tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post7669374511531476203..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: FFRF "Imagine a World Without Religion"Alonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-78793592810626944612011-09-15T00:10:52.470-06:002011-09-15T00:10:52.470-06:00if we are trying to show a difference between thie...if we are trying to show a difference between thiests and athiests with athiesm being the better of the two options this is something we need more of<br /><br />i constantly hear athiests say that the religious people who say and do nothing to condomen extremism within their religions are enablers of the extremists. <br /><br />likewise we must make sure that when athiests do something wrong, that we, as fellow athiests, are first and foremost to condemn their actions.Kristopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08544209777124068097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-16989592521471080042011-05-22T12:14:00.214-06:002011-05-22T12:14:00.214-06:00Well, all I can say is that you can't pick you...Well, all I can say is that you can't pick your skin color, but you can pick your religion and your beliefs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-73146755103414286712011-02-24T08:14:23.833-07:002011-02-24T08:14:23.833-07:00alright dude you know i really dont have a problem...alright dude you know i really dont have a problem with people believing in what they wanna believe in. But honestly a world without religion would be so much better. And actually two religions were involved with this. Because The U.S.A. is looked at as a Christian nation which is bullshit because it really should jsut be looked at as a nation. And since Christianity, along with countless other religions have been the cause for the death, slaughter, torture, etc of millions, possibly billions of people over the course of history. So yes, religion is in my opinion possibly one of the worst things to ever happen to this world. Especially because now people need a reason for everything. "Whats the point of being good without a god?" Um well the point is if you say that you should probably be beat upside the head for being a fucking moron.<br />Good day to you sir.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-9125003876092795072009-04-09T08:16:00.000-06:002009-04-09T08:16:00.000-06:00This is a good essay; the only problem is this sen...This is a good essay; the only problem is this sentence:<BR/><BR/>"The World Trade Center collapsed because of <I>a religion</I> that is true."<BR/><BR/>This implies that fundamentalist Islam is true! So either rephrase or delete the sentence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-29821102577091122302008-09-23T11:47:00.000-06:002008-09-23T11:47:00.000-06:00holyprudence - Obviously I agree the world would b...holyprudence - Obviously I agree the world would be better without religious belief. But there is a difference between persuasion via facts and debate, and "pursuasion" via bigotry and hate-mongering. I don't like the latter type being used against me, and for the same reason I don't think we should use it against others.<BR/><BR/>Also, it is probably unlikely that religion will ever be fully eliminated. As Neil deGras Tyson has famously stated (numerous times), the members of the National Academy of Sciences, the most elite of our country's intellectuals, still show a 7% belief rate. Why do those 7% of people still believe in a god? It is entirely possible that belief is partially biological, and no amount of persuasion will be able to remove it from society entirely. So we better learn how to get along with believers without making them a hated minority.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-76411877009902806162008-09-19T12:21:00.000-06:002008-09-19T12:21:00.000-06:00Holyprepuce:Don't you think that if we were all En...Holyprepuce:<BR/><BR/>Don't you think that if we were all English teachers, we could mark the disputed headline with a "C" and get on with it? <BR/><BR/>Instead we have all kinds of debate taking place about a sloppy headline. In fact, I would venture that the authors of the headline spent a heck of a lot less time considering the implications of their "masterpiece" than a lot of "objectors" have debating the merits of one headline vs another.<BR/><BR/>"Poor taste" is "poor taste" irrespective of which side of the fence it occurs. We run the risk of being like the guys on the other side of the fence who mount the "barricades" every time one of their member's efforts is criticized. Come on guys, it was a lousy headline. PERIOD!!!!antonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02909850387414677663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-8152906805977477102008-09-19T11:34:00.000-06:002008-09-19T11:34:00.000-06:00eneasz:I disagree that "Imagine a world without re...eneasz:<BR/><BR/>I disagree that "Imagine a world without religion" is the equivilant of "Imagine a world without white people." A world without religion could (at least theoretically) be achieved by persuasion; a world without white people could be achieved only by genocide.<BR/><BR/>In general, I don't think it is wrong to say "it would be a better world if no one believed X" -- so long as you are willing to acheive that result by persuasion and not violence or brainwashing. <BR/><BR/>FFRF's mission is one of persuasion -- it would like to convince people to stop believing in gods, and it would like to convince non-believers to become politically engaged in protecting our society from the dangers of creeping theocracy. Is it illegitimate for FFRF to connect the dots between belief in gods generally and a particular bad act that was motivated by particular people's belief in a particular god? Sure it's an overgeneralization, but illustration by example always is. <BR/><BR/>And there is the legitimate question (raised of late most notably by Christopher Hitchens) of whether moderate religious belief by the majority is a precondition to extreme religious belief by a minority. If Hitchens' thesis is correct (and I'm not saying that it is correct, just that it's non-frivolous and therefore a legitimate subject of a persuasive argument), FFRF's statement is not even an overgeneralization. <BR/><BR/>In any event, AE's thesis is essentially a baby-with-the-bathwater argument against overgeneralization. But such arguments presuppose that there is some value to the baby. And I return to my ealier point: isn't the whole point of being an atheist that you believe religious people are making a <I>factual error</I>? So the question becomes whether AE thinks that religious belief is--while factually incorrect--still inherantly valuable? Otherwise, why does it matter if FFRF wants to persuade believers that they should dispense with the "baby" of their non-violent religious beliefs?<BR/><BR/>If we start with the premise that we should a priori assign zero or negative value to false ideas, are there enough positive attributes to religion to make it worth preserving even if false? I'm guessing that FFRF's answer would be that all of the positive effects of religion (ethics, introspection, community, etc.) can be achieved through other means. Does AE hold a different view? Otherwise why does it matter if FFRF's solution to preventing future 9/11s is to persuade <I>everyone</I>, not just militant islamists, to stop believing in gods?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-58803039582988836682008-09-15T22:51:00.000-06:002008-09-15T22:51:00.000-06:00I completely agree with the post. I happened to s...I completely agree with the post. I happened to see that on the FFRF home page after reading the post at Atheist Revolution about 30 minute activism.<BR/><BR/>It's that kind of atheist activity that keeps me in the closet to my extended family. It would consume too much energy trying to explain that I did not agree with it, and then have them rant about most atheists being intolerant and how I wasn't really one of them.<BR/><BR/>Right now we have a very congenial relationship with them, and my wife and I just avoid discussing religion or politics with them. It works for us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-34664920619393132922008-09-12T15:15:00.000-06:002008-09-12T15:15:00.000-06:00Indeed, we might choose to put up posters of Fred’...<I>Indeed, we might choose to put up posters of Fred’s victims with the caption “imagine a world without white supremacy.” </I><BR/><BR/>I was surprised to see this in your comment. I was about to bring up the exact same point, and the fact that you brought it up for me implies that you're confusing things.<BR/><BR/>"Imagine a world without white supremacy" is a legitimate message. It would be the equivilant of "Imagine a world without extremist militant muslims"<BR/><BR/>But that's not the message the FFRF wanted to promote. Everyone already agrees that extremist militant muslims are a bad thing.<BR/><BR/>"Imagine a world without religion" is the equivilant of "Imagine a world without white people."<BR/><BR/>That's why the first pair of ads are acceptable, but the second pair are not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-409904524423959092008-09-11T19:55:00.000-06:002008-09-11T19:55:00.000-06:00HolyprepuceSo I think that the core message of the...<B>Holyprepuce</B><BR/><BR/><I>So I think that the core message of the NY Times ad—that the 9/11 attacks would not have happened in the absence of religious belief—is a perfectly legitimate one for FFRF to make in furtherance of its mission.</I><BR/><BR/>It is true that, in the absence of religion, the religion that resulted in the destruction of the world trade centers would not have existed and 9/11 would not have happened.<BR/><BR/>It is also true that in the absense of white people, Hitler would not have existed and the Holocaust would not have happened.<BR/><BR/>But you still cannot get from here to; therefore, we should rid the world of all religion", any more than you can get from here to, "Therefore, we should rid the world of all white people."<BR/><BR/>The fact that "white people" is not a belief system is not relevant.<BR/><BR/>The problem is with the inference from the specific, "T is true of X(n)" to the general "We should rid the world of all X."<BR/><BR/>It doesn't matter whether we are talking about belief systems, or white people, or automobiles, or anything. The inference from the specific to the general is invalid.<BR/><BR/>And you can't make it valid by wishing that you had an argument that condemns all religion.<BR/><BR/>There are a lot of religions that are perfectly compatible with the World Trade Center NOT being destroyed, so you can't make the argument that preventing the destruction of the World Trade Center requires the elimination of ALL religion.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-89243000184387810152008-09-11T16:53:00.000-06:002008-09-11T16:53:00.000-06:00holyprepuce:Ask a member of the KKK if he would ma...holyprepuce:<BR/><BR/>Ask a member of the KKK if he would make the same distinction! Ask Christians if they are delusional! You may come to different conclusions then they do. It is a matter of <I>communicating</I> properly, not "observing". Your distinction may work in some school classes, but it doesn't hold much credibility down on the street. The FFRF ad was an example of sloppy use of language and irresponsible.<BR/><BR/>Some academics may have their <I>polite</I> way to put things but once in a while it has to take some side trips into the back alley and ask the guy carrying the gun questions like, "why are you doing this?" If he answers that he thinks every person who isn't white should be killed, then it is <B>correct</B> to say that he killed the people because he is white! In the last century it was condoned in some areas of the world to murder Atheists. If you were to ask the murderers who they were I am certain they wouldn't come up with "religious extremist" in their definition. Unfortunately, you might!antonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02909850387414677663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-6994385187977146512008-09-11T12:11:00.000-06:002008-09-11T12:11:00.000-06:00holyprepuce:"Whiteness and blackness are not belie...holyprepuce:<BR/><BR/><I>"Whiteness and blackness are not belief systems."</I><BR/><BR/>You have got to be kidding! We are not talking about what belief systems <B>should</B> be, but how they are! Or, are you not acquainted with the KKK and other infamous organizations?antonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02909850387414677663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-29779872159244097962008-09-11T08:26:00.000-06:002008-09-11T08:26:00.000-06:00Excellent response to the FFRF advertisement. I wo...Excellent response to the FFRF advertisement. I would add that the hypocrisy "virus" infects its hosts through their earliest impressions. So, in addition to endorsing Alonzo's complaint to the FFRF, I would also ask you to take action when the "virus" shows itself in your daily life.<BR/><BR/>Here is my precise. My city has a high native population. When most white people in my apartment see a drunk native they attempt to ignite their audience into a state of fear with stories of every sin done by natives. However, when they see a drunk "white man", they pass it off with "Oh, he's harmless. He's just drunk!" I go out of my way to make them uncomfortable by reminding them of all the great natives in our community. <BR/><BR/>In a similar way, I deal with those who speak ill of the Atheist. As I turn off the lights, I exclaim, with a smile, "Okay, get your light from your God, I get mine from an Atheist!" If any of your readers use this tactic, please remember to never, never do it with anger no matter how provoked you may be. Do it with a smile! And then leave the room.antonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02909850387414677663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-10966189875996224502008-09-11T07:43:00.000-06:002008-09-11T07:43:00.000-06:00Very lucidly drawn. In popular discourse concerni...Very lucidly drawn. In popular discourse concerning atheism, the most prevalent error in logic is false cause, committed on both sides of the conversation. This needs to be continually discussed until such arguments are easily recognized and dismissed.<BR/><BR/>I'll be contacting the organizations listed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-27706073204694437012008-09-10T23:54:00.000-06:002008-09-10T23:54:00.000-06:00Is it correct to group all Atheists as being a mem...Is it correct to group all Atheists as being a member of a group or association?<BR/>Is it correct to group members of a religion to that religion and that those members are part of, and that the members share special associated responsibility for the actions of members of that group?<BR/>Can we further associate belief systems which characteristics share commonality in structure in requiring the presence of a messiah, god, etc. as having shared responsibility of the members of the group in which this belief system is a member of?<BR/><BR/>Think of a high school which has many cliques, and those which do not participate in clique behavior the loner or outcasts is not responsible for the actions of other loners or outcasts, because the loners or outcasts is not a in fact a group, but members of groups will attach behavioral stigma to those which do not participate in clique behavior.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com