Atheists becoming more vocal and outspoken

[DrZoidberg]

Even if you are correct that it was “extremely secular” then at least *part* of it has religious roots to it. I do not know the secular history, only know (or am pretty damn sure) that Allah is not real and the Koran is not divinely inspired. If I can help at all in reducing the influence of mythology in promoting acts of violence, injustice, and destruction, then I will do so.

Allah had nothing to do with motivating 9/11 nor the Quran. Osama bin Laden was sick of American (ie fascist) meddling in Africa and the Middle-East. USA wasn't making life better for anybody over there. This would have been true regardless of the identity of the group Osama bin Laden was the leader for. Remember the the two belligerents of the Cold War was nominally, capitalism against communism/socialism. The Muslims weren't even in the fight. Yet, got to pay a high price for it. No, shit they were angry with USA.

Blaming 9/11 on Islam is a ruse. It's American propaganda. It's a story they tell themselves so they don't have to feel shame about American transgressions around the world. It's a simplistic good vs evil dichotomy that's easy for American voters to swallow.

French, British and American meddling in the Middle-East has been very heavy handed, extremely racist and mostly just led to misery and more problems for them. To the Arabs, they can't really tell the French, Brits and Americans apart. For them its same-same. And USA is continuing policies the French and British initiated. Initially intended to break apart the Ottoman empire. Which created a god awful mess, and Arab animosity, that gave an opening to the USSR which USA tried battling. USA doesn't seem to understand the background behind Arab and Persian hate, which leads to them blundering into situations they don't understand. And suffer the illusion that the Arabs hate USA because of their freedom and democracy.

The reason behind Arab hate of the western powers is very rational and highly secular. And they also happen to be Muslim.

If you think 9/11 was the result of religious brainwashing, then perhaps you are the one who has been brainwashed?

There are multiple factors that contributed to the event, some being political, some religious. I never claimed it was entirely religious belief that provoked it, only that it was a contributing factor. Again, I do not know how to resolve the political tensions behind it, I only know that people justifying their acts of terror by sourcing their religious mythologies is not something that we should accept, and I can and will do something about that.

How was religion a contributing factor behind 9/11? I'd argue that Islam was pretty irrelevant as far as 9/11 goes. Osama bin Laden even explained it in a video. Just to make sure there was no confusion about this:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xzxzls

The resistance to gay marriage is a price they feel they need to pay to get God. They see it as a package deal. They will only abandon God if they are given an alternative method to reach the same spiritual calm and grounding. Unless your focus is on that, you will fail.

Why not do both? Both openly criticize the religious underpinnings of their resistance and also offer an alternative? You say to “focus” on one aspect, as if we should just not concern ourselves with the others. We can do both.

I think one is counter productive and the other gets you what you want. I think, "don't be a dick" is a good maxim to follow. Pointing out that God isn't real, while not offering an alternative is being a dick. It's like spoiling a movie or telling your younger brother what's in the package before Christmas.

While American resistance to gay marriage sounds like a great evil. Don't forget that the same society created gay liberation and gay pride. For better or for worse, Americans feel empowered. No matter what they believe, or how stupid they are. This has nothing to do with religion.

DrZoidBerg, when people cite Bible verses as rationalizations for the political views, and views on what rights LGBTQ should and should not have, it is plain-as-day erroneous to then say their resistance has “nothing to do with religion.” Each side will cherry-pick around their religious text and religious views to support their support of, or opposition to, gay rights. What I have been arguing is that we should not accept those religious materials to be the arbiters and authorities in the first place. It should be entirely irrelevant.

I'm not saying that their resistance has nothing to do with religion. Stop putting words in my mouth and projecting stuff onto me I never said. I agree that it has everything to do with religion. If you want them to stop hating gays, they need a spiritual institution that fills the same function as their religion. Secular institutions who don't have gay hate as one of their pillars. Some people just love being part of communities.

________________________________________________

Religion is a cause of, and a symptom of, other problems. The human mind does not process information in a linear fashion, instead it is an interconnected network of various influences. There is no *one* single root problem that we should focus all our attention on because that is the one-and-only cause of all the other problems, instead we need to address all of them to varying extents because they all reinforce each other.

That paragraph is important, please re-read and do not mistakenly think there is a single “core belief” they hold that fuels all other beliefs. Instead, they have many “core beliefs” that all solidify each other. If we only focus on one and ignore the others, then we will not be as effective in resolving the numerous problems they generate.

________________________________________________

I agree. Religion is a diverse collection of behaviours, rules and rituals. Most of which are beneficial and great. Only some of which are negative. The problem with religion is that they're package deals. They don't have to be. But that's the tradition today.

Solution, start secular organisations that do the same thing.

That is part of the solution, not the entirety of it. Atheists should also be more proactive in openly criticizing of bad beliefs. I think it was Sam Harris who coined the term “conversational intolerance” to describe this aspect. When we are having conversations with people who are espousing bad beliefs and bad justifications for those beliefs, we should openly challenge them. They may have never critically thought about those beliefs, because they were never put on the spot to do so. That may lead to them thinking in more depth about a wide variety of beliefs they hold but never had any reason to question.

Meh... religions are stupid. To get people to jump ship is easy as hell. If you have a viable alternative. One thing established religions have going for them is that they are robust.

What killed religion in Scandinavian was socialism. Because socialistic institutions filled the same function. Killed religion very quickly, and permanently. Socialism seems pretty dead today though. It had a good run. But lasted 150-200 years tops. Zoroastrianism is 4000 years old. Hinduism is 3500 years old. Both are still going strong today. Whatever you come up with needs to be able to have that kind of staying power. Since the source of our spiritual nourishment has to be something we trust and can turn to in time of needs, it has to be something robust that we know will stick around.

BTW, Sam Harris gets this. He's a very deep thinker. He's balls deep in the spiritual community.

This is how religion was destroyed in Scandinavia. When socialism was first introduced into these parts, ca 1860, socialist agitators and socialist clubs would exactly mirror each religious institution and function. Step by step replacing religion and eventually making religion obsolete. 1940 100% of Swedes went to church each Sunday. By 1960 less than 10% of Swedes went to church and most importantly nobody talked about God or religion. By 1980 nobody who used to go to church when they were young remembered why they once went to church. By 2000 nearly all the once religious people were dead and nobody was around to answer why anybody ever went to church or believed in God.

Great. Let’s also try to do it faster though. Given the climate crises, we may not have all those decades to spare. Inaction on climate change is driven *in part by* (not entirely by) religious beliefs that God would never let the Earth come to such harm.

Also in the meantime, if we were to wait around for decades for religious beliefs to passively phase itself out, people and other organisms will suffer because of it. We could have done more and done it more rapidly, but we instead decided that it is okay for everyone to suffer a bit, to be legally discriminated against, to experience trauma from religious indoctrination, to feel emotional isolation and suffering from doubting their religious beliefs, etc. All of that is a small price to pay, as long as we do not criticize religious beliefs openly. I hope you would be better than that.

Sure, religion is dying by itself. But it's replaced by consumerism. Which is worse for the environment. So not really an option. We need to come up with something better than that.

Just pointing out that God isn't real and just a figment of their imagination is going to fail.

It has never been my position that “just pointing out…” is what I am advocating. This is a flagrant strawman. What I have repeatedly been saying is that that is one necessary component, among other necessary components. We need to be openly critical of religious beliefs and expose the flaws in them, ***while also*** promoting other worldviews that do not suffer from those same flaws and are superior, more useful to our world, and more fulfilling.

So what are the other components? All you're talking about are beliefs. Religions aren't systems of belief only. They are practices. A religion isn't primarily something you believe. It's something you do. What should they do instead that fulfils them in the same way?

…is there any hypothetical injustice or disaster fueled in large part by religion---no matter how outlandish it seems---that would get you to reconsider and even wish you had been more active, when you had the chance, to stop that injustice or disaster? Anything that would make you think it was worth having a few uncomfortable conversations with friends, if it resulted in saving and improving the lives of others? Or would the "As long as they are not imposing on me then I don't care" attitude always remain prevalent, no matter what?

I am active. I'm on the same crusade as you are. Since 2012 I've been active in secular or naturalistic spirituality. I've been part of starting or joining a bunch of secular spiritual communities in Stockholm. But then I moved to Copenhagen. So now I'm more a participant than organiser.

I'm of course coming at this from another direction. I'm doing it in a society where religion is dead. This has led to spiritual poverty. We need to bring those practices back to Scandinavia IMHO. But of course an atheistic version of it.

The strategy that you are “sure” wouldn’t work, I agree would not work. It never was my position that just being critical of religious beliefs would be enough to get our crises resolved. It is one very important piece of the puzzle though. You are right that we need to offer alternative views that will be more appealing to people, and that satisfy them in similar ways psychologically that religious beliefs do. Where you keep saying that we need to “focus” on the latter, I am saying we need to focus on *both.* Not just one or the other, but *both.*

Not alternative views. I think that's an unhelpful way to see it. A religion isn't just a view. Perhaps a view of life, or an attitude about life. But it's not just a faith. Religion is primarily an activity.

You keep talking about religion as if it's just a belief. I think it's the wrong way to look at it. Sports is a type of religion. It has all the trappings of it. What it doesn't have are teachings or moral precepts. But those aren't central to religion, nor necessary. You can have a religion without any of that. And considering the popularity of sports, I think that's all the proof we need for that it works.

Or to put it another way. A guy alone at home with a Bible who believes in God isn't really doing Christianity. He's driving a car that only has one working wheel. That guy is easy as hell to poach if you have a viable alternative.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Believe me when I tell you that atheists have been trying for many decades to start secular groups. Atlanta Freethought Society has been around for at least thirty or more years, but it's still a rather small group of people that get together to listen to a lecture once a month and then share lunch. At times they tried to do some charity work, but there was never much participation. We have a small group in my small city that gets together once a month for dinner. People come and go and never tell us why they don't come back. Only a small number of us have been members since 2009 when the group started. Atheists really are like cats when it comes to trying to herd them. We just don't do the organized group thing very well, although we do like to get together and talk for hours.

I was a member of a Humanist group in Atlanta for many years. Over the years, the group became smaller as people died off, left the area or lost interest, so we finally disbanded and donated what we had left to the Atlanta Freethought Society. I was a member of that group for years too. I was treasurer of the Humanist group for three years and it was close to impossible to get enough money to pay our meager expenses. How do you think we can change this, when atheists have so little in common, other than enjoying talking a lot and discussing almost anything under the sun? I'm serious. It's been tried so many times with such little success, plus most of the groups I've joined are primarily made up of nerdy white people, with one or two token minority members. Then there is a group of black nonbelievers in Atlanta. They say they welcome white people but my guess is they have few if any white members. I've met the leader and she's a good speaker, but again, my impression is the group primarily enjoys socializing. And, just like the mostly white group, the black nonbelievers seem to be very educated, thoughtful people. That's a good thing but it won't change the rest of the world.

Where is the diversity in the atheist community? What do we have to offer the poor? What about people who aren't educated or who don't have the intelligence to understand complex things? What if their religion is the only thing that gives them joy? Religion gives them hope, often charity. We agree that it's false hope but to them it seems real and it gives their lives meaning and an emotional outlet. They are so organized because they have some common mythologies, which allows them to find their own in-group. I see no reason to expect this to change. I'm not even sure it's desirable. The fundamentalist groups are slowly dying out. That's a good thing, but I see no harm in the more liberal, tolerant branches of religion.

I like my atheist friends and I like my Christian friends. I see no benefit to try and force any of them to change. I'm not trying to be difficult. It's just what I see based on my years of experience.

While I realize you are trying to promote positive change, I don't agree with your method or feel it would be effective. As usual the cats can't be herded.

In 2012 I was sitting with a couple of friends in a kitchen in Stockholm talking about Alain de Botton's Atheism 2.0 video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oe6HUgrRlQ

We decided to start a religion for atheists. It's gone very well. Today we have temples in several cities. We call them "nodes". Don't ask me why. I don't remember how that happened. It just became a thing. We call it Syntheism, because it's a synthesis or theism and atheism, ie religion without god.

https://www.noden.community/

http://syntheism.org/

The Node in Stockholm is now huge and a permanent and well funded place. I used to have a number on how many were active Syntheists. But I don't now. It's so many partially affiliated that hang out there that's it's all a bit unclear who identifies as it and who hangs out there. I remember at a meeting we were discussing things and an American girl loudly proclaimed that she's a Christian and she thinks what we're doing is wrong. But at that point she'd been coming there regularly for years taking part in everything. I thought that was funny anyway.

There's activity rooms where we have workshops, every day. Everything from yoga, to music workshops, concerts, tantric courses, shibari courses, parties, banquets, building workshops, lectures by scientists, and so on. A diversity of activities. Even ayahuasca excursions.

Here's our beliefs:
http://syntheism.org/index.php/2013/06/hello-im-a-syntheist-this-is-what-i-believe/

We have festival each year that's become massive. Thousands of people.

http://theborderland.se/

At this point the Syntheist tent is just the biggest central tent and we have the same activities there as we have in the Stockholm Node. But there's so much going on at the festival now that today it's easy to miss it entirely. I've met many people there who have never heard of Syntheism. We never mention Syntheism at the festival though. There's no symbols up or preaching. But this is not a publicly advertised festival. We make no advertising for it at all. They can only hear about it, or buy tickets, through Syntheist channels. Still a lot of people miss this fact about the festival. I find that encouraging. Because it's the movement that matters to me. Not branding.

In a wider context, it's a movement that has exploded with extreme rapidity. It's also organised bottom up. There's no leadership or anybody telling anyone what to do. That's by design. Also non-profit.

As I said earlier, the epicentre of this is Stockholm, and I've moved to Copenhagen. The 70'ies hippie-movement never quite died out here. So there's not the same hole in the market for it. Syntheism is active here as well, but has blended pretty seamlessly with the hippies. So I've taken a back-seat now. Not active in any other capacity than as a participant.

But in general, we're not unique. I know similar, non-related to us, movements on every continent. It's a movement that is absolutely exploding everywhere among the young today. I see it as having gained such a momentum it's unstoppable now. It's clearly the Zeitgeist.

Anyhoo... I think the death of theism in the west is near now. I mean... I think it's already dead. God today has mostly been replaced by the worship of money, status and superficial shit. At that point, the religion is already dead. Only the trappings are left.

Karen Armstrong, in her book, the Battle for God, points out that societies become militantly religious before an upheaval that completely reforms the religion. And that's why Evangelical Christians in USA are so damn unreasonable. ToE and gay marriage. They're just trying to convince themselves. If they truly had faith in their God, they'd be more relaxed and laid back about it. People who truly believe in the superiority of something don't need to fight for it. They're confident that it will win anyway.

I feel the same about secular/atheistic religion today. It exists and I'm sure it will take over. Not Syntheism specifically. I believe that the age of hierarchical top-down religions with fixed symbols and tents are dead. It doesn't fit our rapidly changing world. Which means that it's best to be the member of several religions. Have a smorgasbord attitude to religion. After all, there's no God to punish you if you get it wrong.

Anyhoo, I'm pretty confident this is the recipe with which to do it. Only because I tried it, and it works. It has worked great actually.

 

[Brian63]

Allah had nothing to do with motivating 9/11 nor the Quran.

Let’s take a look at some of the words of the hijackers themselves, who apparently viewed it differently:

https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/Parameters/articles/02autumn/kibble.pdf

“You should pray, you should fast. You should ask God for guidance,you should ask God for help....Continue to recite the [Koran]. Purify your heart and clean it from all earthly matters.” So read the hand-written instructions to the hijackers who carried out their suicide missions by flying into the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon on 11 September 2001. Their task was perceived as a religious one. The instructions continued: “The time of fun and waste has gone. Parameters
The time of judgment has arrived....You will be entering paradise. You will be entering the happiest life, everlasting life.”

Their religious beliefs played a significant role in them feeling justified and confident in carrying out their terror attack. You may be 100% completely correct about the varying political influences that *also* played a role (I certainly do not know Middle East politics well myself), but it is plain to see that religious beliefs played a role in inspiring and justifying the attacks in the minds of the people who executed them. It was not just one factor---not just religion and not just politics. *Both* of them had some influence on the attack that day.

The reason behind Arab hate of the western powers is very rational and highly secular. And they also happen to be Muslim.

No, it is not just a coincidence that they happen to be Muslim. They found inspiration and justification for their attacks, *in part*, by their Muslim theologies. See their own words quoted above for what partly rationalized it in their minds .

I think, "don't be a dick" is a good maxim to follow.

Agreed. Since nobody was advocating being a dick though, this is another strawman that you are projecting onto me and beating up, while ignoring my actual position.

Pointing out that God isn't real, while not offering an alternative is being a dick.

Who has been advocating for “not offering an alternative?”

I have multiple times now, using highlighted words so that it would be easier to not miss, advocated that we should engage in both. Be critical of inferior and harmful beliefs and also advocating superior and healthier beliefs. Not just one and not just the other---do both.





Earlier you say:

While American resistance to gay marriage sounds like a great evil. Don't forget that the same society created gay liberation and gay pride. For better or for worse, Americans feel empowered. No matter what they believe, or how stupid they are. This has nothing to do with religion.

(emphasis added)

Now you say:

I'm not saying that their resistance has nothing to do with religion. Stop putting words in my mouth and projecting stuff onto me I never said. I agree that it has everything to do with religion.

Holy hypocrisy. Or stop being a dick, to borrow your phrasing. You said it “has nothing to do with religion” and now you are saying that it “has everything to do with religion.”

If you change your position on an issue, that is fine. That is actually great. It is a strength to be able to do adapt to new data and new analysis. Just do not pretend that you can say one thing, then say the exact opposite, and deny saying what you publicly wrote just prior. It comes across as desperate and flailing and weak. We all make mistakes, it is okay to admit to specific ones.

Meh... religions are stupid. To get people to jump ship is easy as hell. If you have a viable alternative.

No, that is very wrong. It is still difficult to get people to change their religious beliefs. There are transaction costs and transition costs for changing our beliefs. Our brains do not like to change their core beliefs, to have to erase their past experiences as is, and reinterpret them and draw different conclusions than the already-established ones. They are hardwired to be stubborn and resistant to such changes.

As the psychologist’s article linked to earlier notes about the brain’s tendencies:

"It is extremely reticent to jettison its beliefs. Like an old soldier with an old gun who does not quite trust that the war is really over, the brain often refuses to surrender its weapon even though the data say it should."

---as well:

"…skeptics must always appreciate how hard it is for people to have their beliefs challenged. It is, quite literally, a threat to their brain’s sense of survival. It is entirely normal for people to be defensive in such situations. The brain feels it is fighting for its life."

Sure, religion is dying by itself.

Let’s help it along even more. Not just sit by on the sidelines waiting for it, while millions of people suffer much more in the meantime. All because we thought we were being “dicks” for being willing to discuss taboo topics like religion in open, and not having the courage to publicly criticize bad beliefs out of a fear of “religious correctness.”’

A religion isn't primarily something you believe. It's something you do.

It is both something you believe and something you do. The beliefs and the behaviors reinforce and enhance and amplify and strengthen each other, in a positive-feedback loop.

What should they do instead that fulfils them in the same way?

Alternatives like freethinking and wanting to learn about the world around us more. When I started exploring atheism more, I was thrilled to develop a worldview that finally started making more sense than what I was indoctrinated into. Learning about basic philosophy and how science works, how life evolved to develop certain characteristics, and how those impacted other aspects of the world around us like our ethical choices, our political tendencies, our psychological biases, how we medically treat people and animals for life illnesses that they suffer from. Basically, learning about how the world and universe work, and then how we should respond to that in our own activities and choices. That process was thrilling for me. It was not enough though to just show that my Catholic beliefs I had been indoctrinated into were wrong, and it was not enough to just show that other secular methods of living benefitted other people. Both approaches needed to be adopted, not just one or the other. Because of people being (rightly) critical of my view, I had to eventually acknowledge that my existing worldview contained various flaws and inconsistencies and inferiorities, while also realizing that a particular other worldview did not suffer from those problems. So it created a desire in me to make the transition, the transaction, from worldview A to worldview B. It was not enough to show that worldview B was good for another person who held it, I had to be shown that it would (likely) be better for me too, and in my own self-interest to adopt it.

You keep talking about religion as if it's just a belief.

Another strawman. Please see above. I explicitly state:

“It is both something you believe and something you do. The beliefs and the behaviors reinforce and enhance and amplify and strengthen each other, in a positive-feedback loop.”

Similar sentiments have been made throughout this thread already. You keep beating up strawmen though, while avoiding my actual positions.

I think it's the wrong way to look at it.

So do I. Let’s not dwell on that irrelevant red herring then. Stop attributing that strawman position to me, and then we can move on to more relevant matters.

 

[Brian63]

In an earlier post there was a brief exchange with DrZoidberg and me:

If you only focus on the belief in God,…

Who ever advocated (I certainly never did) that we should “only focus on the belief in God?” Please provide the exact quote and exact reference. If you cannot find it, please at least retract this strawman you are arguing against, repeatedly.

Note that DrZoidberg never cited any quote or reference for me actually espousing that view, and also never retracted the strawman or acknowledged the error.

If DrZoidberg wants to keep beating up strawmen while ignoring my actual positions, I cannot stop him. I will expose him though. This post will serve as one demonstration to the viewers of these red herring and strawman game tactics. It will continue to be posted again each time he continues to argue against the same strawmen.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Let’s take a look at some of the words of the hijackers themselves, who apparently viewed it differently:

https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/Parameters/articles/02autumn/kibble.pdf

You are confusing "religion" with "nation". Under the Ottomans the Muslim world (except Indonesia and Iran) was all part of one single empire. The Caliphate. Or what Osama bin Laden calls the "Umma". The western powers broke apart the Ottoman empire, with the expressed purpose of making the Islamic world shattered and weak. A project that went very well indeed. It was part racism, and partly that the Ottomans were traditionally allied to Germany and the Austrian-Hungarians, and the western powers wanted to make the Central powers weak.

This all happened!!! And the Muslim world today are responding to this! And only this. Arab hate of the west isn't based on a blind faith in a savage God. It's all well justified for secular reason.

Every society has stories that they tell themselves. Myths that explain how they became what they are. In the modern Islamic world the story is that they were shaped in opposition to colonialism, and only the power of Islam pushed out the Christian invaders. This is of course bullshit. The western power defeated themselves with two world wars. Which led to the colonial holdings just folding like a lawn chair, creating a godawful mess in it's wake. But that story doesn't exactly glorify the Arabs. Nobody wants to be a piece of bark floating in the sea of change. We want to be in control of our destiny. So that is the story the Muslim Arabs tell themselves. That has become their primary story right now, which explains things like ISIS.

If you want to tie 9/11 to Islam you need to find religious reasons for it. Reasons found in the Quran. Tip, there are none. The Quran goes on and on about the importance of forgiving your enemies and live in peace. War can only be justified in some special circumstances. Aka... just bloody obvious common sense. 9/11 is just real politik.

Osama bin Laden was motivated by Islam the same way Hitler was motivated by the Bible. Hitler at least said he was. Which is more than bin Laden did.

Their religious beliefs played a significant role in them feeling justified and confident in carrying out their terror attack. You may be 100% completely correct about the varying political influences that *also* played a role (I certainly do not know Middle East politics well myself), but it is plain to see that religious beliefs played a role in inspiring and justifying the attacks in the minds of the people who executed them. It was not just one factor---not just religion and not just politics. *Both* of them had some influence on the attack that day.

The reason behind Arab hate of the western powers is very rational and highly secular. And they also happen to be Muslim.

No, it is not just a coincidence that they happen to be Muslim. They found inspiration and justification for their attacks, *in part*, by their Muslim theologies. See their own words quoted above for what partly rationalized it in their minds .

If you keep telling yourself this you will never understand Islam or the Islamic world.

I suggest reading up on the Muslim Brotherhood. It's an Islamic fascist movement that has become extremely influential in the Muslim world. Also in the West. They're basically Arab Nazis, and are popular among the Arabs for the same reason white people liked Hitler.

I have multiple times now, using highlighted words so that it would be easier to not miss, advocated that we should engage in both. Be critical of inferior and harmful beliefs and also advocating superior and healthier beliefs. Not just one and not just the other---do both.

But you're not. The only alternatives you are providing are other things to believe. While I keep stressing that religion isn't primarily about beliefs. It's about community and shared rituals. Their beliefs is just a side effect of their spiritual and community work. It's not the central part.

To make it clear to you that you are in fact ONLY talking about beliefs, I highlighted it in your quote above.

I think it's just as simple as you not understanding what I'm talking about... at all. You're far out into the woods. And you keep defending other things that you think I'm arguing against you for. That's why you keep repeating yourself, while all the time missing the target.

Earlier you say:

While American resistance to gay marriage sounds like a great evil. Don't forget that the same society created gay liberation and gay pride. For better or for worse, Americans feel empowered. No matter what they believe, or how stupid they are. This has nothing to do with religion.

(emphasis added)

Now you say:

I'm not saying that their resistance has nothing to do with religion. Stop putting words in my mouth and projecting stuff onto me I never said. I agree that it has everything to do with religion.

Holy hypocrisy. Or stop being a dick, to borrow your phrasing. You said it “has nothing to do with religion” and now you are saying that it “has everything to do with religion.”

If you change your position on an issue, that is fine. That is actually great. It is a strength to be able to do adapt to new data and new analysis. Just do not pretend that you can say one thing, then say the exact opposite, and deny saying what you publicly wrote just prior. It comes across as desperate and flailing and weak. We all make mistakes, it is okay to admit to specific ones.

What? How about reading that again? I can't see where I change my mind. Perhaps, try reading it more carefully.

Again... I think you've fundamentally misunderstood what I'm trying to say.

Meh... religions are stupid. To get people to jump ship is easy as hell. If you have a viable alternative.

No, that is very wrong. It is still difficult to get people to change their religious beliefs. There are transaction costs and transition costs for changing our beliefs. Our brains do not like to change their core beliefs, to have to erase their past experiences as is, and reinterpret them and draw different conclusions than the already-established ones. They are hardwired to be stubborn and resistant to such changes.

As the psychologist’s article linked to earlier notes about the brain’s tendencies:

"It is extremely reticent to jettison its beliefs. Like an old soldier with an old gun who does not quite trust that the war is really over, the brain often refuses to surrender its weapon even though the data say it should."

---as well:

"…skeptics must always appreciate how hard it is for people to have their beliefs challenged. It is, quite literally, a threat to their brain’s sense of survival. It is entirely normal for people to be defensive in such situations. The brain feels it is fighting for its life."

That's why I keep repeating, and you keep not hearing, what a waste of time it is to attack religious beliefs. Because it is hard to challenge religious beliefs... DON'T. Since religion is a large system of practices, none dependent on belief of any kind, there's nothing preventing you from copying the religious structure, to create an alternative that provides the same thing and just skipping beliefs entirely. That's what a yoga studio is. Or a sports support club.

I think attacking religious beliefs is a fruitless exercise. You'll just make religious people dig their heels in deeper.

Once theists have found other practices that fulfil the same role religion did, they'll eventually forget why they were Christian to begin with. At that point it will be easy, because they won't need belief in God for their spiritual sustenance. This is what happened in Sweden.

I explained how Sweden became atheistic. Here's the next example. The Czech Republic:

After the 30 years war the country that became the Czech republic (Bohemia) was thrown back and forward between Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodox Christianity. It was right on the border between these three. Religion is supposed to create unity between people. In Bohemia it only created civil strife. To avoid getting caught up in the next round of executions it was best not to talk about religion at all. This went on for centuries. Beer halls replaced churches. And a collection of secular alternatives. Like sports. When the communists showed up after WW2 religion was already long dead. When the priests were removed the Czechs didn't mind and quickly forgot why they'd ever gone to church. After the communists disappeared religion did not come back. Not like in Poland, where the Catholic church really has provided unity. And was the vehicle with which the yoke of communism was thrown off.

Sure, religion is dying by itself.

Let’s help it along even more. Not just sit by on the sidelines waiting for it, while millions of people suffer much more in the meantime. All because we thought we were being “dicks” for being willing to discuss taboo topics like religion in open, and not having the courage to publicly criticize bad beliefs out of a fear of “religious correctness.”’

Now, you're talking. So what's your plan?

A religion isn't primarily something you believe. It's something you do.

It is both something you believe and something you do. The beliefs and the behaviors reinforce and enhance and amplify and strengthen each other, in a positive-feedback loop.

No, it's not. In Christianity its both. In Islam it's both. Not in any other religion. That means that the beliefs are irrelevant to religion. And since beliefs are hard to change, ignore it. Focus on the easy stuff, creating communities and shared activities. Help give people meaning by activating them together.

Monotheism is a recent upstart among religions. They've only been around 2000 years. It's also the world's most shallow and dumb religions ever devised.

What should they do instead that fulfils them in the same way?

Alternatives like freethinking and wanting to learn about the world around us more. When I started exploring atheism more, I was thrilled to develop a worldview that finally started making more sense than what I was indoctrinated into. Learning about basic philosophy and how science works, how life evolved to develop certain characteristics, and how those impacted other aspects of the world around us like our ethical choices, our political tendencies, our psychological biases, how we medically treat people and animals for life illnesses that they suffer from. Basically, learning about how the world and universe work, and then how we should respond to that in our own activities and choices. That process was thrilling for me. It was not enough though to just show that my Catholic beliefs I had been indoctrinated into were wrong, and it was not enough to just show that other secular methods of living benefitted other people. Both approaches needed to be adopted, not just one or the other. Because of people being (rightly) critical of my view, I had to eventually acknowledge that my existing worldview contained various flaws and inconsistencies and inferiorities, while also realizing that a particular other worldview did not suffer from those problems. So it created a desire in me to make the transition, the transaction, from worldview A to worldview B. It was not enough to show that worldview B was good for another person who held it, I had to be shown that it would (likely) be better for me too, and in my own self-interest to adopt it.

You're still ONLY talking about beliefs. Most people aren't intellectual. All the above can only appeal to intellectual people. Most Christians are completely uninterested in anything intellectual. I mean... obviously. They must have skimmed a lot of the Bible if they read that shit and stayed Christian.

Religion isn't primarily an intellectual activity. The evidence is all the dumb shit religious people say. So don't make the alternative to religion about beliefs... at all.

You keep talking about religion as if it's just a belief.

Another strawman. Please see above. I explicitly state:

“It is both something you believe and something you do. The beliefs and the behaviors reinforce and enhance and amplify and strengthen each other, in a positive-feedback loop.”

Similar sentiments have been made throughout this thread already. You keep beating up strawmen though, while avoiding my actual positions.

I think it's the wrong way to look at it.

So do I. Let’s not dwell on that irrelevant red herring then. Stop attributing that strawman position to me, and then we can move on to more relevant matters.

Prove it. Name something you think is a movement that might pry people away from religion that isn't about beliefs?

 

[DrZoidberg]

In an earlier post there was a brief exchange with DrZoidberg and me:

If you only focus on the belief in God,…

Who ever advocated (I certainly never did) that we should “only focus on the belief in God?” Please provide the exact quote and exact reference. If you cannot find it, please at least retract this strawman you are arguing against, repeatedly.

Note that DrZoidberg never cited any quote or reference for me actually espousing that view, and also never retracted the strawman or acknowledged the error.

If DrZoidberg wants to keep beating up strawmen while ignoring my actual positions, I cannot stop him. I will expose him though. This post will serve as one demonstration to the viewers of these red herring and strawman game tactics. It will continue to be posted again each time he continues to argue against the same strawmen.

This isn't a competition. We're allies fighting the same fight and have the same goal. I have no reason to introduce straw men. Nor be dishonest. Nor try to win the argument.

So I suggest dropping the contrarian stance. I'm not contrary to you. Our problem... I think... is ONLY that we are talking past each other. My only goal is that you start understanding what I'm actually saying.

Spiritual work requires zero prior beliefs. Meditation, aka sitting down and keeping your trap shut, is possible and beneficial no matter your metaphysical ideas.That's what I mean when I say that religion is an activity rather than belief system. In the west we're so steeped in Christianity we've forgotten how normal religions work.

 

[Brian63]

You are confusing "religion" with "nation".

You are throwing up strawmen and shooting at them, while missing my actual point. Regardless of how much you talk about the political influences of the 9/11 attack (which I completely acknowledge were one of the contributing factors, but not the only one), if you actually re-read the words of the terrorists themselves you will see that they felt empowered in part to carry out that act by their religious views. Here are their own words again:

https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/Parameters/articles/02autumn/kibble.pdf

“You should pray, you should fast. You should ask God for guidance,you should ask God for help....Continue to recite the [Koran]. Purify your heart and clean it from all earthly matters.” So read the hand-written instructions to the hijackers who carried out their suicide missions by flying into the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon on 11 September 2001. Their task was perceived as a religious one. The instructions continued: “The time of fun and waste has gone. Parameters
The time of judgment has arrived....You will be entering paradise. You will be entering the happiest life, everlasting life.”

I keep stressing that religion isn't primarily about beliefs. It's about community and shared rituals.

I keep stressing that you wrong, and that it is about both to a very significant degree. Those 2 components of their worldview and lifestyle feed and sustain each other, and protect each other from external harm (or other challenging worldviews). We cannot focus on just one and avoid the other, if we expect to make significant progress.





In reference to DrZoidberg’s description of American resistance to gay marriage, he first says:

This has nothing to do with religion.

(emphasis added)

Then later he says:

I'm not saying that their resistance has nothing to do with religion….I agree that it has everything to do with religion.

Now he says:

I can't see where I change my mind. Perhaps, try reading it more carefully.

Perhaps you should try thinking and writing more coherently.




Let’s look at another contradiction between 2 statements put out by DrZoidberg:

First he says:

...religions are stupid. To get people to jump ship is easy as hell. If you have a viable alternative.

Then later he says:

Because it is hard to challenge religious beliefs... DON'T.

So is it easy or hard to challenge them? You are inconsistent and self-contradictory and confused about it.

I think attacking religious beliefs is a fruitless exercise. You'll just make religious people dig their heels in deeper.

In the last ~20 years I have been involved in atheist activism, I have encountered countless people who have had the exact opposite reaction than the one you predict. They adopted more liberal and secular views after their fundamentalist religious views were challenged and questioned. This statement of yours is flat-out wrong, even though you may be entirely convinced you are right.

It was a gradual and painful process oftentimes, but when the people started to realize that there was some flaw or deficiency in their current worldview and could not continue living with it as-is, they became more open and flexible to seeking alternative worldviews which did not have the same flaws and deficiencies, and were actually more logical and superior.

…since beliefs are hard to change, ignore it.

Just above you wrote the opposite. You said, and I quote:

...religions are stupid. To get people to jump ship is easy as hell. If you have a viable alternative.

You are very confused about how beliefs function. Investigate it further. Read up on some neuropsychology, evolutionary history of how our brains evolved and why they function the way they do. It is a really interesting field.

You're still ONLY talking about beliefs.

Actually I have been talking about more than that. Our beliefs about the world influence what choices we make, what lifestyle we adopt, how we interact with others in our own communities. The same applies to all the individual members of the communities, so that their cultures and values and choices and beliefs as well influence each other. No, I am not talking about “ONLY” beliefs. I am talking about the bigger picture, of how beliefs impact the state of the world, and how the state of the world in turn impacts our beliefs. Both are critical.

All the above can only appeal to intellectual people.

To be more precise, there is no such thing as “intellectual people.” People can be very intellectual and also very biased (religions amplify our psychological biases through various mechanisms), and so very smart people can hold very dumb religious beliefs as well, and make very bad decisions. Trying to break the world down into groups of “intellectual people” versus “non-intellectual people” is a misunderstanding. It is not so binary.

Name something you think is a movement that might pry people away from religion that isn't about beliefs?

Why? That is not a view that I hold. That is another strawman you made up.

 

[Brian63]

In an earlier post there was a brief exchange with DrZoidberg and me:



Note that DrZoidberg never cited any quote or reference for me actually espousing that view, and also never retracted the strawman or acknowledged the error.

If DrZoidberg wants to keep beating up strawmen while ignoring my actual positions, I cannot stop him. I will expose him though. This post will serve as one demonstration to the viewers of these red herring and strawman game tactics. It will continue to be posted again each time he continues to argue against the same strawmen.

This isn't a competition. We're allies fighting the same fight and have the same goal. I have no reason to introduce straw men. Nor be dishonest. Nor try to win the argument.

Will you at least acknowledge making an error then? You attributed a view to me that I do not hold and never espoused, and then when asked to cite a quote and reference for me advocating that view, you avoided it then and still avoid it now. Will you ever admit that you made a mistake, and were arguing a strawmen there? If you want to try for an informed discussion, then I am all in. Just cut the crap first. Be sincere about it too, not phony in trying to portray yourself as a bigger-man for the sake of appearances. Be sincere and acknowledge the strawman error.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You are throwing up strawmen and shooting at them, while missing my actual point. Regardless of how much you talk about the political influences of the 9/11 attack (which I completely acknowledge were one of the contributing factors, but not the only one), if you actually re-read the words of the terrorists themselves you will see that they felt empowered in part to carry out that act by their religious views. Here are their own words again:

https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/Parameters/articles/02autumn/kibble.pdf

And the soldiers of the USSR felt empowered to defend themselves against German aggression because they identified with all Russians. That's how national identity works.

I'm not saying they didn't say all that. A feature of Islam is that all Muslims belong to the same nation. But historically Muslims have had no problem ripping each other to shreds. Its almost like Muslims see each others as brothers when it suits them and enemies when it suits them. How handy and flexible concept!

I think Islam is an awful religion for lots of reasons. But this is a red herring. Religious people often cherry pick from their sacred books.

I keep stressing that religion isn't primarily about beliefs. It's about community and shared rituals.

I keep stressing that you wrong, and that it is about both to a very significant degree. Those 2 components of their worldview and lifestyle feed and sustain each other, and protect each other from external harm (or other challenging worldviews). We cannot focus on just one and avoid the other, if we expect to make significant progress.

How about some arguments to argue your case?

In reference to DrZoidberg’s description of American resistance to gay marriage, he first says:

This has nothing to do with religion.

(emphasis added)

Then later he says:

I'm not saying that their resistance has nothing to do with religion….I agree that it has everything to do with religion.

Now he says:

I can't see where I change my mind. Perhaps, try reading it more carefully.

Perhaps you should try thinking and writing more coherently.

You mixed two different contexts. Obviously. I'm not sure why you are doing this? I'm trying to have a civil conversation on how we can destroy religion. I'm not interested in cleverly scoring debate points by misrepresenting your position. Which is what you are doing with my posts.

Let’s look at another contradiction between 2 statements put out by DrZoidberg:

First he says:

...religions are stupid. To get people to jump ship is easy as hell. If you have a viable alternative.

Then later he says:

Because it is hard to challenge religious beliefs... DON'T.

So is it easy or hard to challenge them? You are inconsistent and self-contradictory and confused about it.

Again... why are you doing this? It's the same thing again. It's just dishonest of you.

A system for spiritual growth, (like yoga for example) isn't religious. Its easy to get a Christian to do yoga. Because their beliefs aren't being challenged. That Christian might find a yoga community that fulfills them spiritually even more and better than their Christian church does. So they'll be less and less active in the church and more active in the yoga community. At some point they might just forget why they ever went to church. See, this person's belief was never challenged and they still stopped being Christian.

That's what I mean with that its easy to get religious people to find alternative methods for spiritual growth while it's hard to challenge their beliefs.

Do you now understand that there was no contradiction in what I said?

I think attacking religious beliefs is a fruitless exercise. You'll just make religious people dig their heels in deeper.

In the last ~20 years I have been involved in atheist activism, I have encountered countless people who have had the exact opposite reaction than the one you predict. They adopted more liberal and secular views after their fundamentalist religious views were challenged and questioned. This statement of yours is flat-out wrong, even though you may be entirely convinced you are right.

It was a gradual and painful process oftentimes, but when the people started to realize that there was some flaw or deficiency in their current worldview and could not continue living with it as-is, they became more open and flexible to seeking alternative worldviews which did not have the same flaws and deficiencies, and were actually more logical and superior.

I'm not saying it can't work. I just think it's a waste of effort. Since there's easier ways.

A drug addict won't stop taking drugs until they find a spiritual community that can nourish them emotionally better than that drug could. While its possible to just stop, it is incredibly rare and much harder than doing it the right way.

QUOTE]…since beliefs are hard to change, ignore it.

Just above you wrote the opposite. You said, and I quote:

...religions are stupid. To get people to jump ship is easy as hell. If you have a viable alternative.

You are very confused about how beliefs function. Investigate it further. Read up on some neuropsychology, evolutionary history of how our brains evolved and why they function the way they do. It is a really interesting field.

.

And I still don't think you understand what I'm talking about.

You're still ONLY talking about beliefs.

Actually I have been talking about more than that. Our beliefs about the world influence what choices we make, what lifestyle we adopt, how we interact with others in our own communities. The same applies to all the individual members of the communities, so that their cultures and values and choices and beliefs as well influence each other. No, I am not talking about “ONLY” beliefs. I am talking about the bigger picture, of how beliefs impact the state of the world, and how the state of the world in turn impacts our beliefs. Both are critical.

In the above paragraph you see the belief as the primary. Every behaviour of the religious flows from the belief they have. So when you say that you are talking about more than belief, you are talking about belief and the result of the belief. It's still just talking about the belief.

I don't see belief as primary to religion. I see emotional strength and emotional clarity as the primary. Everybody wants to be happy, to be in control of their life, have their shit together and have some fun. We will use whatever tools we have to our disposal to get to that point.

Life is complicated and full of unknowns. The nice thing about religions is that they offer ready made packages that are easy to follow. Complete with a community and teachers to set you on the right path. Beliefs are at this point still unnecessary. Other than the most basic stuff, like a belief that they'll be safe in the community.

To create this community shared symbols and goals are needed. Just so the community has something to rally around. To give them an identity. This is where the Christian beliefs come in. The Christian belief system is just a symbol with which Christians use to identify themselves and others as Christians. And because it's just a symbol they're arbitrary and irrelevant for what the core of their religion is (which is the spiritual growth and sustenance).

Yes, their beliefs have an impact on their behaviour (like opposition to gay marriage). So it's not irrelevant in the way that it has no influence on the world. But irrelevant in the sense that a Christian can choose to ignore the homophobic parts of the Bible and their Christian faith will be just as strong and fully intact. The beliefs are fully interchangeable. Firmly held, yes. But still arbitrary. And not core to their faith.

Do you now understand what I mean when I say that you are ONLY talking about belief? Do you understand what I mean when I say that attacking the Christian beliefs is a red herring?

All the above can only appeal to intellectual people.

To be more precise, there is no such thing as “intellectual people.” People can be very intellectual and also very biased (religions amplify our psychological biases through various mechanisms), and so very smart people can hold very dumb religious beliefs as well, and make very bad decisions. Trying to break the world down into groups of “intellectual people” versus “non-intellectual people” is a misunderstanding. It is not so binary.

What? With intellectual people I mean people who enjoys thinking a lot, as opposed to people who prefer dancing, playing with children or cooking for their friends, over thinking a lot. There's of course no opposition. But intellectual people often come across as a bit stuck in their heads. Have trouble letting go and just feeling. So crappy sense of rhythm for instance. Most people are not intellectual. Most people want to see themselves as intellectual. But religions are not intellectual at all. You are treating religions as a wholly intellectual activity and I don't think they are. As evidenced by all the dumb shit religious people say and cling to.

Name something you think is a movement that might pry people away from religion that isn't about beliefs?

Why? That is not a view that I hold. That is another strawman you made up.

I'm just trying to help you understand what I am saying. If it was a straw man my objective would be to win an argument. I am not trying to win here. Only communicate better. So it's not a straw man.

Communication is easier if you're less defensive.

 

[Brian63]

Religious people often cherry pick from their sacred books.

Correct. It would benefit all of us even further if they not only stopped the cherry picking from their sacred books, but also if they stopped treating any book as sacred in the first place. So let’s approach the problem from that angle as well.

I'm trying to have a civil conversation on how we can destroy religion.

Is that so? You have a unique interpretation of what “civil conversation” would entail. Here are just a few examples of your sincere efforts to have a “civil conversation”:

Post 29

“If you think 9/11 was the result of religious brainwashing, then perhaps you are the one who has been brainwashed?”

“Now you're onto something.”

Post 30

“I think it's Christianity that's tripping you up.”

Post 41

“Stop putting words in my mouth and projecting stuff onto me I never said.”

Post 49

“It's just dishonest of you.”



A lot of your tries at “civil conversation” do not consist outright of individual blatant insults and smears, but rather bundles of very subtle yet condescending and arrogant remarks. You repeatedly tell me what I believe, what I think, what I feel, what I see, and you are mistaken. When you are corrected on them, you either ignore them or even repeat them. You have never apologized for or even acknowledged making any strawman error. You have made several demeaning remarks, but you have never said anything complimentary towards the person you disagree with. If you want to have a civil conversation, and a substantive one, it is helpful to show some signs of diplomacy and not treat it as a personal battle of egos. Earlier in this thread:

Post 24

I stated “I like you DrZoidberg” in an attempt to keep the exchange friendlier. You have never made any reciprocal gesture of kindness or diplomacy though. Instead you have been posting collections of (subtlely) condescending and sarcastic remarks, with an occasional outright insult. If you are wanting to go sour this exchange and turn it into a flamewar, at least acknowledge that. Find some honesty and own up to the condescending and arrogant and sarcastic remarks you have been making, not just hope nobody sees them and you come across as the bigger man.


To begin with, I acknowledge that I have made some similar negative comments myself in this thread. For nearly 2 decades I have been debating with various people on the internet and have learned a lot about what effects certain rhetorical strategies have. If someone verbally insults me, sometimes I take it on the chin. Sometimes I insult them back. Sometimes I move on to the more substantive points and entirely ignore the tit-for-tat. I am still very undecided on the best approaches in certain situations. When you make condescending remarks though, at least own up to them. You can argue that you think such comments were justified and explain why, or say they were not but you had a momentary lapse of judgment, or other. Just do not pretend you have been attempting to have a “civil conversation” when your tone has been very sarcastic, sour, and insulting. You are not the hero in this exchange and you are not on any moral high ground, when you are being so deceptive.

I'm not saying it can't work. I just think it's a waste of effort. Since there's easier ways.

A drug addict won't stop taking drugs until they find a spiritual community that can nourish them emotionally better than that drug could. While its possible to just stop, it is incredibly rare and much harder than doing it the right way.

You are asserting your way is the right way, when that is exactly what is being called into question here. You are welcome to present a compelling case for why your way should be considered “the right way,” but you have no authority to just declare it to be so.

Regarding drug addicts (or religious addicts, etc.) I do agree with you that we should help them find the spiritual community and alternative (healthier) means of nourishing them. I completely, 100%, entirely agree with that. What I am advocating is that we not do only that, but to simultaneously persuade those people that their existing lifestyle is inferior to the alternative we present. Until they have some stronger reason to ditch their existing harmful system of living, they are less likely to do so. There are transaction costs to changing our beliefs, as explained earlier. Even if some other alternative appears more fulfilling than the status quo, there is still a strong attachment to maintaining the status quo, just because making changes in lifestyles is difficult for people to do. We do not like to make such significant upheavals in our lives. It is better to help them realize both that their existing lifestyle is not in their own self-interest and how this other alternative lifestyle is, and how you (as someone who cares about them) are willing and able to help them ease through it and minimize the transaction costs of changing their life. Accounting for all of the above aspects simultaneously will likely be more beneficial to them than only focusing on one aspect.

I don't see belief as primary to religion. I see emotional strength and emotional clarity as the primary.

I do not think there is “the primary” to begin with. There are several essential and powerful components to religion, some of it being belief-driven, some of it being community-driven, some of it being psychologically-driven, some of it being emotionally-driven, for instance. They are all interwoven together. If you focus primarily, or exclusively, on just the emotional aspect and not the others, you are not adequately addressing the problem. All of them need to be responded to.

You are treating religions as a wholly intellectual activity and I don't think they are.

DrZoidberg, stop the strawmen. Really, you have an addiction to straw. I do not believe, have never said, have never argued, have never treated religions as being a “wholly intellectual activity.” Our brains have several psychological needs and emotional desires and cognitive biases and strategic tools that govern our end behavior, and religion is one way that is a sort of “shortcut” to satisfy those objectives, but in a very superficial and self-detrimental way. It is partly intellectual, partly emotional, partly cultural, partly psychological. When you say I am treating it as “wholly intellectual” then you are just full of straw-shit.

 

[Brian63]

In an earlier post there was a brief exchange with DrZoidberg and me:

If you only focus on the belief in God,…

Who ever advocated (I certainly never did) that we should “only focus on the belief in God?” Please provide the exact quote and exact reference. If you cannot find it, please at least retract this strawman you are arguing against, repeatedly.

Note that DrZoidberg never cited any quote or reference for me actually espousing that view, and also never retracted the strawman or acknowledged the error.

If DrZoidberg wants to keep beating up strawmen while ignoring my actual positions, I cannot stop him. I will expose him though. This post will serve as one demonstration to the viewers of these red herring and strawman game tactics. It will continue to be posted again each time he continues to argue against the same strawmen.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

If like Dr. Zodiberg, you live in a nation where Christianity is all but dead and the worst aspects of Christianity, fundamentalism literalism no longer has much political power, you can get by by ignoring religion and atheism for that matter. But a lot of us live in parts of the world where fundamentalist evangelicalism is strong and politically powerful and is a major problem. Thinking people have to come to terms with the situation. In Texas, we have to fight this destructive pest religion daily, tooth and nail.

 

[steve_bank]

If like Dr. Zodiberg, you live in a nation where Christianity is all but dead and the worst aspects of Christianity, fundamentalism literalism no longer has much political power, you can get by by ignoring religion and atheism for that matter. But a lot of us live in parts of the world where fundamentalist evangelicalism is strong and politically powerful and is a major problem. Thinking people have to come to terms with the situation. In Texas, we have to fight this destructive pest religion daily, tooth and nail.

That says it all, nicely put.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Correct. It would benefit all of us even further if they not only stopped the cherry picking from their sacred books, but also if they stopped treating any book as sacred in the first place. So let’s approach the problem from that angle as well.

My point is that this tells us something. The devotee is supposed to cherry pick from Hindu and Buddhist religious texts. That's not a problem to those faiths. Because devotees will have different needs depending on stage and situation in life. But Hindus and Buddhists don't treat their religious texts as any less sacred. Christianity's focus on belief is strange, and it is a strange religion. I suspect you are letting Christianity be a stand in for all religion. Perhaps because you live in a Christian culture?

I maintain that Christian beliefs are just fetishes. They're like the sacred tree in voodoo or the sacred mountain in animism. Christians wear their beliefs like cultish clothing. They think it's important to keep them on, and will fight tooth and nail to keep them on, but they are in no way central or important to the Christian religion. Just like the voodoo cult might as well have picked another tree, Christians might as well be fine with homosexuality. It wouldn't have made a difference for their degree of religiousity or perceived benefits from it.

Is that so? You have a unique interpretation of what “civil conversation” would entail. Here are just a few examples of your sincere efforts to have a “civil conversation”:

Post 29

“If you think 9/11 was the result of religious brainwashing, then perhaps you are the one who has been brainwashed?”

“Now you're onto something.”

Post 30

“I think it's Christianity that's tripping you up.”

Post 41

“Stop putting words in my mouth and projecting stuff onto me I never said.”

Post 49

“It's just dishonest of you.”


A lot of your tries at “civil conversation” do not consist outright of individual blatant insults and smears, but rather bundles of very subtle yet condescending and arrogant remarks. You repeatedly tell me what I believe, what I think, what I feel, what I see, and you are mistaken. When you are corrected on them, you either ignore them or even repeat them. You have never apologized for or even acknowledged making any strawman error. You have made several demeaning remarks, but you have never said anything complimentary towards the person you disagree with. If you want to have a civil conversation, and a substantive one, it is helpful to show some signs of diplomacy and not treat it as a personal battle of egos. Earlier in this thread:

Post 24

I stated “I like you DrZoidberg” in an attempt to keep the exchange friendlier. You have never made any reciprocal gesture of kindness or diplomacy though. Instead you have been posting collections of (subtlely) condescending and sarcastic remarks, with an occasional outright insult. If you are wanting to go sour this exchange and turn it into a flamewar, at least acknowledge that. Find some honesty and own up to the condescending and arrogant and sarcastic remarks you have been making, not just hope nobody sees them and you come across as the bigger man.

Treating the person you are talking with respect isn't just saying that you like the person. It's also trying to understand what the other person is saying. That's showing intellectual respect.

Saying that you like somebody when you don't isn't being polite at all. It's disingenuous, and just comes across as manipulative.

Either way... life is a lot more pleasant if we aren't being defensive. I haven't seen this as an argument (although we have made arguments). I've seen this as two people picking each others brains. To have our ideas tested. I think it's fun and I've enjoyed this conversation so far.

When I take what you say and reformulate it in my own words, it's to better understand your position. That's not an attempt to make a straw man. If you don't agree with how I've phrased it... great. Then I was perhaps wrong? Then explain how I was wrong. But I've yet to see this. I keep showing how you are completely hung up about the belief in religion and focused on only that, and then you keep saying that you're not, and then repeat the same thing again. This makes me feel that you don't understand the argument I'm making.

Perhaps you feel that I am making a straw man of your argument because I've cut to the core of your arguments and it doesn't hold up?

To begin with, I acknowledge that I have made some similar negative comments myself in this thread. For nearly 2 decades I have been debating with various people on the internet and have learned a lot about what effects certain rhetorical strategies have. If someone verbally insults me, sometimes I take it on the chin. Sometimes I insult them back. Sometimes I move on to the more substantive points and entirely ignore the tit-for-tat. I am still very undecided on the best approaches in certain situations. When you make condescending remarks though, at least own up to them. You can argue that you think such comments were justified and explain why, or say they were not but you had a momentary lapse of judgment, or other. Just do not pretend you have been attempting to have a “civil conversation” when your tone has been very sarcastic, sour, and insulting. You are not the hero in this exchange and you are not on any moral high ground, when you are being so deceptive.

How am I doing you any favours by letting you believe that you have understood my arguments, when you clearly haven't. How isn't that incredibly rude? Being honest about it isn't being condescending. You might think I haven't understood your arguments yet. Is that so?

I'm not saying it can't work. I just think it's a waste of effort. Since there's easier ways.

A drug addict won't stop taking drugs until they find a spiritual community that can nourish them emotionally better than that drug could. While its possible to just stop, it is incredibly rare and much harder than doing it the right way.

You are asserting your way is the right way, when that is exactly what is being called into question here. You are welcome to present a compelling case for why your way should be considered “the right way,” but you have no authority to just declare it to be so.

I have a hypothesis that my way is the right way, and making arguments to support it in order to see if my hypothesis holds up. That's not the same thing as asserting anything. Of course I have no authority.

Instead of being defensive, try a counter argument?

Regarding drug addicts (or religious addicts, etc.) I do agree with you that we should help them find the spiritual community and alternative (healthier) means of nourishing them. I completely, 100%, entirely agree with that. What I am advocating is that we not do only that, but to simultaneously persuade those people that their existing lifestyle is inferior to the alternative we present. Until they have some stronger reason to ditch their existing harmful system of living, they are less likely to do so. There are transaction costs to changing our beliefs, as explained earlier. Even if some other alternative appears more fulfilling than the status quo, there is still a strong attachment to maintaining the status quo, just because making changes in lifestyles is difficult for people to do. We do not like to make such significant upheavals in our lives. It is better to help them realize both that their existing lifestyle is not in their own self-interest and how this other alternative lifestyle is, and how you (as someone who cares about them) are willing and able to help them ease through it and minimize the transaction costs of changing their life. Accounting for all of the above aspects simultaneously will likely be more beneficial to them than only focusing on one aspect.

Drug addicts are extremely vulnerable people. That means they'll put up with a lot of shit when they're at their weakest if they get something out of it. And they won't forget it when they come out of it. I think foisting beliefs upon them (which aren't necessary for their recovery) when they're weak is not smart and won't make you friends.

I volunteered for a while in a Stockholm homeless shelter. There was a lot of drug addicts there. All talk of religion was banned from the shelter. It took me half a year before learning that the shelter was run by an evangelical Christian organisation. When I asked the guy who ran the shelter about this he said, it's because the point of running the shelter wasn't to spread (their version of) Christianity, but just to help people. I can only speculate on why they weren't taking this opportunity to preach to a receptive audience. I suspect they stopped doing it because they, at some point, realised that it backfired and made these people dislike their religion.

I think preaching to people in need and spiritual anguish is a dick move, and most likely counter productive.

I don't see belief as primary to religion. I see emotional strength and emotional clarity as the primary.

I do not think there is “the primary” to begin with. There are several essential and powerful components to religion, some of it being belief-driven, some of it being community-driven, some of it being psychologically-driven, some of it being emotionally-driven, for instance. They are all interwoven together. If you focus primarily, or exclusively, on just the emotional aspect and not the others, you are not adequately addressing the problem. All of them need to be responded to.

Sure. I agree with that. I think religion is all that stuff which humans need which market forces and evolutionary pressures didn't create spontaneously when we became farmers and then civilised urbanites. Stuff people needed for emotional growth but which the modern world didn't freely provide. So people had to make an effort to get it. The collections of these institutions and behaviours we've labelled "religion". That's why I think religions are such a weird collections of things, that don't seem to go together. And why they are so different and highly regional. Even the same religion can wildly vary in it's application. That's not a weakness in religion. It is it's strength. It's not my theory. It's from Alain de Botton's "Religion for atheists". And also Habermas.

You are treating religions as a wholly intellectual activity and I don't think they are.

DrZoidberg, stop the strawmen. Really, you have an addiction to straw. I do not believe, have never said, have never argued, have never treated religions as being a “wholly intellectual activity.” Our brains have several psychological needs and emotional desires and cognitive biases and strategic tools that govern our end behavior, and religion is one way that is a sort of “shortcut” to satisfy those objectives, but in a very superficial and self-detrimental way. It is partly intellectual, partly emotional, partly cultural, partly psychological. When you say I am treating it as “wholly intellectual” then you are just full of straw-shit.

Until you give some evidence that you aren't focused only on religious belief, it's not a straw man. Or activities that aren't directly the result from that belief. You can't just say, "no I'm not", and then demonstrate how you still are. If it's not a straw man, please, give me some examples of core religious activities which you think don't stem from their beliefs?

 

[DrZoidberg]

If like Dr. Zodiberg, you live in a nation where Christianity is all but dead and the worst aspects of Christianity, fundamentalism literalism no longer has much political power, you can get by by ignoring religion and atheism for that matter. But a lot of us live in parts of the world where fundamentalist evangelicalism is strong and politically powerful and is a major problem. Thinking people have to come to terms with the situation. In Texas, we have to fight this destructive pest religion daily, tooth and nail.

Because of our different situations we have different perspectives. We can see different things. I can see what happened when we dismantled religion wholesale. In Sweden, first we replaced religion with socialist clubs (1900-1950). In the 90'ies we removed the socialist clubs. This has left a huge gaping hole in the social fabric of Sweden. This allows me to analyse and see what role Christianity filled in Sweden, that a person living in a society where religion is still strong, might not.

I don't think the world will be a better place without religion. I think it'll be much worse. But it won't be worse for the obvious reasons. I think the cost of not having religion is that there's no social glue holding together society. The social fabric falls apart. It leads to a society where people do nothing but either work or spend their free time distracting themselves with pleasures alone or in small groups. We become generationally isolated. The only activity that has wide appeal that allows people across generations to spend any time together in Sweden is sports. There's a reason Scandinavians are among the fittest people on the planet. There's fuck all else to do. While sports is great and healthy, if this is the only thing people do for their spiritual nourishment, it's not great. Because sports is only about pushing ourselves to the max. The ethos of Sweden today might as well be "if you're not perfect you are worthless". There's nothing in sports that teaches us that we are fine the way we are and that we deserve love no matter what. It makes Swedes today very anxious.

I work a lot with International teams and meet a lot of people from a variety of cultures. People from very religious cultures are more chill, less anxious and have rituals they do when they need to centre themselves and regain focus. Apart from getting blind drunk on aquavit Swedes have none of this.

edit: Even an atheist in a largely religious society still reap the social benefit of the religious institutions. Because there'll be a bunch of activities we're obliged to go to. Or just religious festivals and parties in the streets. Just to keep members of our family happy. Perhaps it's not until they're all gone we realise that we actually liked them.

I remember, as a kid going to some annual event for Hare Krishna in London. None of our group going had any connection to Hare Krishna. It was a fun day out. For the whole family. I remember participating in a group meditation. I loved it. I mean... I hated it at the time. Sitting still for a child is torture. But it's one of my fondest memories I have from my childhood. And strongest because of the images in my mind of the flowing orange robes flapping in the wind. We only did this once. Still had a strong impact on me.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's also interesting that the socialist clubs of Sweden served a similar role that religion filled. It's also interesting that it's completely analogous to Christianity in the sense that Socialism is an ideology and therefor also places great emphasis on belief. I suspect that's why it had such an appeal to Swedes.

Just 30 years ago it used to be a big deal and completely culturally dominant. It's not any longer. When I was young Swedes would ask each other which club (förening) we were active in. Whether or not we understood it, these clubs/associations were all part of the workers movement, and funded through taxes. It's completely analogous to Americans asking each other what church they belong to and tax exemption for churches.

Swedes are still very active in these clubs, but they're not dominant. And I can see how Swedes are suffering as a result.

Swedes still have a huge fixation on belief, for a variety of things, in spite of not being Christian any more. There's no higher power we're trying to please with our beliefs. There's no longer any socialist movement we're trying to fit into with our beliefs. It's become a self perpetuating project without having any movement to support with it. Socialism in Sweden is today similar to Socialism anywhere.

 

[bilby]

If like Dr. Zodiberg, you live in a nation where Christianity is all but dead and the worst aspects of Christianity, fundamentalism literalism no longer has much political power, you can get by by ignoring religion and atheism for that matter. But a lot of us live in parts of the world where fundamentalist evangelicalism is strong and politically powerful and is a major problem. Thinking people have to come to terms with the situation. In Texas, we have to fight this destructive pest religion daily, tooth and nail.

Because of our different situations we have different perspectives. We can see different things. I can see what happened when we dismantled religion wholesale. In Sweden, first we replaced religion with socialist clubs (1900-1950). In the 90'ies we removed the socialist clubs. This has left a huge gaping hole in the social fabric of Sweden. This allows me to analyse and see what role Christianity filled in Sweden, that a person living in a society where religion is still strong, might not.

I don't think the world will be a better place without religion. I think it'll be much worse. But it won't be worse for the obvious reasons. I think the cost of not having religion is that there's no social glue holding together society. The social fabric falls apart. It leads to a society where people do nothing but either work or spend their free time distracting themselves with pleasures alone or in small groups. We become generationally isolated. The only activity that has wide appeal that allows people across generations to spend any time together in Sweden is sports. There's a reason Scandinavians are among the fittest people on the planet. There's fuck all else to do. While sports is great and healthy, if this is the only thing people do for their spiritual nourishment, it's not great. Because sports is only about pushing ourselves to the max. The ethos of Sweden today might as well be "if you're not perfect you are worthless". There's nothing in sports that teaches us that we are fine the way we are and that we deserve love no matter what. It makes Swedes today very anxious.

I work a lot with International teams and meet a lot of people from a variety of cultures. People from very religious cultures are more chill, less anxious and have rituals they do when they need to centre themselves and regain focus. Apart from getting blind drunk on aquavit Swedes have none of this.

edit: Even an atheist in a largely religious society still reap the social benefit of the religious institutions. Because there'll be a bunch of activities we're obliged to go to. Or just religious festivals and parties in the streets. Just to keep members of our family happy. Perhaps it's not until they're all gone we realise that we actually liked them.

I remember, as a kid going to some annual event for Hare Krishna in London. None of our group going had any connection to Hare Krishna. It was a fun day out. For the whole family. I remember participating in a group meditation. I loved it. I mean... I hated it at the time. Sitting still for a child is torture. But it's one of my fondest memories I have from my childhood. And strongest because of the images in my mind of the flowing orange robes flapping in the wind. We only did this once. Still had a strong impact on me.

"if you're not perfect you are worthless" sounds to me like the central message of a large number of Christian sects. It is certainly not an idea that is unique to secular cultures - and at least secular cultures don't make it an explicit rule.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If like Dr. Zodiberg, you live in a nation where Christianity is all but dead and the worst aspects of Christianity, fundamentalism literalism no longer has much political power, you can get by by ignoring religion and atheism for that matter. But a lot of us live in parts of the world where fundamentalist evangelicalism is strong and politically powerful and is a major problem. Thinking people have to come to terms with the situation. In Texas, we have to fight this destructive pest religion daily, tooth and nail.

Because of our different situations we have different perspectives. We can see different things. I can see what happened when we dismantled religion wholesale. In Sweden, first we replaced religion with socialist clubs (1900-1950). In the 90'ies we removed the socialist clubs. This has left a huge gaping hole in the social fabric of Sweden. This allows me to analyse and see what role Christianity filled in Sweden, that a person living in a society where religion is still strong, might not.

I don't think the world will be a better place without religion. I think it'll be much worse. But it won't be worse for the obvious reasons. I think the cost of not having religion is that there's no social glue holding together society. The social fabric falls apart. It leads to a society where people do nothing but either work or spend their free time distracting themselves with pleasures alone or in small groups. We become generationally isolated. The only activity that has wide appeal that allows people across generations to spend any time together in Sweden is sports. There's a reason Scandinavians are among the fittest people on the planet. There's fuck all else to do. While sports is great and healthy, if this is the only thing people do for their spiritual nourishment, it's not great. Because sports is only about pushing ourselves to the max. The ethos of Sweden today might as well be "if you're not perfect you are worthless". There's nothing in sports that teaches us that we are fine the way we are and that we deserve love no matter what. It makes Swedes today very anxious.

I work a lot with International teams and meet a lot of people from a variety of cultures. People from very religious cultures are more chill, less anxious and have rituals they do when they need to centre themselves and regain focus. Apart from getting blind drunk on aquavit Swedes have none of this.

edit: Even an atheist in a largely religious society still reap the social benefit of the religious institutions. Because there'll be a bunch of activities we're obliged to go to. Or just religious festivals and parties in the streets. Just to keep members of our family happy. Perhaps it's not until they're all gone we realise that we actually liked them.

I remember, as a kid going to some annual event for Hare Krishna in London. None of our group going had any connection to Hare Krishna. It was a fun day out. For the whole family. I remember participating in a group meditation. I loved it. I mean... I hated it at the time. Sitting still for a child is torture. But it's one of my fondest memories I have from my childhood. And strongest because of the images in my mind of the flowing orange robes flapping in the wind. We only did this once. Still had a strong impact on me.

"if you're not perfect you are worthless" sounds to me like the central message of a large number of Christian sects. It is certainly not an idea that is unique to secular cultures - and at least secular cultures don't make it an explicit rule.

My point is that humans have a strong need of belonging, social contact as well as just habits. What sets the happy, healthy and successful apart from the less so is mostly just down to productive habits. While most people say freedom is their highest ideal, it's not. We only want freedom if we're locked into a social structure. But we need and crave this. These are crucial for our mental well-being as well as being stifling. It's unavoidable. These social structures are systems of helpful habits. And they are constantly socially re-enforced by other people. This the community. This is any human society, secular or otherwise. Or just any group of people who get their main identity as being in this group.

I see religions as these systems just out of the box. A pre-fab life. "Follow these ten easy steps for a fulfilling life". It might have redundant stuff on top of it, like a belief in gods. But essentially this is it. It's actually really handy. If we don't have a ready made standard system we will make a system of our own. That's what all atheists have done. But they'll still find themselves in some group of another that they feel re-enforces positive behaviour.

I'd say that the religion is Sweden today is to be fit as fuck. Because of Jante (it's a strong cultural pressure not to be special). We don't premier success. Being very successful is socially punished. The country has always been anti-intellectual... but now it's worse than ever. That only leaves the superficial shit. Looking good physically and being healthy, this is the religion of Sweden right now. So I struggle to see right now what was gained when we secularised?

 

[rousseau]

"if you're not perfect you are worthless" sounds to me like the central message of a large number of Christian sects. It is certainly not an idea that is unique to secular cultures - and at least secular cultures don't make it an explicit rule.

My point is that humans have a strong need of belonging, social contact as well as just habits. What sets the happy, healthy and successful apart from the less so is mostly just down to productive habits. While most people say freedom is their highest ideal, it's not. We only want freedom if we're locked into a social structure. But we need and crave this. These are crucial for our mental well-being as well as being stifling. It's unavoidable. These social structures are systems of helpful habits. And they are constantly socially re-enforced by other people. This the community. This is any human society, secular or otherwise. Or just any group of people who get their main identity as being in this group.

Religions are these systems just out of the box. And that's basically all religion is. It might have redundant stuff on top of it, like a belief in gods. But essentially this is it. It's actually really handy. If we don't have a ready made standard system we will find one. That's what all atheists have done. But they'll still find themselves in some group of another that they feel re-enforces positive behaviour.

I'd say that the religion is Sweden today is to be fit as fuck. Because of Jante (it's a strong cultural pressure not to be special). We don't premier success. Being very successful is socially punished. The country has always been anti-intellectual... but now it's worse than ever. That only leaves the superficial shit. Looking good physically and being healthy, this is the religion of Sweden right now. So I struggle to see right now what was gained when we secularised?

I wonder about this sometimes, too.

My grandfather, for instance, was a Scottish Freemason and spent his life as a part of that organization, with lifelong friends who bonded over their religious beliefs. Strike out religious beliefs and replace it with a sense of awe over the divine and a desire to be a good person, and you basically have a group of men who gathered regularly for a kind of vague, spiritual purpose.

Now I look at my life, and the closest thing I have to that is a) this forum, and b) the IT community around my city and their meetups. Legit - I don't want to gather with people to talk about Javascript. Is my life any better than my grandfathers?

Canadians worship money these days - status, networking, work. There is no sense of community anymore, everyone wakes up in the morning and wonders how they're going to get ahead that day.

That said, I obviously understand atheistic militancy in the U.S., because their culture is fucked and it's more about religious policies than beliefs.

 

[rousseau]

How little or far should we atheists (or nontheists, skeptics, whatever) go in trying to advance our views? Should we hold more of a “live and let live” attitude or be more outspoken and vocal in criticizing religion in the public sphere?

I'm all for the "live and let live" idea but only if it is mutual. Any religious group attempting to force their beliefs on others through law or even through personal actions need to be openly opposed.

For example, I have no problem with the Amish who are happy to practice their rather weird (to me) beliefs without imposing it on others unwilling to accept those beliefs.

Exactly this.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the psychological need for religion, and how it can be life giving. The problem is that these people let their beliefs carry over into real material things like abortion, end of life etc etc.