• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Civility Out?

"can you explain why what you said in that sentence does not essentially equate to "good = selfishness"?"

It does essentially equate to selfishness. We are all individuals with individual values. We form societies and cooperate because our values are best effected when we help each other.
 
Francois Tremblay said:
It does essentially equate to selfishness. We are all individuals with individual values. We form societies and cooperate because our values are best effected when we help each other.
Click to expand...
I see a lot of problems there; to start with, how one regards situations in which one's own interests and those of the larger community are in conflict. And situations where what one might want to do in pursuit of one's own interests cannot by any stretch of the imagination be said to be detrimental to the interests of the larger community, but would nevertheless be viewed in the sense of "what most people mean" as immoral. (Perhaps you wouldn't recognise any situation as being in the latter category?)

Nevertheless, I agree this isn't really on topic for this thread, and I should probably read the link you provided before going into any further detail.

Rolfe.
 
A few random shots...

Hal, if you refuse to go because of anything I've said, you're foolish. I'm harmless - we obviously disagree on the whole religion thing, but that doesn't mean I'll be packing heat to silence the unbeliever - as skeptics, we ought to be above that sort of intolerance. (I repeat - I tolerate any sort of religious belief, I just don't respect it).

Secondly, I wouldn't take to heart anything Penn said. He strikes me as having a very volatile personality - very much larger than life, and not necessarily consistent from one moment to the next. Surprisingly, from his stage persona, I found him to be one of the least approachable celebrities at TAM3 - and even after seeing P&T at the Rio, Teller was chattier while signing autographs and the like. (Not to say I don't remain a Penn fan, of course - but I've never really mastered the art of unreasoning idolisation).

However... I still remain true to my basic premise. Belief in an overarching "higher power", however you wish to name it, is not fundamentally a different order of belief than those who claim we're being visited by aliens or that crystals can harmonise your life. It is a belief without evidence (if you have evidence, present it) and therefore completely under the purview of skepticism. In effect, the question devolves to "Can I call myself a skeptic if there's something that I accept without skepticism?"

And again, I reiterate that if you cast the net wide enough, everyone is skeptical in that case. So I tend towards "no" as my answer to that question. At the very least you know that hard-line atheists are going be present at TAM4, and if their attitudes make you uncomfortable... well, you need to be prepared for that.
 
Francois Tremblay said:
There is a huge difference between eccentricity and the refusal to acknowledge reality and moral responsibility (which is what religion is). I'm not sure I would call other skeptics bigots just for not making the difference, though.
Click to expand...

Can you define what you mean by "moral responsibility", and how religion refuses to acknowledge it?
 
bouch said:
Can you define what you mean by "moral responsibility", and how religion refuses to acknowledge it?
Click to expand...

He may be referring to the oft-mentioned attack on atheists that goes along the lines, "If you don't believe in God, then you don't believe in punishment for your sins - so why would you be moral?"

To which I, as an atheist, reply, "If you're telling me that the only reason you don't kill, steal, and so forth is because you think you will be punished for it, then logically you will do these things if you think you can get away with it. Therefore - please occupy a different country to me."

I should point out that I don't think most Christians believe atheists are necessarily immoral - but that seems likely what was being referred to.
 
SixSixSix partially nailed it on the head.

* As SixSixSix said, Christianity is based on submission to God's will, not on facts of reality. This entails total moral subjectivism and denial of principles. This is what we observe in history : Christianity drops moral principles because they become subjectively unacceptable for the whole of society, not because they are judged bad.

* Christian reward is based on salvation, which means : replacing moral judgment by divine sanction. Thus there is absolutely no incentive for a Christian to be moral. In fact, Christians routinely argue that our moral autonomy is useless and that we must submit our judgment to God.

* Anyone who seriously believes that all the evil and suffering in the world was caused by a good being is morally corrupt and untrustworthy.
 
To be fair: we do not see Christians as a whole abandoning moral principles; we see individuals who happen to be Christian doing so (eg many televangelists, the Spanish Inquisition which nobody expects, since surprise is their main weapon - surprise and fear: their two main weapons are surprise and fear, and rutheless efficiency...).

Whether or not a Christian that chooses to be moral despite god rather than because of him is technically still a Christian is another debate. I would describe the majority of Christians today in Australia (at least) as closet atheists - they live their lives pretty much identically to an atheist, but they occasionally go to to church (weddings, christenings) and would say that they believe in god if asked. Most agnostics are like this. For some reason the word atheist is a label that some find unappealing.

This is possibly because some people think atheists are themselves fanatics, in that there is no clear evidence that disproves a god. However, this is really not true; firstly, few things can be conclusively disproven and in any case the nature of the claim is sufficiently extraordinary as to place the burden of proof on the claimant rather than the skeptic; secondly, if incontrovertible evidence of the existence of God, Thor, Zeus, or Shiva were ever presented the vast majority of atheists would immediately "convert" (at least to belief, if not worship). Godlessness is not a religion.
 
After reading through this thread I am dismayed by what appears to be to varying degrees of antagonism that is espoused towards anyone that disagrees with the 'sceptical must be atheistic' outlook. Like others that have posted here I was taught, regardless of belief or lack there of, people are to be treated with respect and courtesy. We can discuss something and may try to convince someone of our point of view, we can state that we feel the other is wrong about something, we can agree to disagree BUT it is rude to insist that one way is the only way or is superior and to castigate or otherwise disrespect an individual because you do not agree with them.

We all have choices we can make as to how we deal with individuals that do not hold our viewpoint. One person stated that they choose to no longer attend when invited to religious events by family and friends. Personally I disagree with that choice, it is not one I would make. I choose to attend those types of events out of respect and courtesy to those closest to me. When it is time to perform certain acts, such as kneelng or standing with heads bowed, I will instead sit quietly or stand with my head up and eyes open. There are some people whose religious beliefs do not allow for them to participate in the pledge of allegiance or stand when the US flag is displayed, which is the common custom, instead they sit quietly. They do not refuse to attend events where custom calls for these things to happen nor do they insist that they not happen or that others around them behave and act as they do.


I see nothing contradictory about being a deist, theist, agnostic and scepticism. Could this be an individual that is truly sceptical by seeking evidence of their belief or perhaps someone that finds solace and comfort in the community and ritual of religion? Why should we scorn and display such blatant rudeness towards them when they have done nothing to deserve such treatment accept disagree with our viepoints? Granted their are some people that deserve to be scorned and ignored because of their own disrespectful and rude behavior.

We become angry and defensive when we, as sceptics and atheists, are generally reviled and treated rudely. Why do so many of us then turn around and behave the same way?


I agree that individual respect is something that must be earned that does not mean that I cannot be courteous and polite to someone. I was once called upon to transport a young lady that had been involved in a serious motor vehicle accident involving a group of christian youths on a field trip. We were being flown by military transpot in a Blackhawk helicopter to a trauma center in another state. I had stabilized her injuries and was continuing to monitor her condition. She was awake, aware and very scared. She asked me if I would say the Lord's Prayer and 23rd Psalm with her. I held her hand and recited both with her, this aided in keeping her calm and allowed for smoother transport and treatment. (Trust me a military helicopter is one place you do not want a hysterical patient.) My job description is basically to provide aid and comfort to the sick and injured. My view was that I was performing my job, personal feelings don't come into it. For the record my job also allows for me to perform extreme unction (last rights), hear final confession and baptise. What purpose would it have served if I told her 'No. I don't believe in religion and I won't pray with you.' It cost me nothing to show respect and courteousness to her beliefs.


So often I hear atheists castigate christians for not living up to the tenets of their religion. Perhaps if we displayed the courtesy, respect and civility of those tenets they might be more inclined to do so as well.

Do unto others as you would have done unto you and turn the other cheek.



This is nothing more than my point of view, you are of course free to disagree or agree with what you wish.



Boo
 
To the narrow issue of religiosity and skepticism, I agree that it is quite possible for someone to be a skeptic, a good scientist, an effective researcher, *and* to decide for themselves what religious feelings, beliefs, and observances they wish to enjoy.

I really don't see the difference on a basic level between that , and the suspenson of disbelief that is required for a skeptic to be a Star Trek geek, a gamer, a sports fan, etc.

People are capable of functioning in paradoxical ways.

B U T ( Big but...), religion isn't a singular proposal either...and on other levels it is the 'gateway drug' to superstition, intolerance, and most especially *acting* on that intolerance.

I haven't read too many reports of people being harmed by violent Star Trek geeks. Can't say the same about religious (and other) fundies.

So perhaps some skeptics equate being too nice to 'believers' with letting down of one's guard, or at least consorting with the enemy?
 
This...

[Penn and Teller] have the courage to give offence. I don't mean that giving offence is in itself a virtue. But I do deplore a tendency, in the nice liberal circles in which most of us move, to feel that people have a right not to be offended, even if what they say is highly offensive...
Click to expand...

...seems to my mind to be right on the money, but was there anything 'highly offensive' about the individual Dawkins was rude to? If I had the misfortune to meet Fred Phelps I would rather spit in his face than shake his hand, but he's a very extreme example. To call someone 'an irrational bigot' purely because he believes in God is also 'highly offensive'.

I remember after TAM, Shanek started a thread about how Penn's remark that people who believe in a deity are 'f- retards' really bothered him, and he got a lot of support for his position. I agree that groups with a shared viewpoint should avoid turning into cliques where people who fail to agree on everything are made unwelcome, but perhaps scepticism isn't quite as far down this road as certain threads and commentary pieces would indicate. :)
 
Just to clarify, was Penn really making a total comparison between all deists and his derogatory term?

Or was he referring to the area where the set of all believers intersects with the set of all 'f****n retards'?
 
Boo said:
After reading through this thread I am dismayed by what appears to be to varying degrees of antagonism that is espoused towards anyone that disagrees with the 'sceptical must be atheistic' outlook. Like others that have posted here I was taught, regardless of belief or lack there of, people are to be treated with respect and courtesy.
Click to expand...

Wrong. People who claim that the Holocaust and the recent tsunami were ordained by an all-good being do not deserve respect. At best, they deserve to be ignored as lunatics. Christianity is inherently offensive to any reasonable person.
 
Francois Tremblay said:
Wrong. People who claim that the Holocaust and the recent tsunami were ordained by an all-good being do not deserve respect. At best, they deserve to be ignored as lunatics. Christianity is inherently offensive to any reasonable person.
Click to expand...

That depends on the definition of "Christian" doesn't it?
 
Darat said:
That depends on the definition of "Christian" doesn't it?
Click to expand...

No, it depends on the attitudes and opinions of the individual Christian in question. Once again, do we even know if the guy Dawkins was talking to holds opinions such as 'the Holocaust and the recent tsunami were ordained by an all-good being'? Even if he did, whether Dawkins' own attitude was very helpful is open to question.
 
MLynn said:
It seems atheists cannot be friends with any type of believer. Can people just be honest with each other in a communicative way or must there be offense?

http://www.randi.org/jr/040805how.html#8
Click to expand...

There is some major context missing.

I don't think that it is necessary to be an atheist to be a skeptic. I think that it is necessary to admit that one's religious belief is not subject to proof, and is not a testable fact, but rather is an item of faith.

I'm surprised a bit at the hurt feelings here, really. Having dealt a few times with members of at least one "Christian Coalition" (it may have been a coalition, but it had little to do with the religion I was raised in), I can see Dawkins' reaction, if there is previous history. I can, however, also see that under misquoted circumstanes, at the very least, it makes him look offensive and unnecessarily confrontational.

I want to know a lot more about the context than I can find in this thread.

I think, though, that the general issue is simple. Faith does not necessarily impede a skeptic, unless s/he fails to apply it to their own belief system.

One who says "I believe this", who does not dispute evidence in hand, and who can show that their belief is consonant with evidence, is offering nothing contradictory. Such a person can be disagreed with, but not told they are wrong, and I personally think it is quite unnecessarily rude to question such a person's beliefs.

One who says "YHWH said we have to do this, so everybody ***" on the other hand, is trying to use their belief as claim to fact, and now they are fully subject to examination and dispute.
 
Boo,

I think you are correct to put people before dogma. Good on you. And good on you for reciting those words to your injured and scared patient to calm her fears.

Like yourself, I also attend religious ceremonies if invited by family and friends. I see no point in being religious in my scepticism - to dogmatically refuse to have anything to do with religion.

However I disagree with your disagreement about "'sceptical must be atheistic". I think to be sceptical regarding religion is to be atheistic, and to be religious is to be not sceptical regarding religion. Which is not to say you can't be sceptical in other aspects of your life.

BJ


PS: I think that is Hal's view (last paragraph)
 
Hal,

I hope you’ve not finished reading this thread, because there are many people saying they think sceptical does not have to equal atheistic. And I would like to add my voice to that crowd as well.

And then there is at least one other person who has just said that even though they do believe being sceptical about religion means being atheistic, they don’t condone the derision and disrespect towards people who are not atheistic.

In regards to Deism in particular, I think that jj was right on when he said:
originally posted by jj

I don't think that it is necessary to be an atheist to be a skeptic. I think that it is necessary to admit that one's religious belief is not subject to proof, and is not a testable fact, but rather is an item of faith.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think that someone could be a skeptic and yet have experiences that bring them to a belief in something, especially when it’s a tentative belief, one that is recognized as ” … not subject to proof, and is not a testable fact, but rather is an item of faith”. I agree with Darat when he said:
Originally posted by Darat

I even believe it is possible to come to the conclusion using “critical thinking” based on personal evidence that God exists, it is just not evidence I can accept.
Click to expand...

When it comes to specific beliefs about God, such as are often believed by, say, Christians, I think testability is what matters. Can these beliefs be tested? Do you claim there is evidence for these beliefs? Can we think of evidence that would support or undermine these beliefs? Is any such evidence available? Etc….

I do think there are some religious beliefs which one cannot hold and still call oneself a sceptic (in that area). These are testable claims, things like “The Earth was created in 7 days”. But I don’t think I’ve ever seen you make any such claims, and I don’t think Deism in general makes any such claims.

I won’t be at TAM4, but I think you should still speak there. So far, at least in this thread, there are far more people who agree with me than disagree. I hope you notice them as well.

Be a sceptic, don’t ignore the evidence!! :D

Adam
 
Francois Tremblay said:
Belief in a god is an extraordinary claim.
Belief in Jesus is an extraordinary claim.
Belief in miracles is an extraordinary claim.
Belief that a man can be brought back from the dead after three days, without medical technology, and then rocket to the sky, is an extraordinary claim.
Belief that there was a worldwide flood is an extraordinary claim.
etc etc

Once you accept one nonsense, you might as well accept the whole lot. To believe in any of these is to abandon logic.

Also, to believe that all the evil in the world is the result of a good being is the ultimate amorality. If you can believe that, then you'll believe any moral nonsense.
Click to expand...

Have you surveyed all of space and time?

A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice..
 
Considering Dawkins or Randi an expert on a religious topic is like considering Billy Graham an expert on science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom