Last night, a friend was telling us about a talk she attended on the subject of atheism. The panel were apparently keen to distance themselves from the “New Atheist” movement, particularly Richard Dawkins, as they felt that the movement’s direct and aggressive tactics were not conducive to opening up a dialogue with believers. Our friend got the impression that these three were trying to put themselves across as “cuddly atheists” (her words); harmless, innocuous, respectful of the rights of all people to believe and practice whatever crazy shite they might choose. In this way, the argument ran, they would be able to communicate to the religious that atheism is not a threat to their religion – far from it, in fact; we atheists are all about freedom of belief and expression. So, be you Catholic, Wiccan, Buddhist or Jew, we respect your choice, and we want you to know that we support your right to practice whatever religion you see fit.
Bollocks.
When your religion supports the murder of those not associated with it, I do not respect your religion. When your religion covers up an endemic culture of child abuse, I do not respect your religion. When your religion insists that you have a “God-given” right to occupy other people’s lands and kill the occupants thereof, I do not respect your religion. When your religion denies medical treatment to sick children, I do not respect your religion. When your religion dictates that a quarter of your population are sub-human untouchables, I do not respect your religion. When your religion claims that it’s okay for a man to marry and have sex with his 14-year old cousin, I do not respect your religion.
“Oh, but that’s just a few fringe lunatics – they don’t represent my religion.” Well actually, yes, yes they do. I’ve said this before, but it bears saying again – if you justify your own actions, good or bad, by recourse to your faith, then you validate that justification for anyone else who claims the same thing. You may find the Bible says: “love thy neighbour,” but if that’s the reason you lend him your lawnmower, you’re in no position to criticise Fred Phelps for his wholehearted endorsement of Leviticus 18:22. But the atrocities of religion rank very low in my list of reasons for atheism, and so I’m not overly concerned with demonstrating that every Muslim is in some way responsible for 9/11. More bewildering and, I must admit, infuriating to me is the utter absence of any credible evidence in favour of the claims of religion. Were someone to approach me in the street and tell me that invisible penguin-people were secretly running the world from their hidden base on the moon, I would most probably laugh in their face, and then arrange to have them sectioned. Yet when someone accosts me on my way to work to tell me that an invisible superman has been placated by the death of his own son (who was also him), and that if I don’t believe this I’m going to be set on fire for all of time by a guy who used to work for the invisible superman, but changed his mind, I am expected to say, “How fascinating! I’m afraid that I personally do not subscribe to your particular belief system, yet I wholeheartedly endorse your efforts and would be interested in entering into a future dialogue on the relative merits of our respective and equally valid ideas. This brief interaction has greatly enriched my day, and I thank you for sharing your thought-provoking perspective”? That isn’t going to happen, for the simple reason that there is really no discernable difference between what he claims and what the penguin-phobic nutter I encountered earlier thinks. Both are equally nonesensical, but one happens to have the backing of a large group of people who suffer from the shared delusion that it’s true.
I don’t, therefore, plan on confronting theists with respectful dialogue. Whilst I may respect them personally (andybeingachristian, whom some commentators may remember, is my oldest friend and a man of many great qualities, as well as being a very committed Christophile), the claims they make are only as good as the evidence they bring to the table, and if they can’t show me that, then they may as well be trying to tell me about the lunar penguin-men. A point of view does not merit respect simply because its acceptance is widespread, and a religion does not deserve to be feted just because it’s popular. Reality is the ultimate arbiter of Truth, and I will merrily rubbish, dismiss and mock any claim which isn’t based in said reality. In other words:
When your religion is nonsense, I do not respect your religion. I think that covers every theist out there…
40 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 2, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Eshu
Sounds about right.
People can have rights. Beliefs can’t have rights.
July 2, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Personal Failure
I’ll respect your right to believe whatever you wish, and retain my right to mock you ruthlessly for choosing to hold those beliefs.
July 2, 2009 at 10:47 pm
PhillyChief
The cuddly cunts want to communicate with theists, and more specifically, communicate that atheism isn’t a threat to their religion. I’m not so sure those of us here really want to communicate with theists, but if we do, we sure aren’t going to try and communicate that atheism isn’t a threat to their religion. It sure as hell is. It might not be a threat on an individual level, and I don’t know any atheist who seeks criminalization of religion, but atheists religion, its assumed authority, and also we mock it mercilessly.
July 2, 2009 at 11:28 pm
The Rambling Taoist
R-I-G-H-T O-N!!!!
July 3, 2009 at 4:24 am
The skepTick
Chris Mooney has a new book out which talks to this issue. Apparently he neglected to send P.Z. Myers and advance copy for review. Maybe that’s because he disses Myers over last year’s CrackerGate controversy. It boils down to Hard Core vs. Soft Core atheism. Neither one will convert the vast middle ground. Myers’ brand of venom-spitting atheism is like negative campaigning, while Mooney’s method is to get all warm and fuzzy with the believers. Do you think either of them can convert Casey Luskin with their tactics? Yeah…I don’t either. The best method is maintaining the steady strain. Scientific facts will keep pouring in and more and more people will move over to the “non-religious” or “no answer” category, if not directly to atheism.
July 3, 2009 at 5:34 am
Lorena
Just a standing ovation from me today, Yunshui.
July 3, 2009 at 9:15 am
revatheist
HOW DARE YOU BLASPHEME THE MIGHTY LUNAR PENGUINS!!! THEY WILL LOCK YOU IN THEIR FREEZING PRISON FOREVER!!!
no..wait, uh….that was the wrong side
HOW DARE YOU BLASPHEME THE MIGHTY GOD OF HEAVEN!!! HE WILL LOCK YOU IN HIS BURNING PRISON FOREVER!!!
no, no, that not right either…um….oh, I know
YUNSHUI, YOU ROCK!!!
July 3, 2009 at 3:12 pm
PhillyChief
Mooney is an appeaser.
Again, the premise is based on conversion. Is PZ working to convert theists? I don’t know that he is. Is Coyne? Hitchens? The complaints about those nasty, rude atheists always go back to potential for conversion, but I say it’s a false basis for assessing value, or at least not the basis from which the people being evaluated are working from. It’s like judging a book by its ability to crack a walnut.
I think this whole judging on the basis of potential to convert should go straight to the bin.
July 4, 2009 at 12:54 am
Joel
Fantastic post!
July 4, 2009 at 1:24 am
jason
yunshui,
- the claims they make are only as good as the evidence they bring to the table -
i feel the need to point out that the claims and thories put forth by the founders and supporters of such ideas as evolution, abiogenesis, natural selection, and the big bang theory have in no way been conclusively and irrefutably proven. let me say that again. have in no way been conclusively and irrefutably proven. the evidence presented for these ideas, as numerous and well respected experts in the fields of biology, mathematics, physics, and chemistry have pointed out, are themselves chock full of conflicting ideas, contradictory conclusions, and incomplete or inconclusive data. many of these individuals, science-minded and rational thinking individuals mind you, are skeptical of the idea that natural selection and random mutation can reasonably explain the complexity of life.
- Were someone to approach me in the street and tell me that invisible penguin-people were secretly running the world from their hidden base on the moon, I would most probably laugh in their face -
would you similarly laugh at the man if he told you that all the matter and energy contained in the universe (stuff, by the way, that science HAS conclusively proven can neither be created nor destroyed) somehow appeared from…nothing? how about if he told you that living matter arose accidentally and undirected from non-living matter? just kind of happened – one second inanimate and very much not alive and the next…voila… a bona fide organic carbon-based lifeform. he, of course, could offer no proof, not even a wisp of a shred of verifiable evidence to support such claims mind you, he just simply told you that’s the way it happened. what do you think? would you laugh?
you see, you have faith same as theists. its just placed in a different set of hands. cheers.
July 4, 2009 at 3:16 am
PhillyChief
Evolution is a fact, the only scientific debates are over the process.
Abiogenesis is the study of the origin of life, so to say a field of science hasn’t been proven reveals a gross ignorance of the things you’re attacking.
The Big Bang is known down to microseconds before the event, but there’s no doubt of the event (one which religionists accept wholeheartedly, btw, since they site it as proof of their creation stories, and thus their god(s)).
Let me say that again.
Evolution is a fact, the only scientific debates are over the process.
Abiogenesis is the study of the origin of life, so to say a field of science hasn’t been proven reveals a gross ignorance of the things you’re attacking.
The Big Bang is known down to microseconds before the event, but there’s no doubt of the event (one which religionists accept wholeheartedly, btw, since they site it as proof of their creation stories, and thus their god(s)).
Let me say that again.
Evolution is a fact, the only scientific debates are over the process.
Abiogenesis is the study of the origin of life, so to say a field of science hasn’t been proven reveals a gross ignorance of the things you’re attacking.
The Big Bang is known down to microseconds before the event, but there’s no doubt of the event (one which religionists accept wholeheartedly, btw, since they site it as proof of their creation stories, and thus their god(s)).
Alright, now the infamous ‘something from nothing’ canard. Actually before that, let me address “would you similarly laugh…” It really doesn’t matter whether my instinct is to laugh at the seemingly inconceivable like creatures smaller than I can see are responsible for me having colds and flues, that we’re all made up of a code of proteins and amino acids, or that I share a common ancestor with other animals. I laugh at the idea of people watching Springer and American Idol yet they’re ratings busters. What matters is what’s demonstrable. Reason dictates that which is to be accepted must have a suitable warrant for acceptance. Demonstrable evidence goes a long way. Without demonstrable evidence, well, then you can’t accept shit, unless you go with faith, but then that would be laughable.
Let me say that again.
Without demonstrable evidence, well, then you can’t accept shit, unless you go with faith, but then that would be laughable.
Anyway, ‘something from nothing’. Right. Who’s making that claim exactly? It’s certainly possible all of this, in another form, existed prior to the Big Bang. There’s also M theory, which is suggests a multiverse begetting universes.
July 4, 2009 at 11:30 am
yunshui
No – but then neither have gravity, the germ theory of disease or quantum physics. However, like the examples you mention, these ideas provide testable predictions which invariably turn out to be correct, are repeatedly validated by new discoveries, have acres of modern, up-to-date research which backs them up, and interlock precisely with what we know from other, unrelated fields. You have a book which is more than a thousand years out of date, which provides no testable predictions, which is at odds with much of modern science, and which has never once proved to be any more truthful than any number of contemporary Iron Age myths.
It pisses me off when theists posit the, “well science requires faith too” argument, because it fucking doesn’t. It requires repeated, skeptical investigation, real-world observation, peer-review and constant revision in the light of new information. What it does not require is blind belief. If your “something from nothing” guy (read Ray Comfort much, jason?) were to accost me with red shift, background microwave radiation, Einsteinian relativity, galactic morphology, the distribution of elements, stellar aging, supernova time dilation, Tolman relective properties and so on, all of which are perfectly explained by his theory, then I think I’d be willing to give him serious consideration. “This old book says the Earth was made in six days,” does not, to my mind, warrant the same atention.
July 4, 2009 at 11:39 am
Sabio Lantz
Imitating V-Jack’s excellent site (Atheist Revolution), I just added a comment policy page to my site where I used his list as a base for my list. But I modified his list a little. And two days ago, before this fine post, I took V-Jack’s #5 (“be respectful”) off my list and wrote “be civil”.
It is ironic because I often protest general/unfocused attacks of atheists on religion. I especially dislike when the person is attacked instead of the person’s idea. BUT, I do feel it is completely fair game to attack a person’s idea so strongly as to offend that person or to upset them. They may claim that is disrespectful, but as you wrote, the bad consequences of their ideas don’t deserve my respect.
I am fumbling with hoping that “being civil” captures this notion of avoiding personal attacks and logical fallacies as methods of countering religious irrationality while still allowing strong, upsetting confrontation.
I realize that some Atheists think personal attacks and vulgarity are also allowable given the atrocities of religions, but I am still formulating what I think on that. For now, I personally choose to avoid such lack of civility but have no hesitation to show disrespect. Maybe this is only definition: respect vs civility. But us rationalists are big on clarity and focus, and we should also be big on moral reasoning. These are my meager attempts at such clarification.
July 4, 2009 at 5:07 pm
PhillyChief
“Calling someone on their language is a chicken shit little power play which is really about imposing your rules on the other fella and about putting them on the defensive. No. I’d rather go out and find an adult to argue with, and the ‘FUCK YOU’ on the way out is optional. I try to be sensitive to the situation.” – Brother Sam
July 5, 2009 at 2:05 am
Interested
I, too, am angered when those of faith state that atheism takes faith as well. For me atheism is not a afaith or a belief it is the lack of both.
July 5, 2009 at 4:00 am
the chaplain
I respect people, even if their beliefs are batshit crazy. I also respect people’s rights to believe whatever they want to believe. Respect for their persons and their rights does not entail that I respect batshit crazy beliefs.
Furthermore, I have no interest in engaging in theological or philosophical dialog with theists. I’ve spent a lifetime hearing what they have to say. I’ll listen if they bring something new to the conversation – which hasn’t happened yet. Until then, they can live their lives and I’ll live mine.
Having said all that, I’ll note that any points at which religious believers seek to impose their beliefs on me or others who don’t share their beliefs are the points at which I will engage them and demand that they keep their beliefs to themselves. They’re free to believe. They’re not free to impose their beliefs on others.
July 5, 2009 at 4:58 am
Bruce Llama
I enjoyed reading this blog very much. Actually enjoy your blog generally.
Interested atheism is a word that theist use to describe those that don’t believe like they do. Atheism is not a lack of anything for that indicates you should be able to find it. I sometimes describe myself an atheist, but only because people understand that term. Generally speaking I just say I have no beliefs, when people ask me if I’m an atheist I respond with “No, I just have no belief in anything” They find that very upsetting as I refuse to be put into their boxes!
July 5, 2009 at 5:05 am
PhillyChief
Regardless of whether you can find it, “lack” suggests we need it, and we most certainly don’t need it or want it.
July 7, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Sabio Lantz
@ Yunshui
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I see several syllogistic fallacies in your argument. I wish I was better at logic and could name them, but here is my feeble attempt to illustrate them. (I love your posts, btw)
Premises
Hideous acts do not deserve respect (agree)
Some religious people support hideous acts (agree)
You belong to a religion (agree, if addressing religious person)
Conclusion
You support hideous acts (false)
a. therefore, I do not respect your religion
b. therefore, I do not respect you
To see why I disagree, with your argument, here is what I hold true:
1. “Religion”, among other things, is a loose term to describe a group of related beliefs.
2. Not all religious people within a religion belief the same thing
3. Not all religious people act the same way.
4. Not all religious people support all the believers in their own faith
5. Ideas within a religion can be used differently be different believers
July 7, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Sabio Lantz
@PhillyChief
I sketched a Taxonomy of Atheists Voices and then described my own voice. I think this taxonomy may be useful in clarifying the discussion. If you get a chance or the inclination, I’d be curious how do you disagree with my choice of voice? We possibly do hold different stances — it could be a difference in temperament, tendencies or philosophy. I am curious which one (s).
BTW – “Brother Sam” was hilarious – thanx. But I would separate humor and actual action. I make humorous statement all the time that I do not believe should ever really be acted on. Some disagree with this style of humor, but somehow, I feel comfortable with the contradiction.
July 7, 2009 at 2:35 pm
PhillyChief
Are you deleting comments on your blog, Sabio?
Why would you say the support of hideous acts is false? Any person subscribing to a religion or any other organization which actively supports and/or carries outs hideous acts is supporting those hideous acts through their subscription. Actually taking part in the acts isn’t necessary. Their financial support is enough, but their open acknowledgment of membership is quite sufficient, too.
This acknowledged membership, imo, kills your objections 2-5. Hey, there might be Al Queada members who thought the WTC attack was a bit extreme, and there could have been nice Nazis who didn’t agree with that whole “final solution” thing, but so what? They are still members of something repugnant, their open acknowledgment of membership is supporting that repugnant thing, and that should be quite enough to not respect them.
Objection #1 goes right out the window once someone acknowledges membership in a particular brand of religion.
July 8, 2009 at 3:19 am
Sabio Lantz
@ Philly
So, if I belong to the Boy Scouts and some boy scout leaders carries out some despicable act toward a homosexual, am I supporting that act by belonging to the Boy Scouts because the Boy Scouts have policies against gays. I doubt most young kids in the scouts even know about these policies. If my kid pays Boy Scout dues, is he culpable and thus deserving of your disrespect?
My country has committed torture. Am I thus guilty for living in the country and thus I am worthy of disrespect from non-torturing countries even though I am personally against torturing? I pay taxes to pay for the torturing, after all.
I could name countless other examples, but the logical fallacy should be clear.
To me, it appears your anger is blinding your logic. But gee, maybe I am not clear on something. You can still be angry, and your anger can be justified, but I contend you should narrow your focus to specific acts of specific people. Your generalization cuts at your credibility.
IMHO.
July 8, 2009 at 5:55 am
PhillyChief
You’re supporting the “policies against gays” by being a member of a an organization which has “policies against gays”. If the despicable act is a result of the policies, and after hearing this you remain a member, then you’re supporting the act.
As for the kid, if he’s aware of the policies, then yes. If not, why the hell aren’t you telling him about them? What kind of parent are you?
No on two counts. First, being a citizen by birth is hardly comparable to a membership made by choice and second, if you actively speak out against the torture then how can you be culpable? Which then makes me ask, how many liberal or moderate (insert religious brand) openly speak out against the despicable policies of their religious brand?
Easy there Quickdraw McGraw firing off logical fallacy claims. To me, I don’t give a rat’s ass what’s blinding your logic. I just know it’s not so clear.
July 8, 2009 at 10:09 am
yunshui
Sabio:
Whilst I think Philly has some good points, you’ve missed the main thrust of my argument (which is fair enough, since I didn’t go into it in much detail, having covered it before). My point is that the suicide bombers, abortion clinic murders, child-bride grooms and so on all justify their actions by recourse to faith. Since I, and other atheists, see faith as a groundless source for moral validity, we can argue against it. However, other theists who disapprove of Fred Phelps and Anjem Choudary still rely equally on faith to support their own moral positions. In effect, their defence is no more than, “well, I don’t think like that,” which is a poor position from which to mount a critique. In fact, by using faith to suport their own position, they are infact claiming that faith is a valid means by which to make moral decisions, and therefore establish that the perpetrators of religious crimes are equally as justified.
July 8, 2009 at 10:11 am
Sabio Lantz
@ Philly
So if a whole congregation of Liberal Christians speak out against the homophobia, damnation of nonbelievers and the like, you would then consider that religion worthy of your respect and stop attacking the person and only attack their ideas?
July 8, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Sabio Lantz
@ Yunshui:
Thank you for your patience and the reference to the other post.
I think we have several issues that perhaps need separated — and I may be wrong on all of them, but I will try to lay them out.
(1) Attacking a Person vs. Attacking an Idea
We seem to agree here. I am not sure all Atheists agree on that. And as such, it is an important point to be clear on, because inciting violent thinking should be a moral avoidance for us all.
(2) Scope of Criticism
I agree strongly (for now) with the writings of Alonzo Fyfe (Atheist Ethicist) where he criticizes Harris and Htichens for their scope of criticism of religion. I was trying to make the same point here, but perhaps doing a poor job. If you have time or interest, please follow the link to Fyfe argument. I think you would disagree with Fyfe — but perhaps I am wrong.
(3) Atheist Morality
It seems strange to me when Atheists argue against Theist morality when the Atheist does not make clear what moral positions they hold. And of course, Atheists hold a great many contradictory stances on morality – as should be expected. So when an Atheist argues against some Theist, they argue without offering an alternative which would most likely be open to attack also. I agree with you that taking the Bible literally as a source of Moral authority is a deadly mistake. But I don’t think the average Christian takes it as literal as we’d imagine. Nonetheless, we have tons of examples of those who have, and I agree with the outrage. But then I go back to my above points (1) and (2) which are what I hoped to have communicated.
Yunshui, you wrote [emphasis, mine]:
For reasons I wrote PhillyChief (which he deems illogical), and the reasons written above — especially point # 2, I disagree with your tacit acceptance belief.
Respectfully,
Sabio
July 8, 2009 at 2:27 pm
PhillyChief
Sabio: Certainly not, since that’s just one thing on a laundry list of shit that they’re bothering to object to. At best I won’t think they’re as bad as the rest of their lot.
(1) Is Osama bin Laden an asshole, or is that inappropriate to say in your moral worldview?
(2) His modus tollens claim is incorrect because “at least one god exists” is neither A nor B, but a newly introduced variable (let’s call it G). Fyfe mistakenly confuses G for A (religion).
I agree with “evils that some people assign to God others are just as capable of assigning to a non-religious moral power”, but so what? The key word is “evil”, and I don’t care whether it’s a god belief, tea leaves, political ideology, a call from aliens through your tinfoil hat, or any other reason under the sun which prompts you to do or support evil, you’re still an asshole for opting to do or support evil and I’m not going to respect you. If the thing you’re using as justification for this evil does in fact call for evil, then I’m not going to respect that thing and I’m doubly not going to respect you for subscribing to it.
Btw, the first commenter there is spot on (and I see Alonzo didn’t respond to him).
(3) Do I need to explain what one should do with a knife before I can be permitted to argue against stabbing people?
So then what, they’re less assholey than those who do? Should we give them gold stars or something?
Two things seem clear in your arguments:
• People belonging to groups who promote evil who aren’t fully on board with all the evil deserve some kind of pat on the back and immunity
• Be civil at all times no matter what
Well all I can say is fuck that.
July 8, 2009 at 9:35 pm
yunshui
Sabio:
I’m still not sure we’re on the same page here. My argument, stripped to the bones, runs as follows:
1. Believer X has faith that God says, “Murder is bad,” and backs this faith up with text from his copy of a holy book.
2. Believer Y has faith that God says, “Murder is alright by Me,” and backs this faith up with text from her copy of the same holy book.
3. Since believer X uses exactly the same process to justify his position as believer Y, he has no moral grounds on which to object to believer Y’s position – at least, not within the framework of his faith-based epistemology.
4. Since believer X clearly advances the position that, “faith is a good way to make moral decisions,” he establishes that he agrees with the process by which believer Y comes to her conclusion, even if he does not agree with said conclusion.
5. Thus, so long as they continue to establish their morality by recourse to faith, believer X and believer Y’s positions are equivalent.
In other words, if you say, “I believe (insert chosen idea here) because God says so,” (in other words, “I believe this because I believe it”) you are in no position to criticise anyone else who uses the same argument to justify something different. By contrast, if you say, “I believe (insert idea) because I have empirical proof/convincing evidence/a logical deduction that it is so,” then you’re in a good place to start making moral statements. Once you do that, though, you’re no longer within the boundaries of religion.
July 9, 2009 at 4:05 pm
jason
yunshui,
- In other words, if you say, “I believe (insert chosen idea here) because God says so,” (in other words, “I believe this because I believe it”) you are in no position to criticise anyone else who uses the same argument to justify something different. -
how would this be different than a person who kills someone in the course of an armed robbery but justifies that act by saying ” i don’t believe in god and therefore i have no one to ultimately answer to for my actions. i’m just and animal that killed another animal for my survival.”
-Thus, so long as they continue to establish their morality by recourse to faith, believer X and believer Y’s positions are equivalent. –
the same could be said if the morality is established by recourse to the absence of faith. you say there is no god, the murderer says there is no god. your positions are therefore equivalent and and therefore you have no moral grounds on which to object to the murderer’s position.
July 9, 2009 at 4:33 pm
PhillyChief
I think your answer was already given…
By contrast, if you say, “I believe (insert idea) because I have empirical proof/convincing evidence/a logical deduction that it is so,” then you’re in a good place to start making moral statements.
You’re right in saying that if you do something because you believe there is no god then that’s comparable to doing something because you believe there is a god. You have to give more than either of that as justification (ie – “empirical proof/convincing evidence/a logical deduction”).
July 9, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Sabio Lantz
Yunshui – I am at work, so little time to craft a skilled reply but … I agree with the argument Jason is hinting at — not enough time to check if it is in best form, but I will allow you to try to set up a strong argument version of it.
This is what I was speaking of in my (3) Atheist Morality above.
When you write back, you did not seem to have addressed any of my points (1), (2) or (3). I understood your argument before you re-wrote it but like the stripped down version (smile).
Morality is not decided on empirical grounds or we may have made more progress. There are problems with most moral systems. And Atheists argue without declaring their stance — they are under the illusion that their stance is rational and well thought out. IMHO
July 9, 2009 at 6:06 pm
PhillyChief
What purpose does it serve responding to someone’s argument for a better system by pointing out that that system has not been largely relied on before? What’s your point?
Isn’t that a contradiction? How do you arrive at a conclusion about “their stance” if they don’t declare “their stance”? Through faith?
July 9, 2009 at 6:22 pm
yunshui
Sabio:
I too, am writing in haste, so apologies for the brevity of this reply. I’m not (in this post at least) trying to argue for an atheist morality, nor am I attempting to defend the modus tollens of which Alonso is so fond and PhillyChief so scathing. My overall point, in the post above, is that religion is deserving of criticism not simply because it encourages horrendous acts (although I think there’s a strong case to say that it does), but because it’s really fucking silly.
You have, however, given me a good idea for a future post about atheist morality in which I’ll try to address your concerns, so stay tuned!
July 9, 2009 at 7:51 pm
jason
philly chief,
- By contrast, if you say, “I believe (insert idea) because I have empirical proof/convincing evidence/a logical deduction that it is so,” then you’re in a good place to start making moral statements. –
alright then – i don’t see the difference but i’ll play along.
ahem. “i believe that there are no moral absolutes because i have empirical proof/convincing evidence/a logical deduction that there is probably no god. in which case we are all animals (that is, biological lifeforms that are a product of evolution, natural selection, and random mutation same as any other) and not subject to any greater authority – ethical, spiritual, moral, or otherwise.”
on a side note – how do you think the chiefs will fare this year with cassel at the helm. real tough schedule this year including a go around with my steelers.
July 9, 2009 at 9:30 pm
PhillyChief
I can tell you can’t see the difference because you failed to play along.
ahem. The empirical proof/convincing evidence/a logical deduction is needed for EVERY step, not just the first. In other words, where’s your empirical proof/convincing evidence/a logical deduction for “in which case…”? Let me remind you of what I said earlier, with some added emphasis- “You’re right in saying that if you do something because you believe there is no god then that’s comparable to doing something because you believe there is a god. You have to give more than either of that as justification (ie – “empirical proof/convincing evidence/a logical deduction”).
I wasn’t referring to just why you believe there is/isn’t a god, but why X is ok but not Y, etc.
The Chiefs are rebuilding, therefore I don’t expect much in terms of games won. I also am not holding out hope for everyone else falling apart so that the Chiefs take the division. That would be a disaster because they still need high picks next year and a lighter schedule. They do come here to Philly in September, so I might go. Since the Eagles will probably win, I probably won’t get killed. Philly is not a safe place to go if you root for the away team.
July 9, 2009 at 10:20 pm
jason
philly chief,
- where’s your empirical proof/convincing evidence/a logical deduction for “in which case…”? -
do i really need any? aren’t some things self evident? are you saying that you need scientific evidence to convince you that we are just animals (albeit move evolved than any other) if there is no god? what exactly are the other options?
i don’t know. if cassel isn’t a one hit wonder, the chiefs might be a threat to take that division this year. in the wild card hunt in any case, i would think. i wish them luck. and you’re right – philly fans are absolutely the most belligerent and least loyal people in all of the nfl. its almost karmic that the team has never won a championship. too bad really because i like mcnabb as a quarterback and a person – he’s a class act.
July 9, 2009 at 11:58 pm
PhillyChief
You need empirical proof/convincing evidence/a logical deduction to get from “we are just animals” to whatever your next step is, and we’re just animals regardless of whether there’s a god or not, btw.
The thing about football is it’s a team sport. Cassel can’t do shit if his line can’t protect him, and if the running game can’t work either, then you can double cover ever receiver (especially without Tony G being around) and then what? Furthermore, if the D sucks (which is very well could again) then you could be playing from behind a lot, again meaning the opposing d only has to play the pass. Anything more than 2 wins is gravy this season, imo.
July 10, 2009 at 12:03 am
PhillyChief
Oh I almost forgot, you’re dead wrong about Philly fans not being loyal. They just express their love in a unique way, as in if you don’t catch that ball you’re a fucking asshole who doesn’t DESERVE to wear that uniform and represent us. Got it?
McNabb is almost the furthest thing from a class act you can get. He’s a whiny bitch who can’t handle criticism or pressure (ie – taking time to puke due to nerves in the SB) and he has no pocket awareness. How many times has he had the ball stripped from behind because he was fucking clueless? Too many.
July 10, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Sabio Lantz
@ The Honorable Yunshui
I wrote a short post on Christian Culpability to illustrate what I think are the logic fallacies in your argument. Perhaps I have misunderstood something and I have misstated your argument. If you have time, please take a look and help me correct my errors.
September 29, 2009 at 7:28 pm
myminddroppings
Good Show Yunshui! Great Post indeed!
I saw a link to your blog entry (auto-)listed at the bottom of my recent post and I followed it here. You make very cogent arguments and you make them skillfully.
I don’t know if you’ve seen the recent Newsweek article by Lisa Miller extolling Karen Armstrong’s book “A Case for God”. It annoyed me and I would love to know your take on it.
BTW… I blogged about it on my blog.