tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post949235144105383417..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Religion, Condemnation, and Appeals to ScriptureAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-34425113306988588162009-12-30T16:07:12.789-07:002009-12-30T16:07:12.789-07:00Another thoughtful blog entry Alonzo! Thank you.
...Another thoughtful blog entry Alonzo! Thank you.<br /><br />I very strongly disagree with troubling and indifferent statements like this:<br />"If you want to use scripture to decide what to eat, when to eat, what to wear, when to work, when to refrain from working, and the like, you are free to do so."<br /><br />Sadly, personal decisions of what one chooses to eat, wear, or find employment doing (as just 3 of many numerous examples) are not necessarily morally responsible decisions even if a human is not harmed by such activities. The truth of the matter is, the unnecessary harm of ANY sentient individual is morally wrong or morally irresponsible. When someone makes a personal decision to eat the cadavers of killed chicken's or deer, to wear the skin and / or hair of four sheep or sixty ermines, or to physically exploit and mistreat a bull forced into a rodeo, all these choices and all choices of similar activities are the consequence of the unnecessary harm of or violence perpetrated on sentient individuals wholly against the interests of these individuals.<br /><br />It would behoove your integrity as a person and the consistency of your logical arguments to include all sentient individuals in your circle of compassionate consideration. You should strongly consider all the logical arguments put forth in this presentation (intended for law students but is very applicable to discourse by atheists and ethicists): http://www.vimeo.com/5013428mmissinglinkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313410698146026036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-18276225511530269962009-11-29T06:38:52.221-07:002009-11-29T06:38:52.221-07:00Unashamed
The bulk of this blog, plus the book li...<b>Unashamed</b><br /><br />The bulk of this blog, plus the book listed on the right, plus the FAQ listed on the right, explain how to tell the difference between right and wrong.<br /><br />By the way, very few atheists say that there is "absolutely no God". Most atheists adopt the position that there is no evidence of a God, thus no reason to believe that a God exists. This is true in the same sense that there is no evidence of a teakettle orbiting Mars, and no reason to believe that such a thing exists, but it does not allow one to say, "There absolutely is no teakettle orbiting Mars."<br /><br />Still, anybody who would say that there absolutely IS a teakettle orbiting Mars in spite of the lack of evidence is somewhat off.<br /><br />Who defines 'evil'? That's a bad question. Who defines 'planet'? Who defines 'atom'? Who defines 'malaria'?<br /><br />(Note: 'Planet' used to mean 'wandering star' - 'atom' once meant 'thing without parts' - and 'malaria' once meant 'disease caused by bad air')<br /><br />This is not a question of definitions. This is a question of what people do and do not have reason to do - and what values people do and do not have reason to promote or inhibit in others.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-43184473485829383032009-11-28T23:57:53.563-07:002009-11-28T23:57:53.563-07:00Who defines what is good and what is evil? Who is...Who defines what is good and what is evil? Who is right? Who is wrong? <br /><br />How are you, the Atheist, right and the Christian, wrong? Who defines evil? Who decides, "Yes! THIS is correct?" Are not both sides convinced? For someone to be right, the other must be wrong. <br /><br />The Atheist says there is absolutely no God! The Christian says the Atheist is absolutely without excuse.Unashamedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09154175826592543905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-35818865073704174332009-11-23T23:35:54.111-07:002009-11-23T23:35:54.111-07:00Certainly. But most likely your wife is not a good...<i>Certainly. But most likely your wife is not a good person because she believes in God; she would be a good person even if she were atheist</i>.<br /><br />Oh yes, I completely agree. Religion has nothing to do with it, she was brought up in a very loving and empathetic family. I'm saying that there is a percentage of people like her who will never give up belief, and I'd rather that they believed in a compassionate/loving god than a wrathful/angry god.<br /><br /><i>This is usually quite rare, though. At least where I'm from</i>.<br /><br />I would wager that this is due to two major factors: where you are from (as you said), since change doesn't spread evenly; and the age of the believer. Even among the strong fundamentalists, their children often come into contact with gay and/or atheist peers and are forced to shed their prejudices. Right now it's very common for even evangelicals, in large metropolitan settings, to be tolerant of others. Heck, just a few months ago she agreed to go to <a href="http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=115471915685" rel="nofollow">The Great Kiss-In</a><br /><br /><i>They are taught to believe in the Bible. They learn to believe many things, and are led to do things based on what they believe is the will of God (based on what they are taught and what is in the Bible)</i>.<br /><br />The Bible can be used to justify many things. My wife's more religious than my parents, and yet my parents are more opposed to gays than her. When the Bible contradicts a person's moral code, it is the Bible that adapts, not the person's moral code. Is the will of god to smite your neighbor, or to turn the other cheek? It depends on the reader. The book itself is practically irrelevant. <br /><br /><i>or that she read the Bible, and it says that you should give 10% of your money to the church, then you may have a problem</i>.<br /><br />LOL! :) Very astute, hit right on the sore spot. Well played sir! In general, I dislike how much money she gives to her church. But she doesn't give close to 10%. Her reading of the Bible indicates that any money given to others to help them counts as a tithe, and thus she spends more on her grandmother's medication and her mother's chemo than she ever gives to the church. I'm ok with that.<br /><br />I really despise her pastor tho...<br /><br />Anyway, yes, rationality is the best option, but sometimes the best option isn't available. In those cases, one shouldn't commit themselves to "all or nothing".Eneaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14500232958398471146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-2281428891989414692009-11-23T10:29:47.575-07:002009-11-23T10:29:47.575-07:00Eneasz> Wouldn't it be better for them to n...Eneasz> Wouldn't it be better for them to not be extremists?<br /><br />Certainly. But most likely your wife is not a good person because she believes in God; she would be a good person even if she were atheist.<br /><br />If it is as you say, that she only has *one* bad belief (this belief in God), then I agree with Alonzo that it's not a big deal.<br /><br />This is usually quite rare, though. At least where I'm from. People around here go to church. They are taught to believe in the Bible. They learn to believe many things, and are led to do things based on what they believe is the will of God (based on what they are taught and what is in the Bible).<br /><br />I think the best strategy in these cases is to teach people how to think rationally. Teach them why reason and evidence are a good epistemological basis for belief, while faith is very poor.<br /><br />For your wife, this may not be necessary, since you say she only has one belief. However, if she started saying that she prayed, and God told her not to vaccinate your kids... or that she read the Bible, and it says that you should give 10% of your money to the church, then you may have a problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-62354191087737749342009-11-23T00:41:11.469-07:002009-11-23T00:41:11.469-07:00Kip -
Hm. Well, yes, you are right. I must think ...Kip -<br /><br />Hm. Well, yes, you are right. I must think about this more.<br /><br />I'm mainly conflicted because my wife is christian, and still a good person. We've talked about this many times and she'll never abandon her beliefs. But when it's all added up... she's a better person than I am. The fact that she has one wrong belief doesn't change this.<br /><br />And the fact does remain that there will always be a certain percentage of the population that will not abandon belief in god. Wouldn't it be better for them to not be extremists?Eneaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14500232958398471146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-34868499643402249502009-11-22T18:42:25.812-07:002009-11-22T18:42:25.812-07:00Eneasz: Your solution does not solve the problem....Eneasz: Your solution does not solve the problem. If you convince someone of your interpretation of a contradictory text, then someone else could convince them of yet the opposite interpretation. The solution is to have them see the truth, not believe a lie.<br /><br />I think that a love of truth is a good desire to promote. If you are willing to promote lies (e.g. that someone's invisible friend doesn't want them to steal) in order to get your desires fulfilled, then you are acting immorally.<br /><br />I think that if people had a good epistemological basis for their system of beliefs, then this world would be a better place. I think that faith is the worst possible justification for belief that there is. I think that reason and evidence, as exampled by the scientific method, will lead to more true beliefs and fewer false beliefs. I think that this will lead to more desires being fulfilled and less desires being thwarted. I think that this is therefore, moral.<br /><br />I think that promoting an evidence and reason based system of belief is moral. I think that promoting faith-based systems of beliefs (beliefs not supported by reason and evidence) is immoral, as they will lead to more desires being thwarted than fulfilled. It is not something someone with good desires would do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-32364110261901529012009-11-21T23:48:57.714-07:002009-11-21T23:48:57.714-07:00I'm not even understanding your first paragrap...<i>I'm not even understanding your first paragraph at all. You would argue #1 & #2? That makes no sense. It's like arguing that somebody is misunderstanding their invisible friend. It's absurd</i>.<br /><br />It may be absurd, but it is more effective. It's not terribly hard to demonstrate that someone is misinterpreting the bible because it is The Big Book Of Multiple Choice. Most positions it takes are contradicted by itself in other passages.<br /><br />If you would rather take the much more costly and far less effective route of trying to convince someone that god doesn't exist then you should ask yourself if you're more concerned about good outcomes, or about ideological purity?<br /><br />Desire to believe in a god is a much stronger and much harder desire to change than beliefs about what s/he wants. Many people can't imagine having their invisible friend ripped away, but they can imagine misinterpreting what he wants.<br /><br />I don't (greatly) care if someone believes he shouldn't steal because Papa Smurf tells him not to, as long as he doesn't steal.<br /><br />And the fact is that as long as humans exist there will be some portion of them that are religious. I'd rather that the religious faction interpreted their texts in a way that doesn't cause harm, even if that means having absurd arguments about what their invisible friend wants.<br /><br />Not that we shouldn't ever make those arguments, of course. But it's easier to convince someone to be liberal rather than fundamentalist, then to go straight from fundamentalism to atheism.<br /><br />IMHO anyway.Eneaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14500232958398471146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-83064623777971665842009-11-21T09:39:55.060-07:002009-11-21T09:39:55.060-07:00Alonzo, here's an example: http://www.youtube...Alonzo, here's an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TO5mjKrfr8<br /><br />There is a nice lady in this video handing out books, who is asked: "Why are you so passionate about this?"<br /><br />Her reply: "Because it matters; because it impacts a person's eternal destiny."<br /><br />I can assure you that this is the reason why Ray Comfort & Kirk Cameron and others spent time and money producing the book, promoting the book, getting volunteers to distribute the book, and will continue their ministry to try to get as many people to not believe in evolution.<br /><br />They believe that if you believe in evolution, it's less likely that you will believe in God. They're correct.<br /><br />They believe that if you don't believe in God, then you won't go to heaven. This is what the Bible says. It's the core doctrine.<br /><br />They believe their God-given purpose on this earth is lead as many people to God so that they can be "saved" and go to heaven. This is what the Bible says.<br /><br />Nothing else matters. All other concerns not directly ordained by God are infinitesimal and irrelevant.<br /><br />So, go ahead and try to convince them that they are misinterpreting the Bible (good luck, I don't think they are). Go ahead and try to convince them that the Bible was not inspired by God (I think this is a good strategy). But, while you're at it, I think it's perfectly legitimate for others to go to the heart of the problem: belief in the existence of the Christian God.<br /><br />I'd say a two-pronged strategy is best: 1) promote doubt in the inerrancy of the Bible, and 2) promote doubt in the existence of the Christian God (meaning, all of the attributes normally attributed to him)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-82091665811960383482009-11-21T09:14:49.194-07:002009-11-21T09:14:49.194-07:00> Sorry, but I am not much of a strategist.
So...> Sorry, but I am not much of a strategist.<br /><br />Sorry, that sounds like a cop out. Desire Utilitarianism, er, life in general I suppose, requires that you strategize.<br /><br />I'm not even understanding your first paragraph at all. You would argue #1 & #2? That makes no sense. It's like arguing that somebody is misunderstanding their invisible friend. It's absurd.<br /><br /><br />Alonzo> I would also argue that, as a principle, people generally have good reason to condemn anybody who argues that behavior harmful to others can be justified by appeals to religion or faith - as I have done in this blog.<br /><br /><br />So, here's the other premise that I left out of my real-world scenario: this person believes that the after-life is eternal. Any desires thwarted in this life are infinitesimal compared with the desires that will be fulfilled in the next. To them, it would be like giving the baby a vaccination shot: even though it may be causing some minor harm to the child temporarily, it is much better in the future.<br /><br /><br />> ... faith is not a good enough reason to justify harm to others.<br /><br />I don't think you appreciate the extent of which faith plays a role in people's lives. For some of these people, there is no separating the faith that does harm, from the faith that doesn't. It's such a part of their lives, that almost every decision they make is tainted with their faith.<br /><br />And, it comes back to pragmatism, and rationality. If someone has an "invisible friend" that they believe is telling them to do harmful things, I'm not going to try to convince them that they are misunderstanding their invisible friend. That would be lunacy. Instead, I'm going to try to convince them of the truth: their invisible friend doesn't exit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-92031026001159980262009-11-20T13:13:08.877-07:002009-11-20T13:13:08.877-07:00Kip:
Sorry, but I am not much of a strategist.
I...Kip:<br /><br />Sorry, but I am not much of a strategist.<br /><br />If <i>somebody</i> caught me in an argument I would argue (1) and (2) and, when it came to (3), simply say, "It doesn't matter whether you are interpreting the transcripts of the oral stories of a group of illiterate tribesmen who have been dead for thousands of years correctly or not." I have no interest in being an expert on biblical interpretations because there is little in the bible that is worth the effort of interpreting.<br /><br />I would also argue that, as a principle, people generally have good reason to condemn anybody who argues that behavior harmful to others can be justified by appeals to religion or faith - as I have done in this blog. Anybody who attacks another with the intent of doing them harm "in the name of God" deserves condemnation - faith is not a good enough reason to justify harm to others.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-47860295949966646962009-11-20T12:38:46.287-07:002009-11-20T12:38:46.287-07:00Alonzo:
Someone believes in God. They believe th...Alonzo:<br /><br />Someone believes in God. They believe their God wrote the Bible. They interpret the Bible to say that homosexual marriage is immoral. They interpret the Bible to say that God wants them to vote for not allowing gay marriage in the United States.<br /><br />How should we go about persuading this person that they are wrong?<br /><br />1) Convince them that they are misinterpreting the Bible?<br /><br />2) Convince them that the Bible was not written by God?<br /><br />3) Convince them that God does not exist?<br /><br />... or what?<br /><br />What is the most rational response here?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-3231584199368857222009-11-20T07:31:09.546-07:002009-11-20T07:31:09.546-07:00For the sake of their victims - those to whom they...<i>For the sake of their victims - those to whom they do harm without justification - it is not only permissible, it is obligatory to stick a pin in that inflated sense of pride and tell these people what type of people they really are.</i><br /><br />Some of us, who make no distinction between religions and nations, have our been using our pins for many years, but the opposition we face is when a nation acts like a religion. We witness it in the middle-east, but are reluctant to accept it is the case when US American pride validates wrongs against some of its own citizens, and justifies its world-wide agenda. Foreigners have watched as "one nation under god" has become the rallying cry for millions of "nut jobs". Meanwhile, patriotic fervor compels millions who are not "nut jobs" to sit on a fence and let those "nut jobs" run amok over the face of the earth as they chant "The Star Spangled Banner". Their actions are no different than the religious "nut jobs" who justify their actions by cherry picking a faulty text.antonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02909850387414677663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-58938402711323480552009-11-19T22:38:52.412-07:002009-11-19T22:38:52.412-07:00The question is not whether religion is rational. ...<i>The question is not whether religion is rational. We all have some irrational (or arational) elements in our belief system. We cannot help it. Our first beliefs have an arational source. Our future beliefs require measuring them against our earlier arational beliefs so they, too, are partially arational.<br /><br />We do not have time to hold all of our beliefs up to the light of reason. So, we must all use methods for filtering beliefs that are less than perfectly rational but still "good enough".<br /><br />If you consider yourself to be a perfectly rational agent, you are fooling yourself. If you demand perfect rationality from others you are demanding from them something that no person - not even you - can provide.</i><br /><br />Actually, I think the question of whether religion is rational is precisely the question. I'm not sure that I agree with what you're saying here, that "first beliefs are irrational" or "arational", as you say. <br /><br />As humans, we make a great deal of inferences and assumptions as a matter of practical necessity. For example... we don't test out every solid object to make sure we won't pass through it — we infer from our experience, and from the observation of others, that we can't pass through solid objects. But we don't know that there aren't solid objects we can pass through, or whether there's some unknown law of physics that if harnessed might allow us to do it.<br /><br />But, assumptions and intuitive inferences are not implicitly irrational. Quite the contrary. We can validate their rationality by their reliability. And while there may be plenty of irrational atheists, atheism itself is rational, and supernatural belief is not. Our enemy is not necessarily dogma, but rather the irrationality and credulity that leads to their acceptance.Mike Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04097261108461657167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-66748795195970989752009-11-19T15:25:38.088-07:002009-11-19T15:25:38.088-07:00As I understand it, the accommodation comes in the...As I understand it, the accommodation comes in the form of promoting a form of irrationality - unquestioning belief in a god - as a virtue. That is how religious faith is defined. It goes further when people not only say to believe in that god but to obey him/it (my religious background includes a branch of Quakers who avoided assigning gender to any of the trinity).<br /><br />Actually, no. That would be promotion of part of the argument. The argument is that you must do evil things to obey God, and you must obey God, so you must do evil things. Anyone who agrees with the second proposition of the argument is helping to promote the argument, which goes beyond accommodation. Simple accommodation would be agreeing to not argue with that proposition.<br /><br />So a person who argues that one must have faith in and obey God is helping any argument that one must obey God when God commands evil things.<br /><br />But that person might not be promoting evil things. They have an irrational belief (that faith in and obedience to God is a virtue) which other people use to justify harm. The first person does not use it to justify harm. They do not have an obligation to examine and change their belief until and unless they use that belief to justify harm.Emu Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05352556221263050952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-76490191608649344112009-11-19T12:49:08.589-07:002009-11-19T12:49:08.589-07:00If I may parse your statements a bit.
If that is ...If I may parse your statements a bit.<br /><br /><i>If that is the case, then I feel justified in claiming that the major religions of the world are irrational and harmful in their current state.</i><br /><br />Notice here that you did not say "religion" but "major religions of the world". One would still have to ask what you consider a "major religion" - whether Buddhism or Confucionism would count, for example.<br /><br /><br /><i>The only time religion is not harmful is when its participants appease their sacred texts in their own way...</i><br /><br />And NOW you are talking about "religion". What justified this leap?<br /><br />Furthermore, you mentioned a relationship between "religion" and "their sacred texts." Yet, many religions have no sacred text.<br /><br />And religious institutions are not the only institutions that require the interpretation of text. Law has the same function. The interpretation of the Constitution is as heavily disputed as the interpretation of any scripture. And, yes, people read their own morality into their interpretations of the Constitution (and the law) as well.<br /><br /><i>Why not just remove religious dogma, then, and live in conjunction with our governed laws and own moral judgement?</i><br /><br />Part of the reason is because 'religious dogma' cannot be defined precisely enough to give us a real idea of what shall be removed.<br /><br />Another part is because religious dogma is only a subset of the irrational belief systems that plague human kind.<br /><br />And the third is that religious dogma is not always the most dangerous. Over the course of the next few years I am going to wager that more lives will be lost and more property destroyed by global-warming deniers and tobbaco company lobbyists than the adherants to any religion.<br /><br />Among atheists, moral relativism, Randian objectivism, Marxian communism, and evolutionary ethics provide systems of belief that are as poorly founded and exceed the dangerousness of some religions.<br /><br /><i>If a "religious" person decides what is right and wrong based on what a very ancient book has dictated, I find this harmful and irrational.</i><br /><br />I would put it more precisely. A person who decides that others may be punished or harmed based on a very ancient book is evil. That was the thesis of this posting.<br /><br /><i>For those who are "religious" but often use their own moral judgement to make decisions, that's fine, but they are still accommodating those with extreme views.</i><br /><br />How does it make sense for a person who says, "X is false" accomodating those who say, "X is true"?Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-47786577947217165732009-11-19T10:31:13.152-07:002009-11-19T10:31:13.152-07:00If that is the case, then I feel justified in clai...If that is the case, then I feel justified in claiming that the major religions of the world are irrational and harmful in their current state. <br /><br />The only time religion is not harmful is when its participants appease their sacred texts in their own way, which, often, is quite different than its literal meanings. But then they are not using God to define their morals, but their own subconscious understanding of right and wrong. Therefore, they are not truly practicing their religious beliefs.<br /><br />Why not just remove religious dogma, then, and live in conjunction with our governed laws and own moral judgement?<br /><br />I'm not sure if I'm properly expressing what I'm trying to say... basically, if a "religious" person decides what is right and wrong based on what a very ancient book has dictated, I find this harmful and irrational. period. For those who are "religious" but often use their own moral judgement to make decisions, that's fine, but they are still accommodating those with extreme views.Alessahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12586163130233273821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-36457114798382380232009-11-19T09:40:29.897-07:002009-11-19T09:40:29.897-07:00Read Part 2 of this posting.
The question is not ...Read Part 2 of this posting.<br /><br />The question is not whether religion is rational. We all have some irrational (or arational) elements in our belief system. We cannot help it. Our first beliefs have an arational source. Our future beliefs require measuring them against our earlier arational beliefs so they, too, are partially arational.<br /><br />We do not have time to hold all of our beliefs up to the light of reason. So, we must all use methods for filtering beliefs that are less than perfectly rational but still "good enough".<br /><br />If you consider yourself to be a perfectly rational agent, you are fooling yourself. If you demand perfect rationality from others you are demanding from them something that no person - not even you - can provide.<br /><br />So, given that there must be some arationality, where can arationality be permitted and where do we have reason to demand more from people?<br /><br />The principle that I have argued for is that the moral responsibility to secure our beliefs is tied to the degree of risk that those beliefs pose for the welfare of others.<br /><br />When it comes to harm to others, we are to presume that harm is not justified until provided with proof beyond a reasonable (note <i>reason-able</i>) doubt that it is justified.<br /><br />Note that the presumption of innocence is arational. We are not talking about proof of innocence, but a presumption of innocence.<br /><br />If failure to obtain perfect rationality is a vice, then we are all evil.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-31209382950964283202009-11-19T09:17:27.957-07:002009-11-19T09:17:27.957-07:00I agree that not all Atheists are rational. Atheis...I agree that not all Atheists are rational. Atheism only specifies what a person DOES NOT believe in; not what they DO. That's something that needs to be taken into account.<br /><br />I do find your arguments very constructive and interesting, so I'd like to propose a question for you: what aspect of religion would you consider rational?Alessa Mendeshttp://alessamendes.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-61182001565530493402009-11-19T09:02:07.461-07:002009-11-19T09:02:07.461-07:00Irrationality is not beneficial to our future. How...Irrationality is not beneficial to our future. However, there are a lot of atheists are irrational.<br /><br />My criticism of atheist bigotry is a criticism of irrationality (not beneficial to our future) - specifically a morally objectionable form of the hasty generalization fallacy - found among atheists.<br /><br />To equate irrationality with religion (and atheism with rationality) risks letting a lot of irrational beliefs into the system without careful examination - simply because it comes from an atheist source.<br /><br />That's not going to help.<br /><br />If irrationality is the problem, then irrationality should be a target. And irrational atheists should not get a free ride.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-63956264924510262662009-11-19T08:36:19.245-07:002009-11-19T08:36:19.245-07:00Well said. But, more often than not, "the rel...Well said. But, more often than not, "the religious" and "the people who base behavior potentially harmful to others without good reason," go hand-in-hand. And if they don't, they at least provide the climate for which extremism can flourish.<br /><br />Irrationality is not beneficial to our future. I'm ignorant to many things, but at least I have the desire to learn, or suspend judgement until I have all the facts. I also have no problem admitting that I was wrong. <br /><br />I do not 'condemn' those with faith, but I will "fight the good fight" to keep it out of our government. That's all that I am asking for at this point.Alessahttp://alessamendes.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com