|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
 Posted - 12/17/2007 : 05:52:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
moakley wrote: | The customer was 60 year old black woman who I suspect had been a devout christian for most of those years. I also suspect that the employee clearly not being from this country never entered the customers mind. I also failed to mention that the 5 or so minutes of conversation prior to this exchange had been polite chit chat. |
Ah, I see. Funny how things can seem out of context.
|
Yep. I need to improve my written communication skills. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
 |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2007 : 19:12:46 [Permalink]
|
I wonder how many bothered to look up the text (relevant bits start at section 42) of the encyclical before assuming the pope was just ranting against atheism. His comments on atheism are relatively insightful it's when he talks about religion that he starts invoking all sorts of logical fallacies.
Atheism is no guarantor of morality and athiests have been responsible for some of the "greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice". Where the pope errs significantly is in failing to acknowledge that religion in general and Christianity in particular have if anything an even worse record. But let's not indulge in our own cherry picking expedition by taking the pro-atheism argument implied by the satirical comic in the OP too seriously. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2007 : 21:28:10 [Permalink]
|
Matt wrote: | But let's not indulge in our own cherry picking expedition by taking the pro-atheism argument implied by the satirical comic in the OP too seriously. |
I posted the comic, and I didn't see it as "pro-atheism". It doesn't depict atheism at all, so I don't see how it is implying anything about atheists. As far as I can tell, it points out exactly what you just mentioned: | Where the pope errs significantly is in failing to acknowledge that religion in general and Christianity in particular have if anything an even worse record. |
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2007 : 22:38:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I posted the comic, and I didn't see it as "pro-atheism". It doesn't depict atheism at all, so I don't see how it is implying anything about atheists. As far as I can tell, it points out exactly what you just mentioned: |
It presents atrocities which were committed (for the most part) by religious individuals or groups as being committed by atheist or rationally minded individuals. The perceived implausibility or absurdity of the presented scenarios tends to portray atheism, or more broadly secular thinking, in a positive light. That perception evaporates when one considers other events in which secular (including atheist) groups did commit atrocities.
If the only point of the comic was that the pope was ignoring instances of evil perpetrated by religion there would have been no need to swap out the religious archtype for the rational one. |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 05:59:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
Originally posted by marfknox
I posted the comic, and I didn't see it as "pro-atheism". It doesn't depict atheism at all, so I don't see how it is implying anything about atheists. As far as I can tell, it points out exactly what you just mentioned: |
It presents atrocities which were committed (for the most part) by religious individuals or groups as being committed by atheist or rationally minded individuals. The perceived implausibility or absurdity of the presented scenarios tends to portray atheism, or more broadly secular thinking, in a positive light. That perception evaporates when one considers other events in which secular (including atheist) groups did commit atrocities.
If the only point of the comic was that the pope was ignoring instances of evil perpetrated by religion there would have been no need to swap out the religious archtype for the rational one.
|
But then it wouldn't be funny. I'm serious. Comics need to have a strong element of humor, otherwise its just boring political commentary. I see your point, it does imply that rationalists would be less likely to do the thinks shown, but it wouldn't be funny if the absurdity of the scenarios didn't ring true. Would the Crusades or witch burnings or the Inquisition have occurred in a rational society? Those events were highly influenced by people's religious beliefs. Atheist atrocities, like Stalin's, were not motivated by atheism. In Stalin's case, millions of peasants were not killed because of their religion. They were killed because they resisted collectivization. And collectivization had nothing to do with atheism. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 07:41:56 [Permalink]
|
MT 23:5 "Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them `Rabbi.'
MT 23:8 "But you are not to be called `Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth `father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called `teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. |
The pope does not speak for any/some Christians.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 08:16:55 [Permalink]
|
| Yes we are aware of that, as we have all been falsely accused of worshipping Darwin among others. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 09:27:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by leoofno
Originally posted by dv82matt
If the only point of the comic was that the pope was ignoring instances of evil perpetrated by religion there would have been no need to swap out the religious archtype for the rational one.
|
But then it wouldn't be funny. I'm serious. Comics need to have a strong element of humor, otherwise its just boring political commentary. |
There are many ways to be funny. But yes, I don't intend to dictate that humor or satire must only rely on completely valid arguments. I just mean to point out that we shouldn't be taken it by them.
| I see your point, it does imply that rationalists would be less likely to do the thinks shown, but it wouldn't be funny if the absurdity of the scenarios didn't ring true. |
I agree that it rings true. That is what makes it so easy to be misled by it. It is hard to understand how someone guided by rational principles could do such things. Christians have a similar reaction when presented with atrocities committed by other Christians.
| Would the Crusades or witch burnings or the Inquisition have occurred in a rational society? Those events were highly influenced by people's religious beliefs. |
Consider the Reign of Terror.
Atheist atrocities, like Stalin's, were not motivated by atheism. In Stalin's case, millions of peasants were not killed because of their religion. They were killed because they resisted collectivization. And collectivization had nothing to do with atheism.
|
The atrocities motivated by atheism such as religious persecution in the USSR, were largely overshadowed by Stalin's other atrocities. That is cold comfort however. Also although it is reasonable to take a nuanced view of collectivization and note that atheism was merely incidental and not the motivating factor it is important to afford that same courtesy to religion. For example, one could point out that the pedophile priests were not encouraged by religious doctrine to molest children. (Though admittedly it's not exactly the same thing as it was/is a systemic problem and not entirely incidental. The whole celibate priests and young boys living together thing is just asking for trouble, but the point is that if we only take the more nuanced stance on things when our pet beliefs appear to be threatened we will fall prey to confirmation bias.) |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 12:53:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
Originally posted by leoofno
Originally posted by dv82matt
If the only point of the comic was that the pope was ignoring instances of evil perpetrated by religion there would have been no need to swap out the religious archtype for the rational one.
|
But then it wouldn't be funny. I'm serious. Comics need to have a strong element of humor, otherwise its just boring political commentary. |
There are many ways to be funny. But yes, I don't intend to dictate that humor or satire must only rely on completely valid arguments. I just mean to point out that we shouldn't be taken it by them.
| I see your point, it does imply that rationalists would be less likely to do the thinks shown, but it wouldn't be funny if the absurdity of the scenarios didn't ring true. |
I agree that it rings true. That is what makes it so easy to be misled by it. It is hard to understand how someone guided by rational principles could do such things. Christians have a similar reaction when presented with atrocities committed by other Christians.
| Would the Crusades or witch burnings or the Inquisition have occurred in a rational society? Those events were highly influenced by people's religious beliefs. |
Consider the Reign of Terror.
Atheist atrocities, like Stalin's, were not motivated by atheism. In Stalin's case, millions of peasants were not killed because of their religion. They were killed because they resisted collectivization. And collectivization had nothing to do with atheism.
|
The atrocities motivated by atheism such as religious persecution in the USSR, were largely overshadowed by Stalin's other atrocities. That is cold comfort however. Also although it is reasonable to take a nuanced view of collectivization and note that atheism was merely incidental and not the motivating factor it is important to afford that same courtesy to religion. For example, one could point out that the pedophile priests were not encouraged by religious doctrine to molest children. (Though admittedly it's not exactly the same thing as it was/is a systemic problem and not entirely incidental. The whole celibate priests and young boys living together thing is just asking for trouble, but the point is that if we only take the more nuanced stance on things when our pet beliefs appear to be threatened we will fall prey to confirmation bias.)
|
Indeed. The extent to which the "religious" atrocities were more political than religious can be debated. For example, I think the problems in Northern Ireland (has that been mostly resolved?) were more political and economic than religious. Maybe religion was a convenient way for the protagonists to stir up the populace to get the results they wanted. Or perhaps the religious differences just served as a catalyst that made a bad situation worse, and ultimately became its defining characteristic. Thats where I think a secular, rational society has an advantage over a religious one. Rational folk are less likely to be fooled and manipulated. For example, most of the religious people I know were taken in by Bush's WMD rational for going to war with Iraq. My skeptic friends, all athiest, were not. We would come into work each day after the war started asking our coworkers "So did they find any WMD yet?". We knew the evidence had been overblown and misrepresented, and we were proven correct. The evidence was always there, but they chose to ignore it, or not look for it.
Maybe its more a skeptical thing than a religious/atheist one. We live in such a religious society that most non-skeptics will be religious by default. Those who can break away may be the more skeptically inclined. That would lead to false corrrelations.
I think the point of all my rambling is that blaming atheism for the worst atrocities is ridiculous. And if I read you right, I think you agree. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 14:01:17 [Permalink]
|
| While atheists have committed atrocities, what atrocities have been committed in the name of atheism? The big three, for instance, who are constantly brought up by fundamentalists, are Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin, but all three of them did what they did for positive, political reasons, not in the name of godlessness. The best I can come up with for atrocities in the name of atheism or freethought is some of the worst nastiness that happened during the French Revolution. That was certainly protest against both organized religion and an oppressive monarchy, but it hardly compares to genocides. The philosphies of skepticism, Humanism, and freethought in general don't really lend themselves to abuse because they encourage critical thinking, free inquiry, and the will of the individual to go against conformity. Again, I am NOT saying that atheists are any less likely commit vicious atrocities. I'm only saying that a freethinking worldview is less likely to be used as the conceptual vehicle under which atrocities are committed. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 15:59:20 [Permalink]
|
dv82Matt.....
Your quote:| Atheism is no guarantor of morality and athiests have been responsible for some of the "greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice". Where the pope errs significantly is in failing to acknowledge that religion in general and Christianity in particular have if anything an even worse record. |
"errs significantly"? How about "betrays the massive and insidious hypocrisy typical of political demogogues who cynically manipulate the masses they rule in order to augment their own power and enrich their coffers"?
The Pope is the political dictator of a political system known as Catholicism. This massively corrupt and evil system has been oppressing a large segment of humanity for many centuries, and by all rights should be eliminated from the face of the earth. I do not advocate the use of force for such eradication, however.
Only the ignorance, and what I personally believe to be a peculiar form of stupidity, of the millions that subscribe to and support this particular political abomination make its ongoing presence and power possible.
You may substitute Islam for Catholicism in the above, and it is equally true. No other major religious convictions come close, in damage done, even the minor enclaves of fundamental Baptism that exist mostly in the US. This is largely because of the enormous number of "believers", more properly political affiliates of Catholicism and Islam. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 17:52:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by leoofno
Indeed. The extent to which the "religious" atrocities were more political than religious can be debated. For example, I think the problems in Northern Ireland (has that been mostly resolved?) were more political and economic than religious.
|
I'd say that the Civil War too was also more political and economic than religious.
| Maybe religion was a convenient way for the protagonists to stir up the populace to get the results they wanted. Or perhaps the religious differences just served as a catalyst that made a bad situation worse, and ultimately became its defining characteristic. Thats where I think a secular, rational society has an advantage over a religious one. Rational folk are less likely to be fooled and manipulated. |
Well I do agree that rational people tend to be less easily deceived. But I don't think that secular society has any particular built-in resistance to extremism or that there is really such a thing as a "rational society".
| For example, most of the religious people I know were taken in by Bush's WMD rational for going to war with Iraq. My skeptic friends, all athiest, were not. We would come into work each day after the war started asking our coworkers "So did they find any WMD yet?". We knew the evidence had been overblown and misrepresented, and we were proven correct. The evidence was always there, but they chose to ignore it, or not look for it. |
Fair enough. But there may have been more than just rationality behind that depending on what information they had at hand when they first "knew" the claims had been overblown. Did they have any biases that might have prejudiced them? It is significant that they did turn out to be correct of course.
| Maybe its more a skeptical thing than a religious/atheist one. We live in such a religious society that most non-skeptics will be religious by default. Those who can break away may be the more skeptically inclined. That would lead to false corrrelations. |
True. And as a non-belief, there is little it can actually be used to motivate people to actually do (other than persecuting theists).
| I think the point of all my rambling is that blaming atheism for the worst atrocities is ridiculous. And if I read you right, I think you agree. |
Sure. But even though atheism is not usually the proximate cause atheists for whatever reasons do go severely off the rails at times. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 18:42:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
While atheists have committed atrocities, what atrocities have been committed in the name of atheism? |
That's a reasonable point. Persecution of theists is likely the main type of atrocity that could be directly attributed to atheism. There are other concepts that can fit into a rationalists worldview that can lend themselves to motivating atrocities more effectively. Examples could include, "freedom", "democracy", "nationalism", "the greater good" and ocasionally even "rationality".
| The big three, for instance, who are constantly brought up by fundamentalists, are Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin, but all three of them did what they did for positive, political reasons, not in the name of godlessness. The best I can come up with for atrocities in the name of atheism or freethought is some of the worst nastiness that happened during the French Revolution. That was certainly protest against both organized religion and an oppressive monarchy, but it hardly compares to genocides. |
That's the most extreme example I have seen as well. There are plenty of less extreme examples though.
| The philosphies of skepticism, Humanism, and freethought in general don't really lend themselves to abuse because they encourage critical thinking, free inquiry, and the will of the individual to go against conformity. Again, I am NOT saying that atheists are any less likely commit vicious atrocities. I'm only saying that a freethinking worldview is less likely to be used as the conceptual vehicle under which atrocities are committed. |
I agree to a certain extent. However I think there are features of group dynamics which weaken the effectiveness of rationality when applied to groups of people rather than individuals. For example one would think a spectacular failure would weaken a cult not strengthen it but often cults become stronger and more radical when that happens. Objectivism would be a good example of a group that praises critical thinking, free inquiry, and the will of the individual to go against conformity yet nonetheless has descended into cultishness. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 19:09:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
dv82Matt.....
Your quote:| Atheism is no guarantor of morality and athiests have been responsible for some of the "greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice". Where the pope errs significantly is in failing to acknowledge that religion in general and Christianity in particular have if anything an even worse record. |
"errs significantly"? How about "betrays the massive and insidious hypocrisy typical of political demogogues who cynically manipulate the masses they rule in order to augment their own power and enrich their coffers"? |
I think my phrasing is less prejudiced. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2007 : 12:47:15 [Permalink]
|
matt....
Your phrasing completely ignores the hypocrisy inherent in this and many other statements by Popes. It is nauseating! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Pope Denounces Atheism
