pz

The error in your thinking here is that you seem to believe that being christian has anything to do with doing good or aspiring to better themselves. This is an invalid association. You could substitute "buddhist", "moslem" or "atheist" for the word "Christian" in your comment, and it would still be just as true.

Jobar

Starboy and pz, freedom means, in part, the right to hold incorrect beliefs. I'm not terribly comfortable with that either, but all the alternatives lead straight to some sort of totalitarianism.

This board is an attempt to show people that a very common belief- God, in any of his various guises- is incorrect, mistaken, without foundation. That ancient tales which have been labelled 'holy' are quite often simply wrong.

If humans valued logic as much as Vulcans, I doubt we'd have any Christians left on Earth. Trouble is, there are far too few human beings who think in a rational and consistent way, who form their opinions and direct their actions using their heads instead of their hearts and gonads. It's the sad and sorry truth; we have to deal with it.

Starboy, I try to take a long view on this. Look at history; a few hundred years ago even trying to discuss this subject would put us all at risk of death by fire. Things are improving!

I live in the south too, so I also get my nose rubbed in Southern Baptist fundamentalist craziness far too often. But I look at other parts of the world, where writing a letter to a newspaper defending atheism would result in a mob or a squad of police or soldiers at your door, looking for your blood. *That* is of far more concern to me than foolish creationists.

pz

I missed the part where I even implied that people didn't have the right to be as stupid as they want to be.

I can think of a really good alternative that doesn't lead to totalitarianism: it's called education. I'm not sure what kind of totalitarian solution you thought I was suggesting.

Jobar

pz:
"At the very least, it's symptomatic of a problem that does do me harm -- that my neighbor could be ignorant and irrational. I object to the idea that a climate of unreason is harmless. It ain't. "

Who decides that your neighbor is ignorant and irrational? If the answer is anything other than each individual, we start down the road to thought police.

I quite agree that education is the best way, perhaps the only way, to prevent or alleviate a 'climate of unreason'. But how do we educate everyone to the level of the clearest and best thinkers among us? It's a long slow process at best, longer than our lifetimes.

One of the reasons I dedicate so much of my time to II is because I feel we help that process along. (However, I won't hold my breath until, say, Ed realizes the correctness of evolution and the incorrectness of Genesis as literal history...)

Starboy

Jobar perhaps I misunderstand your response but I DO SUPPORT my neighbor’s right to be as stupid and crazy as they wish AS LONG AS THEY SUPPORT my right to do so as well. I very clearly understand that we each have a responsibility to behave in a manner that will promote a civil society. Your defense as well as the defense of other atheists of Christian’s behavior on this matter has me concerned. I can’t help but get the feeling that there are atheists that feel that the best strategy at this time is to placate those who would behave uncivilly. The arguments presented are perplexing because these very arguments point out that other Christians recognize that -- Christians have been behaving uncivilly in the name of Christianity. As pointed out again by other atheists, this is nothing new. Again I don’t see how this is supposed to ameliorate the threat. A rational reason to feel that things are getting better is if indeed they are getting better. It is true that in the past many strides have been made but in my opinion, in the last sixty years a good deal of progress has been undone. Do not forget that at one time in this country an atheist could openly proclaim their lack of belief, write books about it, speak on it and they would receive national and international acclaim. At one time in this country the person who wrote the pledge of allegiance who was a Christian pastor would never have dreamed of putting “under god” into the pledge because the overwhelming majority of Christians in this country understood that to do so would be uncivil. The progress of the past has been undone, and it is the Christians that are the culprits. If indeed the vast majority of Christians seek a civil society, how could they let this happen in the name of Christianity?

Starboy

seebs

I think there is a one-way causal relationship, although it may not be as strong in many people as we would like. The core dogma is there; it's just a question of reminding people.

In most cases, I would agree. I have met a few people of whom it is not true, in that their belief system denies the relevant moral structures, but these people are rare. Most people, if you make a decent case, will at least consider it, and may try to edge towards being better people.

seebs

Although there's an underlying statistical reality to the assumption that theists of all sorts are "less rational" than atheists, I'm not sure the boundary conditions hold. I don't think rationality implies disbelief, no matter how rational you want to be; I think that, at some level, some of the fundamental questions are more often the framework in which you build your system than the results of it. There are many theistic belief systems which survive rational thought. Do I have unproven, untestable beliefs? Sure. But, unless I'm denying that, that doesn't necessarily make me *irrational*; it just means I have one more axiom than you do. I have a rich set of axioms from which I can draw many many theorems.

I agree that education is a good thing, and rationality is something we should try to lead people to. I just don't share your firm belief that this will necessarily result in anyone being proved wrong anytime soon.

MrDarwin

Hey moderators, I finally checked out this thread expecting to find a hot discussion about creationism or evolution--it seems to have drifted a bit off-topic!

pz

Yeah, and all four of us moderators are contributing to the topic drift!

RufusAtticus

So if they don't support your rights, you don't support theirs. Why must they be the first to give? I thought you, as a rational atheist, were supposed to be more magnanamous. Yes, ignorant and oppressive people have way too much power in government, but as long as you insist on mating them fault for fault, they can point at you and say "see, their is why we shouldn't care for their rights." Unlike you, they have the political power to get away with it.

Who's Christian?

Who's placating uncivility? I'm just trying to inform you that there is diversity in the body of Christ, and throwing the baby out with the bath water is not going to win you enough friends in this country to accomplish what you desire.

Atheists behave uncivilly in the name of Atheism.
Heterosexuals behave uncivilly in the name of heterosexuality.
Homosexuals behave uncivilly in the name of homosexuality.
Republicans behave uncivilly in the name of Republicanism.
Democrats behave uncivilly in the name of Democratism.

Yeah, so what? There are plenty that don't.

But now when you say you're an atheist, they arrest you and have you executed. Right.... Sorry, Starboy, but we have not lost any of those things.

What progress has been undone? Last time I checked, the first amendment hadn't been changed. Prayer is still out of schools. The ACLU has been winning Ten Commandment cases hand over fist. Creationism is not being taught along side evolution. ID has stired a lot of controvercy, but hasn't made a dent in biology. Exactly what progress has been undone?

~~RvFvS~~