing battle, and that you can't make people, in particular a wide audience of people, consider other ideas just through the use of logic alone - politics illustrate this incredibly well.

More on the point of discussion, I don't think that there's anything wrong with attacking or ridiculing beliefs. If what you believe can't stand up to that sort of criticism, why do you believe it?

 

[Brutaka]

More on the point of discussion, I don't think that there's anything wrong with attacking or ridiculing beliefs. If what you believe can't stand up to that sort of criticism, why do you believe it?

I completely agree, but I think there is one thing that we should clarify: I don't mind attacking beliefs, as long as you're not attacking the person. There's a difference between mocking the religion and mocking the people who believe it.

 

[Sheepy Lamby]

Wooooooooooowwwwwww.

The New Atheists critique all religions, and this "selective critique" you're thinking of is imaginary. If you don't think The New Atheists criticize Islam for example, you're just ignorant of their work. 3 of the horsemen, save Dennet, have made sharp critiques of Islam. You may hear about them criticizing certain religions more than others, particularly the Abrahamic faiths, but that's just because the Abrahamic faiths are the most widely held and causing the most problems. You won't usually hear anti-theists criticize say, some random and obscure tribal religion in Papua New Guinea. That's not selective, it's just good priorities.

Just because someone's drinking alcohol doesn't mean every statement that comes out of their mouth is suddenly ******** and not valid. Congratulations on becoming an atheist the way you did.

I rather ignore their work than waste my money buying it
I always see atheist media (banners, ads, cartoons) attacking Christianity, but I've never seen a banner attacking Islam... I guess their aggressive techniques only work when they can intimidate their target (not when their target can bomb a city or crash planes)
If we talk about priorities, Christianity and Islam have almost the same "faith" share in the world (about 35 and 25% respectively, sorry I don't have the exact numbers) so priority does not mean only the number 1.
Thanks for the "congratulations" Parents and liberal politicians no longer teach/educate young people about common sense.
And again, alcoholics are not good role models. I had enough with my ridiculous liberal teachers.
Brutaka I understand your point, but it doesn't apply to many radical believers, they will take it personal. Just see their "peaceful" protests in UK and Australia.
Mr Dragon Yes, it's frustrating that logic became obsolete in modern society... but don't expect flowers in exchange for ridiculing people. Many new-atheists are anti-gun supporters, and it is impossible to fight armed religious extremists only with words. Otherwise we wouldn't need the army, police or border patrol to protect the interests of civilized countries.

 

[The Federation]

I rather ignore their work than waste my money buying it

Libraries are a nice invention, don't you think?

I always see atheist media (banners, ads, cartoons) attacking Christianity, but I've never seen a banner attacking Islam... I guess their aggressive techniques only work when they can intimidate their target (not when their target can bomb a city or crash planes)

Or bomb abortion clinics? If you live in the U.S., you will see banners attacking Christianity because it's the biggest (worst) religion we deal with day to day. I would imagine it's similar in other countries that are a majority Christian.

If we talk about priorities, Christianity and Islam have almost the same "faith" share in the world (about 35 and 25% respectively, sorry I don't have the exact numbers) so priority does not mean only the number 1.

Most Islamic countries kill or indefinitely jail protesters. Sort of lowers the amount of protest a bit.

Thanks for the "congratulations" Parents and liberal politicians no longer teach/educate young people about common sense.

As per the definition of "common sense", it never was and never will be taught.

And again, alcoholics are not good role models. I had enough with my ridiculous liberal teachers.

Haha, so if you were to meet an amazing success story who teaches at a prestigious school and is a known philanthropist, you would toss out his opinions (all of them) because he drinks? Drinking alcohol, even being an alcoholic, doesn't mean being wrong about everything. That's the exact definition of an attack on the person fallacy.

 

[Baba Yaga]

Sincerely, how can you try to let people understand there are no "gods" and change their mind when you attack them?

Well there's your problem. An attack on someone's beliefs isn't an attack on the person. There's a difference between saying "Your belief is stupid and causes a lot of problems." and saying "Religious people are all worthless piles of crap." I'd agree with you if you were saying that atheists should be condemned when they commit the latter, but that's not what you're saying.

 

[Sheepy Lamby]

Baba Yaga the point is that some people don't understand that difference.
The Federation
1) Human beings are not born with common sense
2) About alcoholics, image matters
3) Libraries are not really nice places in my city, sorry I don't bother going there.