Not at all.
Then why remark on it?
As a tangent to this, the sermon in today’s services was about evolution and Darwin’s birthday. The rabbi held forth on precisely the danger posed by people who claim religion and science are incompatible, in particular the “intelligent design” anti-evolution folks. Our congregation (Conservative, with a dose of Reconstructionist) is one of 900 in North America and around the world participating in a letter stating the view that evolution and God are not incompatible and endorsing real science over creationist pseudo-science. Apparently a fair number of Christian, Muslim, and other communities are participating as well.
Being religious in some way is not synonymous with denying science or endorsing creationism, nor does accepting scientific ideas and principles make one by default non-religious, despite what some of the creationist types seem to imply. Oh, and of course, “religious” does not equal “Christian,” even if it’s understandable that we’re exposed mostly to that segment of the religious spectrum here in the USA.
Just going to lay out what I know about one of the groups that is anti-evolution from some recent reading:
The key component of disbelief in evolution has nothing to do with facts or evidence, really. At some point, some clever guy created the idea that believing in evolution is equivalent to not believing in God. In the Christian communities where the majority of this stuff exists, salvation hangs on belief in God, so believing in evolution means going to hell. This is, for a lot of people, an intense incentive to try really hard to not believe in evolution, by whatever means possible. It also means that teaching evolution to kids is possibly sending them to hell, which leads to more unpleasantness.
Pogo said it in a harsh way, but I’m afraid he’s somewhat correct. If I told anyone today that I seriously and whole heartedly believed in Zeus or Tiamat or Marduk (the god who lives inside of me), you guys would probably think I was pretty silly at best and dumb at worst. To quote Richard Dawkins, we’re all atheists to some degree, some of us just take it one step further. (and what basis do we have to say that Thor doesn’t exist but the Christian God does?)
People who believe in a god are too afraid to not believe. I don’t know why they’re afraid to take the step, I thought it felt really good to have my worldview shattered and come to terms with the realization that my actions are not judged by anyone but the people around me.
What always gets me is how afraid of death people are, and the notion that if you are not afraid of death then you must be suicidal or actively seek it in some way… yet if I truly believed heaven existed then death would seem to be the sweetest thing. There are two things holding someone back there; That wanting to live is the way to heaven or, more crucially, that small spark of reason in the back of their minds trying to convince them that heaven does not exist.
Of course, you’ve already read Dawkins so you know this.
I’ll go ahead and be hypocritical, as always, and say that calling a retarded post retarded without explaining why it’s retarded is retarded.
I see no need to waste time on a deeper response. You get the response you deserve.
What pogo and theborbes are saying comes off to me as the height of arrogance. There are people just as passionate about their belief in a god as you guys are about your unbelief. In my opinion, both sides are not in a position to judge the other. I’ve seen atheists act just as cruel to others as fundamentalist christians. What is it to you to try and “convert” someone to your side? Its proselytizing all the same. Shut up.
I think humanity as a whole is more in a position to judge religion than any other time in history. The more people who do so openly, the better.
Good hyperbole though. “The height of arrogance.” Nice touch.
It’s really not proselytizing, atheism isn’t a different faith and science isn’t a faith either. Neither side may be in the position to judge the other but both sides DO, and you’re naive if you think the religious side gets the brunt of the judgment and punishment. Whatever, I said pogo was harsh so maybe he deserves to be called arrogant, but can you honestly answer my question? What makes one god more likely to exist than another god?
for me? nothing.
and it wasn’t so much you theborbes. sorry about that.
it just bothered me when pogo called theists “retarded”, just as I am bothered by theists who tear down atheists. that type of attitude is part of the problem, not the solution.
I think you meant “uncomfortably, frightfully more passionate.”
Agree.
We have differing perspectives on relative cruelty.
Good one.
I was going to comment on what Cubit’s definition of “cruel” was, but I can’t help but feel that this has probably been gone over countless times on Qt3, and that responding more would just be rehash.
Yeah, substitute “judgmental” or “hateful” and you would see what I was getting at. “cruel” might not have been the right word, although I look at the two attitudes above as cruel.
If it troubles you to have atheism called “a faith”, I take it that what Cubit means also could be covered by “creed”, “credo”, or “doctrine”. I mean, atheists don’t do “faith”, right?
Perhaps your scorn for believers has been earned but either way, you aren’t asking people to believe something else: you (or people who share Pogo’s phrasing, more precisely) are both attacking their core beliefs and belittling their intelligence in one fell swoop. One can’t expect people to take to that kindly.
Additionally, the zeigiest in America today isn’t exactly one that punishes unbelief and rewards faith. Pop culture isn’t heaping “Jesus Camp” levels of scorn of those who don’t believe.
Personally, I don’t care what people believe, or if they do or don’t. I was never one of those people who required the validation of proselytizing. Calling other people “retarded” for believing or not believing sucks, though. Just as Christians standing on street corners shouting that non-believers are going to Hell, atheists in forums calling believers “retards” (an offensive term in its own right) won’t gather any goodwill for your cause, either.
For the record, rhinohelix, it is not an insult to imply that someone is entitled to dress like a cowboy superhero, refrain from working at a serious job, and throw lamps out windows without fear of reprisal or arrest. Sure, it’s a not as big a compliment as, “rock star,” which implies that you can do all the aforementioned activities and still get laid, even if you just shit your pants, but that doesn’t make your word an insult. If your word is an insult, then “millionaire,” may as well be an insult, since there is such a thing as a billionaire.
I’m all about Audumla and the cosmic salt-lick, but I don’t get mad when people make light of my beliefs, because I just make pudding from their knucklebones.
What about calling believers “stuck in a primitive mode of consciousness?” That’s about the most polite description that’s still accurate…
Your post is comedy gold but are you seriously going to argue about the offensiveness of the term “retard”? Or “Retarded”? Don’t make me call in a rolleyes big enough to cover the stupid in here. I know that my username causes flames to partially blind those who deign to read my posts but this is way off the ranch.
Hey, that works great, and by that I mean makes you sound like an airheaded hippie but whatever. “Retard” is a considered epithet among parents of special needs children. Surely amongst the myriad of slurs and insults thrown around in here for disagreeing with the hive mind, you guys could fall back on “stupid” “idiot” “mouthbreather” “cretin” “redneck”, etc. I mean, take your pick, the lower orders await.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but this struck me as an odd comment. What does the level of passion or intensity of a belief have to do with the rightness of that belief, or whether or not it should be immune from criticism or attack?
I have no doubt that you’re entirely correct, inasmuch as you’ve seen both cruel atheists and Christians. However, in attempting to create an equivalency between the two, you seem to overlook the fact that Christianity has, for quite some time, held a privileged position in American society, in terms of influencing politics and the creation of laws. That is to say, historically, Christianity has been virtually a pre-requisite for holding any significant public office, and many laws have been passed seeking to enforce biblical regulations and dictates, such as prohibitions against sodomy and gay marriage. Indeed, that influence extends even down to various school boards attempting to introduce biblical creationism or intelligent design as a factual element of science education. If an Atheist sees that undue political influence as harmful to American society, or to themselves personally, is it really irrational or arrogant of them to speak against the source?
Just some food for thought.