Honestly, I’m extremely bored with the god/no god debate. I don’t care. Really, I don’t care. Believe whatever you want about god(s)(ess)(es). It doesn’t matter. Sure, I think it’s all a bit silly, and I don’t buy into it, but I know plenty of really smart people who do. And I know a few really smart skeptics who do… a couple who are even *gasp* Christians!
Unless you’re using your religion to spread evil – like killing your daughter for talking to the guy you didn’t choose as her husband or trying to pass blatantly bigoted laws denying groups of people their basic rights, or trying to teach my kid that dinosaurs were here just a few thousand years ago and that The Flintstones are based on a true story – really, just thinking that there might be a deity isn’t an intellectual crime in my mind.
Religion isn’t above scrutiny, but I don’t think it’s necessary to mock the religious and spew hatred at them for merely believing.
Michael Shermer just wrote a whiny article on not beating up the believers, but I really loved Brian Thompson’s article over at Amateur Scientist, and highly recommend you read it after answering today’s quest
What’s your take on the atheists vs religious “war”? Do you think we should be more tolerant? Do you think we should be less tolerant? Does it matter?
The Afternoon Inquisition (or AI) is a question posed to you, the Skepchick community. Look for it to appear daily at 3pm ET.
Jihaaaaaaad!!!
Or something.
Honestly, I’m mostly in the “don’t care what you believe” camp, but I generally keep that stuff to myself. Just like I did when I was a believer.
Evangelism, even for atheism, can be tiresome. If someone asks me, I’ll tell them what I think and why, but otherwise it’s none of their business, and neither is their belief any of my business.
The nice thing though, is that when I do find out that a friend is a fellow atheist (which is happening increasingly often), we just kind of nod at each other and move on to different topics. There really isn’t anything to discuss, so we talk about more interesting subjects.
Your second paragraph pretty much says it all.
I refer to myself as either being an Asatruar with a lot of doubts, or an atheist with a large number of superstitions. I tend to get uncomfortable when my ex talks about whatever woo she’s into… but I can also use the language when I need to, and have a tendency to pray to a variety of deities at various moments.
I’m more or less uninterested in the God question, except when someone gets in my face about it… especially customers at work… gah, I want to beat people who try to start a religious discussion with me at work. I want to say “Dude, I’m at work, and I work for the city. I can’t express my true thoughts and feelings on this, so kindly shut the fuck up.”
Religion is a coping mechanism for Life. Many people use religion to focus and direct their good deeds; many use it to justify their bad deeds. Sometimes the same person does both at different times or at different phases of their lives.
I focus on the deeds and not the motivation.
A person who lives a “good life” and says it’s because God or religion gave them the strength to be principled is fine with me.
Why should we be more tolerant? They certainly aren’t tolerant of us. If the zealots aren’t willing to keep their religious beliefs out of our secular nation’s laws, then fuck ’em, is all I have to say. It’d be one thing if they worshiped and did their thing without getting in my way, but they get in my way EVERY DAY. I live in Arizona, so I deal with this, “Bug god told me to do it!” shit every day, and I’m tired of it.
I’m tired of Gov. Brewer using god as a reason to rid gays and non-married couples their domestic partnership benefits, a year after they were passed. I’m tired of Gov. Brewer using god as a reason to take away my right to make decisions about my body. I’m tired of Gov Brewer and every other zealot making it a-ok for a pharmacy to refuse to sell me birth control because of THEIR beliefs.
Essentially, I DO care and we SHOULD care, because religion affects our lives and laws every day, which is 100% unacceptable.
Once they stop trying to butt into my life with their god, then I will stop caring. Until then, it IS my business and I will not stop caring or fighting against it.
Playing nicely has NEVER worked. You can’t fight the loud, angry zealots with silence.
There is a big reason why the LGBT community has made so many strides in the last decade: By being loud. By not being nice. (Not being nice doesn’t mean being violent.) By not taking no for an answer.
That said, audience and context matters. There’s need for PZ Myers — and there’s a need for The Friendly Atheist. And everything in between.
But yeah, I do care. I really, really do care. Because it effects my life every.single.day.
I was with you until your second paragraph, as you started mentioning reasons why we need to be concerned about the debate. I am inclined to think you were trying to imply that it doesn’t matter what people believe as long on they keep it to themselves and it doesn’t affect their thinking, decision making, or judgement. But aye, there’s the rub. How can it not? Issues like abortion, gay marriage, sexuality, evolution, drugs, medicine, global warming, and on all seem to be divided between rational and secular people on one side and people with religious leanings who base their reasonings on unfounded mythical paradigms irrelevant of the facts. Those people tend to be in the majority and therefore have a stronger influence on the rest of us.
Skepticism is about critical thinking. Any concept that fails to stand up to critical thinking needs to be confronted, and religion tends to be a prime example of that, and definitely leads to an inability to embrace reason.
In regards to the “war” thing, while there are some very militant atheists it seems to me (just my observation) that the War On Religion is akin to the War On Christmas – wholly made up defensively by Christians. It’s seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to any dissent or criticism as opposed to an actual outright crusade (forgive the pun) to obliterate religion from society altogether.
@Paradym: Basically exactly what you said. Especially the “war” thing. I don’t really see atheists in a war — I do see Christians claiming there is a war against them. Which is typical of them.
I’m in the “I don’t care as long as you aren’t shoving it in my face” camp.
Personally, I’m tolerant of most religions. I think most agnostics are, and also most atheists. I really don’t like it when people who claim to be rational lump moderate religious people in with the wingnuts and extremists. My mom’s religion and church plays a big part in her life, and it’s mostly good. I have no intention of trying to change her. She’s Christian, but she’s pro-choice, accepting of homosexuality, and fairly liberal in general. She occasionally falls for alt-med things, but mostly because she just doesn’t know enough about biology. She goes to her doctor for important things, she giggles along with me at my alt-med-loving aunt, and she doesn’t believe in horoscopes or astrology. She never forgoes treatment by saying that “God will take care of it”, because she, like nearly all other Christians I know, expect that “God will take care of it” through a doctor.
A few atheists might say that my mom doesn’t really count as a Christian, but who are they to decide what counts? She counts just as much the extremists, who ignore as much of the Bible as moderates. If my mom takes the more sensible approach of considering biblical stories to be allegories, who is to say that she is less a “real” Christian than those who take everything literally?
Most people in the United States are reasonably smart, yet most of them are also religious. I certainly think that we need better education in certain subjects, but when it comes to religion, it doesn’t seem to be ruining the majority of people. It’s a shame that extremists have the loudest voice, but they really don’t represent mainstream religion, no matter how much they claim to.
I think @marilove has the right end of it. The problem is that if atheists/agnostics/skeptics are quiet and polite we’ll surrender much ground without a fight. And it is a fight.
There may be a “war” to keep religion out of our laws, but it’s not realistic to view it as religious vs. atheists. Most Christians that I know don’t want to push their religion onto everyone else. Even the ones that want to convert everyone often don’t want to do it through laws, because they think it doesn’t really “count” unless it’s voluntary. In this particular “war”, a lot of religious people would be on our side. It’s really important to distinguish between extremists and moderates, even though it’s tempting to lump them all together. It doesn’t help that extremists tend to be the loudest.
Other than interfering with our laws, there really is no “war”, unless it’s important to you that everyone else be an atheist too.
like the first commenter @Zapski: said, for me it comes down to respect. as long as someone doesn’t push any hidden agenda or force onto me their beliefs while cutting down what i believe, then i am cool with them. i have quite a few dear friends that are religious, and i love them dearly and also love that we can talk about science things or religious things without even a hint of bitterness or passive-aggressive judgement.
but yes, people that try to evangelize (religious and non-religious alike) and look at people as nothing but mere “projects” for them to mold into exactly what they see fit….those people can kiss my fucking ass and get shot into a singularity in space.
@Paradym: Yes, this.
Also, I don’t think mocking or attacking folks for simply being of a different belief system is the way to go. Note that I said “simply.” Once someone’s belief system leads them to do or say something stupid, dangerous, or intolerant of others, they’re fair game. Or rather, their words or actions are fair game for the mocking.
@catgirl: The problem I see is that the majority of self-proclaimed moderates really aren’t moderate — they vote against gay marriage. Every day. They vote against abortion. Every day.
I really don’t know a whole lot of people who identify as Christian (and not just spiritual) who will vote pro-choice. Many won’t vote for gay marriage.
They may identify as moderate, but their religious views are still getting in the way of my life.
And that’s still not cool.
This one is tough. I don’t have much of a stomach for conflicts.
I don’t like to fight.
One of the things I love about my job is their stance on religion. As best I can tell the parnters and all of the senior managment is conservative christian but it is never spoken of at work. Ever. It took me two years to get any kind of a feeling about their beliefs and I’m still not 100% certain. They are very old-fashioned and the workplace is considered to be a place where you do not talk about religion. It is impolite.
My parents go to a very hippy church, the pastor and assistant pastor are both women. There is a strong suspicion that the pastor is a lesbian, she says that she isn’t. She also says it doesn’t matter. This church organizes a monthly distribution called Angel Food where a family can get enough food to feed for people for a month for $35. No prayers needed, no need to prove any faith or even need. If you want to get the food come and get it. They also preach that no one goes to hell.
There are liberal religous people out there who should be our natural allies because they are as disturbed and frightened by the fundamentalists as we are. Yes they have an irrational blindspot but can any of us truthfully say we don’t have irrational blindspots? That we are totally rational and skeptical of everything?
I see it much more as a fight against people who want to take their existing bigotries and then claim that their religous beliefs justify those bigotries. And then they try and get those bigotries written into the law.
I’m an atheist and I care, though I would never have described it as a war myself. I think we should be having an open dialogue about the true nature of reality. Passionate debate and discussion is fine; war is unnecessary and ridiculous. Bill O’Reilly thinks there’s a “war on Christmas” any time someone says “Happy Holidays” — a phrase I grew up thinking meant “Merry Christmas and Happy New Year” put together. Where’s the war?
I also care because it’s a very short hop from “just thinking that there might be a deity” to “trying to pass blatantly bigoted laws denying groups of people their basic rights” etc. If you think there’s a supernatural being who tells you what to do and is always to be obeyed, what if you get the idea somehow that that being wants you to do something monstrous?
I think an easy analogy can be made to the skeptical attitude more generally. I mean, I don’t really care if someone believes in Bigfoot. What harm does it do? None, unless they quit their job and devote their life to hiking around in the mountains and forests, neglecting their children and forgetting their friends. But living without critical thinking skills is dangerous, because who knows what idea a credulous person will end up believing next?
@catgirl: Well, no, atheists typically don’t see this as a war. However, Christians do see it as a war — a war against their faith.
This is very typical of them.
And reminds me of this:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2008/12/17/christians-are-oppressed/
My best friend is a woo woo loving hippy and I still love her to death regardless.
The way I see it, there is a time and place for religion. Those places do not include science, government, institutions funded by the government, or statements that are fightin’ words. Other than that, I could give less of a shit if my neighbor is a raging Scientologist
I’m too tired to fight about religion. I have friends who are religious, friends who aren’t religious, friends who are republicans, friends who are democrats, friends who are socialists… It’s one of those “just don’t talk about it” deals when it comes to who I hang out with. If I like someone as a person, it doesn’t matter if they have a Bible in their bedside table. Just don’t preach to me directly.
Last weekend we had our baby showers, one of which was a family luncheon with both of our families coming together for the first time. As lunch was being served, my great uncle stood up and said grace in front of everyone. Did I storm out and make a fuss or get upset? Of course not! He is a sweet old man who adores my husband and me and is SO excited that we’re having a baby that he wanted to vocalize it the way he knows how: with prayer. And you know, it wasn’t awful. It was more of a giving thanks for (and to) our families than it was gratuitous Lord-naming. He also told me I looked beautiful “bearing the fruit of the spirit,” which cracked me the hell up and seemed more like a comic relief statement.
If someone were to do something horrible in their name of their religion, as it happens so often, it’s worth it to fight for whomever is being victimized. Also, those who push their agendas on me are likely to end up with a 2nd asshole. Going out of my way to confront people who haven’t done anything except go to church seems more like hunting. Lots of people go to church and don’t say bunk about it to anyone who doesn’t go with them. It’s the extremists we need to watch out for.
Yes I think religion is stupid. Yes I will continue to stand up for my (and everyone else’s) right to not believe in a higher power. And yes, if a friend was on the border between remaining faithful and losing their faith, I would guide them with rational logic. But I’m not going to go around trying to convert everyone I meet. That would make me just as bad as the evangelicals.
When religion is kept somewhat private and personal I have no issue with it.
When religion is use to provide you with a reasonable moral compass and makes you a better persion I have no issue with it.
When religion is the reason you use to spread hate, start wars, deny science and exercise control over people I have a big problem with it.
Also, I want to make it clear: I have no intentions of “converting” people to atheism. The only thing I care about is the fact that religion VERY HEAVILY influences our laws. And I really don’t see that changing anytime soon, especially if we just shut up and allow it to continue.
@marilove:
I guess I don’t see that as religion vs unreligion.
I see it as assholes using their religion for power. And even if you’re not religious, you should be fighting against what they’re doing.
Gay bashing isn’t about “I believe in God”… Gays can be Christians and Muslims and Jews and deists and pagans and Hindus. Using God as an excuse to hate and commit bigotry is reprehensible.
Same thing with most other religious “crimes”. It’s not about God or no God… it’s about using God as a shield, and as a sword, and as a threat… but you know, there’s pro-life atheists and skeptics… and they’re anti woman ones, and anti-gay ones.
I don’t say play nice when people are being hurt, but this isn’t about my next door neighbor getting his baby christened or midnight mass. I can still be tolerant of that guy, and my religious (maybe one day) co-workers and family members and hate what Bill Donohue and Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter and the Catholic Church are doing.
I try to be tolerant and inclusive and understanding, but usually I just come off sounding pitying. Which I guess I am. I’m always surprised when I find out smart people believe in something whonky, and I have a hard time concealing that, I guess.
@Chelsea: Did I storm out and make a fuss or get upset?
———-
There’s definitely some ground between “caring” and “making a total ass out of yourself”.
Where I fall out with Elyse in this one is in the world of skepticism: there are no skeptics who are Christians. Unless, of course, the evidence that a god-man worked a large number of miracles, was nailed to a tree, and now sits in heavenly judgement over all humanity has changed drastically since the last time I checked, in which case all skeptics will eventually become Christians.
That’s not to say that all skeptics have the same viewpoints on every topic, but Christianity is a word with metaphysical implications on the scale of the heliocentric solar system, and I’m pretty sure that practically all skeptics are heliocentrists.
Skeptic doesn’t mean “critical thinking when it’s convenient.” Skeptic means “critical thinker first. If you can’t or won’t examine your sacred cows critically, you just aren’t a skeptic.
Doesn’t mean you can’t be a nice person, or be reality friendly… it just means that you aren’t reality based.
Well said Elyse. Brian Thompson’s article was quite good and I thought Shermer also made some good points. And I’ll second what Sam said about your second paragraph.
I think it matters when people are irrational and attack with out using reasonable and rational arguments or can’t have a civilized discussion. Being defensive and pompous never helps when it comes to the reasonable discussion part however. And certainly holding a religious belief can not be said to reflect on ones intelligence or education. My wife occasionally attends a Christian faculty group at the university where she teaches. Lots of bright PhD types there who know its wrong when someone calls them delusional, foolish or stupid. When I gave up my religious beliefs I took my horse out of the race so to speak. I have no desire to engage in the atheist vs. believer debate except to point out the harm done in the name of religion and I’ll do that at the drop of a hat as I did while I was a believer.
@davew: I disagree that it’s a fight between believers and non-believers. I think you would find the majority of those professing a religious belief would agree with you on most ethical, moral and scientific issues. For me the fight is against the irrational and ignorant.
@Elyse: I honestly think that’s a bit naive. The majority of the religious do not believe in gay marraige. The majority of the religious do not believe that abortion should be legal. This isn’t just the extremists, either. This is why I say those who claim they are moderate really aren’t. It’s just that they aren’t as vocal or jerkish about it.
But they still vote. And they still vote with their religion.
If you believe in god, something that is inherently illogical, then is makes sense you will be more likely to believe in other illogical things, like the power of prayer.
If you believe in the power of prayer, you are less likely to work hard to fix problems, like global warming, and will instead try to pray the bad stuff away.
If you rely on prayer instead of hard work, you can hurt yourself and others.
Why should we be tolerant of stupidity, especially when stupid people in large numbers is a major threat to combating a lot of the problems facing the world today.
I don’t fight, because it’s pointless. People who have made the decision to turn off part or all of their brains aren’t going to be swayed by MY arguments.
However, I let it be known that there IS another viewpoint. In a lot of ways, I do the same thing with skepticism – the most important thing is not to let the woo exist unchallenged. Those who want to question need to know that there are others questioning too.
However, I’d be lying if I didn’t say this – I lose respect for people who believe. I guess I’m really not so tolerant. I’ve thought about it and agonized over it, but there it is.
@James Fox:
I really do not believe this.
Yes, there are plenty of self-identified Christians who would agree with me on most ethical, moral, and scientific issues, but I DO NOT think they are the majority.
If they were, gay marriage would be legal.
If they were, we STILL wouldn’t be fighting for women’s rights, especially in regards to abortion and birth control.
If they were, a “No God? You can still be a good person!” type of sign wouldn’t cause people to freak the fuck out and cry discrimination.
If they were, Sarah Palin wouldn’t have almost become vice president.
Sarah Palin is an extremist and she almost became vice president.
That shit is scary.
@Elyse: Do you think we should be more tolerant? Do you think we should be less tolerant?
I may have misread the question. I took this to mean “more or less tolerant than they are”. It could as well mean “more or less tolerant than we are now.” I think this can change the answer.
I think @Chelsea has a very apt scenario. I admire her forbearance. In that situation she was having a bit of religion pushed on her. I think she would have been well within the bounds of etiquette to push back. Politely. I was presented with a similar situation a few years back. Someone said, “Do you mind if I say grace?” I replied, “Only if you do it where I can hear.” People laughed and had a good time and I managed to make my point.
@sethmanapio:
I believe that’s called the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
God is not testable. There is no way of knowing whether there is one or isn’t one. I think I can reasonably assume there isn’t one… but if someone else decides that there is no proof either way and so they choose to believe, I can accept that.
Why don’t you tell Pamela Gay that she’s not a skeptic?
I’m actually one of those *gasp* Christians that doesn’t tend to agree with most other Christians about much of anything and tends to agree with my skeptical and atheist friends about the majority of things.
Religion to me has become one of those things on which we can agree or disagree without it really affecting how we feel about each other. Its an opinion, like which flavor of ice cream is best. There will never be a solid “proof” one way or the other, so I don’t see why it so often become such an absolute (let alone, such a heated one).
I can understand the vitriol when the religious right’s fervor spills over into social issues like gay marriage, teaching evolution, social spending, etc. What truly sucks about my position is that as soon as I say “Christian,” I see atheists and skeptics either shut-down or flare-up, regardless of how long we’ve talked and agreed about social issues, foreign policy, or whatever else.
As someone who straddles the line between the two sides, I can tell you that the vitriol and irrationality, as ugly as it is, is not one-sided in the least.
My take? I’m just not enough of an egotist to believe that my beliefs are fraught with metaphysical significance.
As an atheist, I find it far more irreligious & even unchristian to be in bad taste to believe one’s beliefs have any world historical significance.
Atheists who fulfill the pathetic stereotype of the angry atheist (I was one of those for several years in my twenties) need to detox from this pathetic self-importance. By angry atheist I mean someone who actively seeks to deprogram Christians.
Wry amusement at taking oneself so seriously. Really atheist or not, someone who takes themselves so seriously really belongs in an absurdist comedy. When I read about the so-called war on Christians, I feel like I wandered into a Fry & Laurie skit.
@marilove: Also, to add, we wouldn’t have to literally fight against creationism being taught as science in our schools.
Its a never ending cycle. We call them fascist fundies, they call us commie heathens. We all look at the other guys, and say they believe in wrong crazy stuff. Our crazy stuff is right.
The moderates chastize the extremes for being too out there, but rebuff the non-believers for not following their creed.
Religion isn’t going anywhere. In 200 years, we will have missionaries on other planets, trying to save the souls of non-earthlings.
My calendar for this year is Crabby Road, and Maxine is saying this month, “Have yourself a merry little christmas. Just don’t drag me in it.” I feel the same with religion. I don’t care what you belief, just keep it to yourself. If you come at me with your beliefs, then your about to get served.
@sethmanapio: “Skeptic doesn’t mean “critical thinking when it’s convenient. …”
Some people are really good at compartmentalizing and this is not Vulcan.
@marilove:
What sucks about being in the philosophical minority is that there’s no way to wear it on your sleeve. I still haven’t found a “religious left” tshirt for sale anywhere. I guess it wouldn’t be a big seller.
@Elyse: Why don’t you tell Pamela Gay that she’s not a skeptic?
——-
I did. Then I took her to a party. She seemed to have a good time anyway. Words have meanings… I can’t be a Christian without believing in the divinity of Christ, and Christians can’t be skeptics if they do.
The problem that bothers me about the debate is that I don’t think religion causes any of the issues that so many (of you) complain about, it’s just an excuse.
People would still be trying to pass laws against all kinds of crap they don’t like. They’d be jamming their world view down our throats just as much, it would only have a different name.
And by taking a militant stance against faith you alienate reasonable people that believe but otherwise are basically like us in every other way.
I don’t like intolerance, whether it comes from a Muslim, Jew, Cristian or Atheist. No group has that market covered and no group is free of it.
I used to be more tolerant but I’m now firmly in the “we should be a whole hell of a lot less tolerant of religion” camp. I think it’s practically our civic duty to mock religion (although not necessarily the religious) every chance we get.
I guess I’m turning into a cranky old man.
@marilove:
But many people don’t vote their religion.
Do you believe that California is just barely under 50% non-believers? Prop 8 was really damn close… and those weren’t all atheists. I don’t recall how close other states were… but Iowa certainly isn’t mostly non-religious, and gay marriage passed there in the WTF surprise of all history. And Maine I think was like 48%/52%.
Again, I point out that there are skeptics and atheists who are anti-woman and anti-abortion… which I know you know because you’ve been around this blog for a long time, and you’re almost always there fighting the good fight.
@James Fox: I’ve posted plenty of material on this not being Vulcan. I didn’t say that Christians were incapable of critical thinker, I said that the Venn Diagram of Skeptic and Christian did not overlap.
@James Fox: I disagree that it’s a fight between believers and non-believers. I think you would find the majority of those professing a religious belief would agree with you on most ethical, moral and scientific issues. For me the fight is against the irrational and ignorant.
I agree with you mostly. The religious types I know are quite amiable. There is a subset of religious people, however, who want to push their religion into government and other organizations. They are self-identified as religious so that’s how I identify them. These are the people I oppose.
I agree that skeptics can help other people see a more evidence-based way of thinking, but this is a different topic.
@marilove: We’ve discussed this before and I think it boils down to what the politics of most Christians are where I live as opposed to where you live.
@Rei Malebario: That can be a problem when you’re a skeptical non believing type who’s married to a very intellegent believing religious type.
@Elyse: Well, we’re getting closer — and it’s by being vocal and not “tolerant” that’s doing it.
But, yes, Christians are still the majority and it is still their majority vote that is bringing down civil and womens rights. Like in New York. 100% of those voting down gay marriage in NY identify as Christian, I am almost positive of it, and if not Christian, then another religion.
I have a lot of religious friends that I grew up with. They all voted against gay marriage.
@James Fox: But the majority is still against gay marriage, abortion rights, etc. Even in California. And New York.
My point is that being loud and not tolerant is what’s working.
@Elyse: I believe that’s called the “No True Scotsman†fallacy.
———-
No, it isn’t. No Christian’s are Atheists, either, because the two things actually have something to do with each other and are actually mutually exclusive. No Honda is a Toyota, no Red Sox Fan roots for the Yankees. The “true scotsman” fallacy doesn’t apply to every possible division of things.
@PrimevilKneivel: Perhaps, as you say, “They’d be jamming their world view down our throats just as much, it would only have a different name.” But what name would be as convincing as God? I think religion gives people an extremely effective cover to push people around, and that’s why the link is legitimate.
I also don’t think that it’s “intolerant” to talk about whether a particular factual statement is true or false. It’s not any more “intolerant” to say that the earth is more than 6,000 years old than it is to say that chiropractic is bogus or that homeopathy makes no sense.
@marilove: If you read Brian Thompson’s article you will find religion had little to do with the final vote in California and a same as marriage rights initiative did pass in my state recently.
@sethmanapio: I think Elyse was referring to your statement that a true Skeptic can not be a Christian which would fit the fallacy.
@Elyse: decides that there is no proof either way and so they choose to believe, I can accept that.
——-
I can accept it too. I just can’t call that person a skeptic, because you aren’t describing skeptical thinking.
@James Fox: I think Elyse was referring to your statement that a true Skeptic can not be a Christian which would fit the fallacy.
——
I know she was. She is wrong, and you are too. A Christian is someone who believes in the divinity of Christ, which is an evidence free claim about things that no human could possibly know. A Skeptic is someone who uses critical thinking and evidence to assess all truth claims.
These groups simply do not overlap. This is not an example of that fallacy, anymore than saying that no Free Market Capitalist is a Communist is a fallacy. “No True Scotsman” doesn’t apply.
If people keep their nonsense to themselves and out of politics I don’t care. Unfortunately this usually isn’t the case.
If you want to vote a certain way, far be it from me to stop you. I expect you to have a well-reasoned argument that has nothing to do with religion to back it up though.
@ marilove You’ve hit most of the important points, but since some people seem to be almost oblivious to what you’re saying, I’m going to hit some of them again.
It’s painfully obvious to me that religious belief is being used as a hammer against same-sex couples all over the country. It doesn’t matter that California came CLOSE to not having a vile, inhumane law on its books. It matters that California DOES have a vile, inhumane law on its books, and religion is to blame for that.
And as far as Iowa goes, you can be sure that won’t last. The current situation in Iowa is the result of a state supreme court ruling. It won’t be long before they wrangle up a constitutional amendment to overcome that little problem.
I also have to amplify marilove’s point about the teaching of evolution. Despite the Dover ruling, the issue continues to fester all across the country, and opting out of the “war” we’re talking about here is tantamount to surrendering on this issue and a host of others.
None of us chose this “war.” It has been forced upon us by the legions of religious idiots in America and elsewhere who think their beliefs should be encoded into the law and enforced by the state. That’s not a war I’m going to let them win.
@thoughtcounts-Z: but it’s not effective to tell people they are stupid when you are trying to convince (teach) them your view is right.
I find saying that chiropractic is false is just as useless an argument style. You immediately put people on the defensive. But when you say ‘I don’t believe in Chiropractic’ you force them to ask you why and then you can explain the lack of evidence or the general implausibility.
When I say you believe something that is wrong I’m placing myself above you, when I say I believe something different I’m staying at the same level. If you want to win an argument start level with your opponent and use fact and reason to raise your boat while the holes in their argument sinks theirs.
For those of you who are wondering, “No true Scotsman is a logical fallacy where the meaning of a term is ad hoc redefined to make a desired assertion about it true.” (wikipedia).
I am not “ad hoc” redefining the term “Skeptic” or “Christian”. I admit these terms are not perfectly defined, but I don’t see anyone offering a competing definition that allows Christians but excludes people who believe in homeopathy, alien abduction, or a 5000 year old earth. So unless “skeptic” has basically no meaning, or you are willing to offer a new meaning that does what you want it to (thus engaging the no true scotsman fallacy yourself), I’m pretty sure you have no leg to stand on here.
@sethmanapio:
Knowing and believing are two different things. While I agree that it’s a silly thing to believe, believing in something where there is no proof either way is not unskeptical… so long as you make an agreement with yourself to change your mind should the evidence change.
I don’t know if my dog loves me. I can’t know that one way or the other. I choose to believe that he does. If that means that I am not a skeptic, then I’ll resign from Skepchick and stop fighting against anti-vaxxers and homeopathy and Oprah. But guess what? Dog love does not disqualify me from the entire skeptical movement.
There is no set of rules for what skeptics believe or don’t believe.
@sethmanapio: Until about 20 years ago, there was no evidence of planets around other stars. Some scientists believed, some didn’t. Now, before this discovery, there was as much evidence for these exoplanets as we have for god. Were these scientists thinking critically? Were the scientists who doubted thinking critically?
The answer is yes.
Now, there is still no evidence for life on other planets. Some scientists believe, some don’t. Which is thinking critically? They both are.
Can you present evidence of the non-divinity of Christ? The answer to that is “No”. At no point can science proof a negative. You can’t prove something didn’t/doesn’t happen. All you can say is there’s no evidence for this have occuring.
As a skeptic, you should know that. Maybe you’re not a true skeptic.
@Elyse: I don’t know if my dog loves me.
————-
I have evidence that my dog, to the extent that dogs express or feel an emotion that is isomorphic to what I think of as “love”, loves me. For example, he accepts me as pack leader, expresses enthusiasm at my presence, etc.
This is not even vaguely similar to believing that it is a fact of the universe that a super-being with vast powers is waiting to judge you when you die.
And if there are no rules for the grounds on which skeptics accept truth claims, then the word “skeptic” has no meaning at all.
@James Fox:
Just to clarify a little bit, I don’t think the votes against marriage equality in California and elsewhere had little to do with religion. I actually think that all the arguments against marriage equality are based in religion. But my larger point was that many religious people voted in favor of marriage equality despite their religious beliefs. And as a general trend, reason has trumped religion throughout history, both in politics and science, even though the number of religious people hasn’t declined all that much. In other words, religious people adapt and change.
@sethmanapio:
This may be a nitpick, but you don’t have to believe in the divinity of Christ to be considered a Christian. There’s a Christian creed laid out in the New Testament that has little to do with anything supernatural and is really just a moral code. Not that there are many Christians that fall under that category, I’ll admit, but it’s incorrect that Christianity requires any belief in the divine.
@marilove:
It may be true that only religious people have voted against gay marriage, but that doesn’t mean all religious people have voted against gay marriage. As long as there are some who aren’t also fundamentalists, it’s a mistake to treat them all like fundamentalists. Many fundies are changing their beliefs about marriage equality and other issues, as the voting numbers prove. But they aren’t changing their self-identification as religious. I think this is a sign that blanket anti-religion messages aren’t nearly as effective as messages targeted to specific, harmful religious beliefs like the inequality of gay people.
@Elyse: I don’t know if my dog loves me, but he knows I clean up his shit. (Fixed that for you.)
@infinitemonkey: Now, before this discovery, there was as much evidence for these exoplanets as we have for god. Were these scientists thinking critically? Were the scientists who doubted thinking critically?
——-
Actually, this is not true. We had the evidence that there were planets around this star, the knowledge that there is a mechanism for planet creation, and the knowledge that physics is basically the same in other places. So any scientist who expressed the belief that there were no planets of any kind around any other stars would not be thinking clearly, rationally, or skeptically. A scientist who said is was likely, but that they were reserving final judgement, would be.
Where’s your comparable data for god?
You have none, because these cases are not similar.
@AmateurScientist: There’s a Christian creed laid out in the New Testament that has little to do with anything supernatural and is really just a moral code.
————-
Really? Where? Because I’ve read the gospel, and Christ was pretty clear about what was required.
@AmateurScientist: Sorry if I misrepresented. I’ve seen an enormous change in the thinking of many religious groups and individuals with regard to this issue over the past twenty years and it appears the voting also reflects that.
Were the religious people to keep their religion out of public policy, I’d say it doesn’t matter. Until we reach that point then I’m inclined to agree with Stephen Fry (yay!) and Christopher Hitchens (ugh!) and expand their claims to apply to organized religion as a whole.
@sethmanapio: We have consiousness. We can’t explain how consiousness arose, nor can we define what consiousness is. Since we can’t define this consiousness, we can’t state what forms it takes. We also can’t define what a foreign consiousness can and can’t do. For all intents and purposes, we have a sample size of one. You can’t draw universal (literally) conclusions from a sample size of 1.
I don’t have a problem with individual believers as long as they aren’t harming anyone or trying to push their beliefs on me. They are free to believe what they want, not that I won’t challenge or criticize them in a polite manner.
However, when believers act as a group to push their beliefs on other, try to get them made into law, try to deny people rights, or deceive others about science/medicine/etc. I will come down on them hard. Being a religion or religious does not put you above scrutiny or criticism. I will also call out moderate and liberal religious folks for NOT condemning behavior by fundamentalists.
@Noadi: Can I second that statement?
@sethmanapio:
If you’ve read the Gospels and can’t find any moral teachings that don’t require a belief in the divine, I would suggest reading the Beatitudes of Matthew again. There’s also Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and Luke 10:25-38. There’s also John 8:7. It’s just as easy to separate the belief in divine mercy and the concept of Heaven from these teachings as it is to learn something about loyalty and friendship from “The Lord of the Rings” without literally believing the land of Mordor is where the shadows lie.
@infinitemonkey: We have consiousness. We can’t explain how consiousness arose, nor can we define what consiousness is.
————-
And yet you claim that we have it. Curious.
Tolerant, yes. Deferential or apologetic, no.
@sethmanapio: Are you trying to make a counter point or something? If you’d like to expand on this, I’d be happy to do so.
@PrimevilKneivel: Ditto.
@AmateurScientist: If you’ve read the Gospels and can’t find any moral teachings that don’t require a belief in the divine
————-
Oh. Well, if you want to water the definition of Christian down to “someone who found a passage in the bible that expressed a sentiment they agreed with” I guess I’m a christian, a mormom, a muslim, a budhhist, a satanist, and a skeptic.
On the other hand, I tend to think of a Christian as “a follower of Christ”, and Christ was explicit that belief in him was a requirement for membership.
I think that we should be infinitely patient with religious people who do not urge their beliefs on others. However, we should be very critical of those who need to press their mythology on others. I will be infinitely critical of those who try to press their religious fantasies onto me or my family.
@infinitemonkey: Are you trying to make a counter point or something?
——-
I wasn’t aware you had made a point. You just made some statements about consciousness that weren’t connected to anything, that I found curious.
@sethmanapio: Maybe you should have read the rest of the comment.
@infinitemonkey: All you can say is there’s no evidence for this have occuring.
——-
Right. And if you say “well, I believe it occurred anyway, in the absence of evidence and in direct contradiction to everything else that can be observed about things that do happen”, then you are not a Skeptic–that is, you do not access truth claims by evaluating the evidence in favor of those claims according to a single standard.
If you admit special pleading for one truth claim but not another, that’s a skeptical fail.
@infinitemonkey: Maybe you should have read the rest of the comment.
——–
Well, naturally I read the whole comment the first time. I just read it again. I’m still not seeing a point there that is connected to this discussion in some way. Maybe you could clarify what you were trying to express?
@sethmanapio: I’m sorry, where did this come from? What line brought you to this? Have I ever said that there’s evidence for it not happening?
@sethmanapio:
I’d consider myself a Trekkie, though I find most of “The Next Generation” boring. To some, that means I should turn in my comm badge. You can label yourself without adhering to every implication of that label. I’m also a Democrat, though I’m not a huge fan of every plank in the party platform. That may be difficult to accept, but it’s simply reality. And we’re all reality-based here.
The definitions of words don’t bend simply because of what you tend to think they mean.
Also, Christ had nothing to say about what it takes to be a Christian. He had some ideas about what you can do to enter Heaven. But even that doesn’t matter. If Jerry Garcia had said you have to eat a tub of ice cream every day to be a Deadhead, that wouldn’t make it true.
@infinitemonkey: Have I ever said that there’s evidence for it not happening?
————
Perhaps I was unclear: The gospel stories directly contradict all observation about the sorts of things that actually happen in the world. So believing in them, absent evidence, is not skeptical.
@AmateurScientist: The definitions of words don’t bend simply because of what you tend to think they mean.
———-
I know. That’s why I consider a Christian to be a follower of Christ. But hey, if you want to make a new, ad hoc definition of both “christian” and “skeptic” to mean “people who label themselves that way” then I guess you’re right, anyone who says they are a skeptic is a skeptic, regardless of what they believe, and everyone who says they are a Christian is a christian regardless of what they believe.
@sethmanapio:
I’m not making any definitions. Neither Unitarians nor all members of the United Church of Christ believe Jesus was divine, though many of them identify as Christian. There’s a large population of Christian Buddhists who mix secular interpretations of Christ’s teachings with Buddhist philosophy. Some Mormons and all Raelians believe Christ was an extraterrestrial, not a divine being. The Webster definition of “christian” has to do with following Christ’s teachings, with no reference to the necessity of accepting all of them equally or at all. Personally, I know of a couple of Catholic priests who don’t believe Jesus was divine.
You obviously think it’s fun to troll for semantic arguments here, but even on a semantic level, you’re wrong about this.
@sethmanapio: Ok, let me slow it in case I’m going to fast.
We all have consiousness. Well, how do we describe consciousness? It can’t really be described in objective terms, its all subjective. Therefore, it can’t be define or described. Much like describing blue to a person who has never seen anything.
Now, since we can’t define what consiousness is, we have no way of stating what is or isn’t consious. Is Elyse’s dog consious? We can’t say for sure, as it is subjective. Remember the guy in the coma for 23 years? Is he consious?
Now, we have experienced interactions with people who we believe are consious. We believe that because they seem to have the same characteristics of consiousness as us. However, these are, for all intents and purposes, a sample size of 1. We have one kind of consiousness. Therefore, we cannot speculate on if this is or isn’t the only form of consiousness, nor what other forms would take.
Are you with me so far.
So, we have only experienced one kind of consiousness. It is subjective. We have not been able to define what is/isn’t consiousness.
Therefore, we can’t state, with any form of certitude, that there is not another form of consiousness, one that may or may not exist in this universe, but has the capability to effect this universe.
This is my best argument for the lack of evidence of the non-existance of god.
Bear in mind that previously, in our discussion, we talked about the planets, and you brought up the idea of our theories of the origins of the solar system. What you failed to consider is that there are exosolar planets which, accorind to our theory of planetary development, should not be where they are. This leads to one of 2 conclusions. Either 1) The events which we believe occured is just one of several possible scenerios or 2) The planets which defy our theory used to fit our theory, but were knock out of their original orbit to one much closer. Both seem very unlikely, but my money is on the former.
So, what is your argument against the lack of evidence for the nonexistance of god?
@AmateurScientist: Most Episcopal clergy would also likely deny Jesus was divine or the actual son of God.