Freethought & Rationalism Archive

goody2shoes · 07-07-2002, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Perchance:
Hi Goody,

I mentioned those characteristics because I think that people who believe they have an infalliable, unchangeable, authoritative dogma (be it religous or no) are likely to exclude others from their group, tell others how to live, and, in extreme cases, threaten those who do not believe as they do with physical violence. I think freethinkers (or non-believers, or atheists, call them what you will) are highly unlikely to do this, not only because they are skeptical of authority, but because, as some people around here keep pointing out, trying to get a bunch of non-believers to agree on anything is like herding cats.

I am sorry that you feel the existence of "infidelic" programs, websites, and charities is an attack on your beliefs. I don't see it that way (any more than I view the existence of Christianity as an attack on my beliefs; someone shoving it in my face is a different matter). Do you feel that atheism is dedicated to destroying theism? I don't think that's its mission (if it has one!) or the mission of the Secular Web. It provides information, and a place for people to gather to talk about the issues, and sometimes support or entertainment. Those sections which Christians or other theists might find offensive, like the Humor Forum, are clearly marked.

I don't think there's much chance of a jihad of non-believers against believers, because of the skepticism of dogma if nothing else. Individual non-believers might act that way, but that doesn't mean all do, or that the militants would persuade anyone else to follow them. I don't think all Christians want to kill me, either.

-Perchance.

If I look at Stalin and Mao Tse-tung, I see no reason to attibute inherently better behavior to atheists than to anyone else who can wield power over people.

Atheism may not have a mission, but the Secular Web does. It is on the "about us" page and it says: "Our adopted mission is to defend and promote metaphysical naturalism, the view that our natural world is all that there is, a closed system in no need of an explanation and sufficient unto itself."

To me, the funded enterprise of the Secular Web (with the stated mission of promoting the view that "the natural world is all that there is" and it's other "freethinker" web page references) presents me with a very clear distinction between an enemy of my religion and someone who has a simple, intellectual difference of opinion.

Goody

Perchance · 07-08-2002, 06:37 AM

Yes, and Torquemada and Hitler were Christians as well, by their definition... but I don't think all Christians are bad people. I'm not denying that atheists can cause harm. I'm saying there's less of a chance of them causing harm in the way that groups convinced they have a dogma do. A lone, crazy atheist might still torch a church, in the same way a lone, crazy Christian might bomb an abortion clinic. But historically, groups convinced of some holy cause or another have done harm in magnified ways.

Now that I've got THAT out of my system...

What do you think the word "promote" in the mission statement means? Do you think it means passing atheistic non-tracts out to children, threatening them with... um... something if they don't obey, or telling them they must be atheists? The Secular Web doesn't do that. The most "promoting" activity they've done, as far as I know, is supporting the Godless Americans March and offering books for sale (by Christians as well as non-theists). They also link to rebuttals of their arguments, so that a non-believer who wants to read the other side or a believer who wants to see how his or her faith defends itself can go look at them. I don't think they do more for the "promotion" of secularism than Christians do for the "promotion" of Christianity by having churches. And a website is more like a TV than a church, even. You can just go away from the website or turn off the TV if it offends you.

Again, it seems that you're objecting to the mere existence of these ideas and an organization that holds them dear. I don't understand why.
Shouldn't these ideas and the people who bear them have as much right to exist as Christianity and its believers?

-Perchance.

goody2shoes · 07-08-2002, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Perchance:
Yes, and Torquemada and Hitler were Christians as well, by their definition... but I don't think all Christians are bad people. I'm not denying that atheists can cause harm. I'm saying there's less of a chance of them causing harm in the way that groups convinced they have a dogma do. A lone, crazy atheist might still torch a church, in the same way a lone, crazy Christian might bomb an abortion clinic. But historically, groups convinced of some holy cause or another have done harm in magnified ways.

Now that I've got THAT out of my system...

What do you think the word "promote" in the mission statement means? Do you think it means passing atheistic non-tracts out to children, threatening them with... um... something if they don't obey, or telling them they must be atheists? The Secular Web doesn't do that. The most "promoting" activity they've done, as far as I know, is supporting the Godless Americans March and offering books for sale (by Christians as well as non-theists). They also link to rebuttals of their arguments, so that a non-believer who wants to read the other side or a believer who wants to see how his or her faith defends itself can go look at them. I don't think they do more for the "promotion" of secularism than Christians do for the "promotion" of Christianity by having churches. And a website is more like a TV than a church, even. You can just go away from the website or turn off the TV if it offends you.

Again, it seems that you're objecting to the mere existence of these ideas and an organization that holds them dear. I don't understand why.
Shouldn't these ideas and the people who bear them have as much right to exist as Christianity and its believers?

-Perchance.

I have only tried to raise the point that atrocities are done by people in power --- because power does indeed corrupt. I only illustrated that both atheists and non-atheists fall into that category. It is you, with you own words, who attribute evil behavior to religions.

I don't object to the Secular web as an organization. That is what this country is all about. I just recognize then as opposed to my religion. To use your comments: Do we hunt them down and punish them somehow? We are just opposed to their notions and want to "promote our own".

So I am as opposed to them as they are to me.

You know this conversation has gone nowhere at all and is well off the intended subject of whatever it was ------ and it just a dialog between the two of us. That could better be done offline rather than consuming the secular web's cyberspace electrons.

I suggest termination. At least for me. What do I have to offer that would warrant my remaining?

Goody

Perchance · 07-08-2002, 11:54 AM

Goody, if you don't wish to continue, then that is your choice. As you will. I asked to continue because I am interested in talking with theists and you were one I hadn't talked to at any length before this. But I certainly can't force you to return, or to agree with me.

If you would like to hear one final post...

(Now the gloves come off).

Yes, I attribute a great deal of harm to religion. Human sacrifices, the Crusades, the Inquisition, religion-justified slavery, the conflicts in Bosnia, India/Pakistan, and Northern Ireland, the 9/11 attacks, the death of Matthew Shephard, the decimation of millions of Native Americans, and many, many other things would not have happened if someone hadn't written down a story and considered it holy, or talked to the air and thought that something answered back.

Can one weigh the harm that religion has caused against what other philosophies have done, and come up with an objective toll of which was worst? No. I don't think so. Every observation we make of such harm is colored by our own biases.

Can one argue that religion has done no harm? No. I don't think so.

Should religion be dragged kicking and screaming out of its protected cave and be made to face the sun and the tests of truth that any other philosophy or belief is put through? Yes. I think so.

Does this mean all religious believers are bad people? No. I don't think so.

Does this mean that I will never convert to a religion? Perhaps. Perhaps not. I can't answer that question at the moment, though at the moment I'm leaning strongly to the non-theistic side.

Religion has opponents, as you put it, and it has enemies. So does secularism/humanism (since atheism is simply the idea that gods don't exist, it is not really a philosophy, at least according to the best definitions I've heard). Does the mere existence of them deny the other's right to exist? No. I don't think so.

Should people on either side of the debate go around thinking of those on the other side as enemies, or even opponents? No. I don't think so. This is drawing false lines in the sand. How does one measure someone's "amount" of god-belief or atheism? Besides, I don't think there are only two sides to any debate (I stand in the middle on several debates, including the theistic one), and that while it's a natural tendency of humans to turn such things into black-and-white issues, it is not justifiable.

I enjoy conversations such as the one we had because it complicates my own thinking, and shows me yet another of the people living out there, whose opinions may not only be quite different from my own, but quite different from any others I've ever heard. It also offers me the opportunity (sometimes) to complicate others' thinking.

Truly, any reason for your wishing to end the conversation is fine, but my reaction to it would be different depending on the reason. If you feel you don't have anything more to say, or that the conversation has not fulfilled your own goals, I would probably shrug. If you feel you don't have enough time, I would probably nod.

If you feel that it didn't go anywhere because you think we are diametrically opposed, or because you think the only way a conversation can "go anywhere" is if one of the people having it becomes a convert to the supposed other side, then my response is amusement.

See you around.

-Perchance.

goody2shoes · 07-08-2002, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Perchance:


(Now the gloves come off).

Yes, I attribute a great deal of harm to religion. Human sacrifices, the Crusades, the Inquisition, religion-justified slavery, the conflicts in Bosnia, India/Pakistan, and Northern Ireland, the 9/11 attacks, the death of Matthew Shephard, the decimation of millions of Native Americans, and many, many other things would not have happened if someone hadn't written down a story and considered it holy, or talked to the air and thought that something answered back.

Can one weigh the harm that religion has caused against what other philosophies have done, and come up with an objective toll of which was worst? No. I don't think so. Every observation we make of such harm is colored by our own biases.

Can one argue that religion has done no harm? No. I don't think so.

Should religion be dragged kicking and screaming out of its protected cave and be made to face the sun and the tests of truth that any other philosophy or belief is put through? Yes. I think so.

-Perchance.

WOW! AND NOW THE REAL REASON COMES OUT

BOY, WHAT A HYPOCRITE ---- AND I GOT "SUCKED IN"

What an aggressive response from a person who invited me to participate in what was supposed to be an "objective dialog" with an atheist and a theist. I guess that will teach me about the '"Secular web" and whom they invite to participate.

Thanks a lot for your invite, Perchance,or whatever your name is. It has taught me to be very careful in the future. So much for trust in the Secular Web "regulars" who seem to have fewer objective problems with you than you do with me. I am sorry that I was so stupid to engage in conversation with a complete bigot like you. My beloved mother used to say, "Goody is not as stupid as he looks, you know." I guess that she was wrong when it comes to some hypocrites like you on the Infidel's Posts. Hey, we live and learn -- do we not?

I truly wish you the absolute most of "bad luck" in your attempted conversions to from real life to your 2-D belief system (or is it now a 1-dimensional)?

I shall, now:

1.) Declare Spiritual Victory over the total foolishness presented by you in these posts and the "Secular Web" in general.
2.) Hop on my horse
3.) And Ride off into the sunset

Goodbye

Goody

Sorry that we could not learn from each other - but that was your choice.

Perchance · 07-08-2002, 05:43 PM

(There's not an 'ironic bow' icon, is there?)

I posted what I truly think, Goody. Yes, I was holding myself back, because you seemed very interested in accusing me of generalizations when I believed that you were making generalizations yourself, in bringing up points (like the Infidels' mission statement) that had NOTHING to do with the main argument while accusing me of same, and hinting all the while that you thought this was becoming a conversation 'just between the two of us,' as if that somehow diminished its value. However, I was interested in learning just what lay behind the mask. So I ground my teeth and sheathed my claws- until I realized that you didn't want to continue the discussion, at which point I saw no reason to hold back. I had been deceiving you (and probably anybody reading this) by holding myself back, anyway.

I also made a private bet with myself when I posted that. One was that you would come back to read it. The other was whether you would respond calmly, with accusations, or again saying that I was attacking you.

I didn't expect to get two out of three.

Again (if you do come back to read this, which I wouldn't put past you), remember that you choose how to react. You had so many options I can't count them all. Staying and continuing the dialogue, staying and ignoring me, telling me you found me offensive, just dropping that conversation but participating with me in other threads, giving me conditions for staying (as you did last time), leaving, leaving and declaring victory... I'm sure there are many more.

I would say that I'm sorry to lose you, but I was growing more and more weary in rereading every post I made and trying to make sure I didn't say anything that would offend you. (I failed even when I tried that). So I decided to be honest, and sure enough, there you went.

I might be more impressed with your claim of spiritual victory if I believed there was any such thing as a spiritual plane. Unfortunately for you, I don't.

But you did teach me some things, Goody, and for that I want to thank you. You taught me there are some theists who don't want to debate on any but their own, sharply-defined ground. You taught me there are some Christians who see the Secular Web, which sits on the Internet and is a source of great comfort and support to many people, as an enemy.

You showed me, once again, why I someday will probably wind up declaring myself atheist rather than agnostic.

Thank you!

-Perchance.

[Edited to add: Oh, yes, and it seems that you are leaving because you think everyone on the Secular Web is as 'bigoted' as I am. If that isn't a generalization, what is?)

[ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]

goody2shoes · 07-08-2002, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Perchance:
(There's not an 'ironic bow' icon, is there?)

I posted what I truly think, Goody. Yes, I was holding myself back, because you seemed very interested in accusing me of generalizations when I believed that you were making generalizations yourself, in bringing up points (like the Infidels' mission statement) that had NOTHING to do with the main argument while accusing me of same, and hinting all the while that you thought this was becoming a conversation 'just between the two of us,' as if that somehow diminished its value. However, I was interested in learning just what lay behind the mask. So I ground my teeth and sheathed my claws- until I realized that you didn't want to continue the discussion, at which point I saw no reason to hold back. I had been deceiving you (and probably anybody reading this) by holding myself back, anyway.

I also made a private bet with myself when I posted that. One was that you would come back to read it. The other was whether you would respond calmly, with accusations, or again saying that I was attacking you.

I didn't expect to get two out of three.

Again (if you do come back to read this, which I wouldn't put past you), remember that you choose how to react. You had so many options I can't count them all. Staying and continuing the dialogue, staying and ignoring me, telling me you found me offensive, just dropping that conversation but participating with me in other threads, giving me conditions for staying (as you did last time), leaving, leaving and declaring victory... I'm sure there are many more.

I would say that I'm sorry to lose you, but I was growing more and more weary in rereading every post I made and trying to make sure I didn't say anything that would offend you. (I failed even when I tried that). So I decided to be honest, and sure enough, there you went.

I might be more impressed with your claim of spiritual victory if I believed there was any such thing as a spiritual plane. Unfortunately for you, I don't.

But you did teach me some things, Goody, and for that I want to thank you. You taught me there are some theists who don't want to debate on any but their own, sharply-defined ground. You taught me there are some Christians who see the Secular Web, which sits on the Internet and is a source of great comfort and support to many people, as an enemy.

You showed me, once again, why I someday will probably wind up declaring myself atheist rather than agnostic.

Thank you!

-Perchance.

[Edited to add: Oh, yes, and it seems that you are leaving because you think everyone on the Secular Web is as 'bigoted' as I am. If that isn't a generalization, what is?)

[ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]

No Perchance -- it is just your own posts:

Insofar as I can see you are the only bigot with whom I have corresponded on this list,

As I said before, you can email anytime because you know how to do so. But if your goal is to float yourself braggedly before the Infidels -- please continue do so -- but leave me out of your personal bigotry, If you want to correspond privately, you know how to do so (You were told several days ago. Need I send the email address again?).

But that is up to you, my most highly bigoted Infidel acquaintance.

Big disappointment.

Goody.

Perchance · 07-09-2002, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by goody2shoes:


No Perchance -- it is just your own posts:

Insofar as I can see you are the only bigot with whom I have corresponded on this list,

As I said before, you can email anytime because you know how to do so. But if your goal is to float yourself braggedly before the Infidels -- please continue do so -- but leave me out of your personal bigotry, If you want to correspond privately, you know how to do so (You were told several days ago. Need I send the email address again?).

But that is up to you, my most highly bigoted Infidel acquaintance.

Big disappointment.

Goody.

You did come back.

All right.

I'm trying to figure out why, after you said you were leaving.

Also, you haven't yet pointed me towards what you consider "bigoted." The part of my "infamous post" that you quoted wasn't even the most provocative (I thought). It's bigoted to say that religion does harm, and should be subjected to the same standards and tests as any other system of philosophy?

I suppose we could continue this, but I see little point. After all, it would probably tarnish and diminish your spiritual victory, and while it would provide some amusement for me, I don't think that's what you mean to do.

I'm also suspicious of your constant offers to "take it outside," so to speak, which started before this whole thing did. Perhaps you're a little afraid to have an audience, and want to rip me a new one far from watching eyes?

-Perchance.

Bree · 07-09-2002, 07:43 AM

I find it sadly ironic that a thread about "open-mindedness" relapses into "you're the bigot - no you're the bigot" schoolyard taunting.

Perchance · 07-09-2002, 08:32 AM

Bree...

I agree. I won't be posting on this thread anymore.

Goody-

I'm sorry if I insulted you.

-Perchance.

07-08-2002, 05:43 PM	#46
Perchance Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 1,059	(There's not an 'ironic bow' icon, is there?) I posted what I truly think, Goody. Yes, I was holding myself back, because you seemed very interested in accusing me of generalizations when I believed that you were making generalizations yourself, in bringing up points (like the Infidels' mission statement) that had NOTHING to do with the main argument while accusing me of same, and hinting all the while that you thought this was becoming a conversation 'just between the two of us,' as if that somehow diminished its value. However, I was interested in learning just what lay behind the mask. So I ground my teeth and sheathed my claws- until I realized that you didn't want to continue the discussion, at which point I saw no reason to hold back. I had been deceiving you (and probably anybody reading this) by holding myself back, anyway. I also made a private bet with myself when I posted that. One was that you would come back to read it. The other was whether you would respond calmly, with accusations, or again saying that I was attacking you. I didn't expect to get two out of three. Again (if you do come back to read this, which I wouldn't put past you), remember that you choose how to react. You had so many options I can't count them all. Staying and continuing the dialogue, staying and ignoring me, telling me you found me offensive, just dropping that conversation but participating with me in other threads, giving me conditions for staying (as you did last time), leaving, leaving and declaring victory... I'm sure there are many more. I would say that I'm sorry to lose you, but I was growing more and more weary in rereading every post I made and trying to make sure I didn't say anything that would offend you. (I failed even when I tried that). So I decided to be honest, and sure enough, there you went. I might be more impressed with your claim of spiritual victory if I believed there was any such thing as a spiritual plane. Unfortunately for you, I don't. But you did teach me some things, Goody, and for that I want to thank you. You taught me there are some theists who don't want to debate on any but their own, sharply-defined ground. You taught me there are some Christians who see the Secular Web, which sits on the Internet and is a source of great comfort and support to many people, as an enemy. You showed me, once again, why I someday will probably wind up declaring myself atheist rather than agnostic. Thank you! -Perchance. [Edited to add: Oh, yes, and it seems that you are leaving because you think everyone on the Secular Web is as 'bigoted' as I am. If that isn't a generalization, what is?) [ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-08-2002, 06:37 AM	#42
Perchance Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 1,059	Yes, and Torquemada and Hitler were Christians as well, by their definition... but I don't think all Christians are bad people. I'm not denying that atheists can cause harm. I'm saying there's less of a chance of them causing harm in the way that groups convinced they have a dogma do. A lone, crazy atheist might still torch a church, in the same way a lone, crazy Christian might bomb an abortion clinic. But historically, groups convinced of some holy cause or another have done harm in magnified ways. Now that I've got THAT out of my system... What do you think the word "promote" in the mission statement means? Do you think it means passing atheistic non-tracts out to children, threatening them with... um... something if they don't obey, or telling them they must be atheists? The Secular Web doesn't do that. The most "promoting" activity they've done, as far as I know, is supporting the Godless Americans March and offering books for sale (by Christians as well as non-theists). They also link to rebuttals of their arguments, so that a non-believer who wants to read the other side or a believer who wants to see how his or her faith defends itself can go look at them. I don't think they do more for the "promotion" of secularism than Christians do for the "promotion" of Christianity by having churches. And a website is more like a TV than a church, even. You can just go away from the website or turn off the TV if it offends you. Again, it seems that you're objecting to the mere existence of these ideas and an organization that holds them dear. I don't understand why. Shouldn't these ideas and the people who bear them have as much right to exist as Christianity and its believers? -Perchance.

07-08-2002, 11:54 AM	#44
Perchance Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 1,059	Goody, if you don't wish to continue, then that is your choice. As you will. I asked to continue because I am interested in talking with theists and you were one I hadn't talked to at any length before this. But I certainly can't force you to return, or to agree with me. If you would like to hear one final post... (Now the gloves come off). Yes, I attribute a great deal of harm to religion. Human sacrifices, the Crusades, the Inquisition, religion-justified slavery, the conflicts in Bosnia, India/Pakistan, and Northern Ireland, the 9/11 attacks, the death of Matthew Shephard, the decimation of millions of Native Americans, and many, many other things would not have happened if someone hadn't written down a story and considered it holy, or talked to the air and thought that something answered back. Can one weigh the harm that religion has caused against what other philosophies have done, and come up with an objective toll of which was worst? No. I don't think so. Every observation we make of such harm is colored by our own biases. Can one argue that religion has done no harm? No. I don't think so. Should religion be dragged kicking and screaming out of its protected cave and be made to face the sun and the tests of truth that any other philosophy or belief is put through? Yes. I think so. Does this mean all religious believers are bad people? No. I don't think so. Does this mean that I will never convert to a religion? Perhaps. Perhaps not. I can't answer that question at the moment, though at the moment I'm leaning strongly to the non-theistic side. Religion has opponents, as you put it, and it has enemies. So does secularism/humanism (since atheism is simply the idea that gods don't exist, it is not really a philosophy, at least according to the best definitions I've heard). Does the mere existence of them deny the other's right to exist? No. I don't think so. Should people on either side of the debate go around thinking of those on the other side as enemies, or even opponents? No. I don't think so. This is drawing false lines in the sand. How does one measure someone's "amount" of god-belief or atheism? Besides, I don't think there are only two sides to any debate (I stand in the middle on several debates, including the theistic one), and that while it's a natural tendency of humans to turn such things into black-and-white issues, it is not justifiable. I enjoy conversations such as the one we had because it complicates my own thinking, and shows me yet another of the people living out there, whose opinions may not only be quite different from my own, but quite different from any others I've ever heard. It also offers me the opportunity (sometimes) to complicate others' thinking. Truly, any reason for your wishing to end the conversation is fine, but my reaction to it would be different depending on the reason. If you feel you don't have anything more to say, or that the conversation has not fulfilled your own goals, I would probably shrug. If you feel you don't have enough time, I would probably nod. If you feel that it didn't go anywhere because you think we are diametrically opposed, or because you think the only way a conversation can "go anywhere" is if one of the people having it becomes a convert to the supposed other side, then my response is amusement. See you around. -Perchance.

07-09-2002, 07:43 AM	#49
Bree Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Twin Cities, USA Posts: 3,197	I find it sadly ironic that a thread about "open-mindedness" relapses into "you're the bigot - no you're the bigot" schoolyard taunting.

07-09-2002, 08:32 AM	#50
Perchance Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 1,059	Bree... I agree. I won't be posting on this thread anymore. Goody- I'm sorry if I insulted you. -Perchance.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.