God - The Bear and Badger

g.man

Have a coke and a smile Face.

g.man

Facewon

And now this feels like the god thread.

it'll have to a be a coffee though. And instead of a smile, some NBA play offs. I may smile at them.

Or I may grimace at the controls on Witcher 2.

g.man

S'all good mate.

Skerret

I prefer this hard boiled Face meself. Â I'll second the SG fandom. Â

Gonzo, Gonzo. Â If simpletards are getting to grips with informal fallacies, there may yet be hope, no?

Facewon

While chump can defend himself, I will say that if we're treating this as a continuation of the previous thread, he's done his share of contributing.

Anyhoo, on to questions:

Now, do you believe:

a belief in a creator (the divine, spirituality, godliness) is harmful per se?

Weak yes. When I say weak, I mean in relation to the harm. (Smoking one cigarette a week is harmful to your health, probably, but you know, who cares.) Although I'd suggest the harm comes from unjustified beliefs in anything. The harm comes from shutting off aspects of your beliefs from scrutiny. My issue is more with the way people reach the conclusion of belief in a God than the belief itself.Â

is your answer different if the belief is religious credo, or the issue about harm arises from adherence to organised religion?

Short answer is probably: only by degrees.

I agree that it's important not to conflate the two, and I also agree that societal safeguards are good and important.

"I therefore see no value in some of the crusading efforts of atheists to eliminate religion from society."

Well, that's good, because I think you'll find they're not trying to eliminate it from society, they just agree that said societal safeguards could do with some buttressing. And that if religion becomes a lot more of a personal matter and a lot less of a political one, things would be better.

cockbeard

Most evils attributed to religious fervour were committed when spreading the word and attempting to convert folk, missions, crusades, preaching to all intents and purposes

Over zealous Atheism, as described by Gonzo above, even if innocently just wishing to lift the veil from people's eyes, could easily become the devil it wished to eradicate

Facewon

Gonzo wrote:

What's harmful about godliness, or spirituality, then? I've already stated why it's neutral.

Raincheck. Need to do day time things.

djchump

Gonzo wrote:

True maybe in relation to you, but not chump. He's made no positive contribution, he snipes from the sides,

Â
So what?

Gonzo wrote:

"because science",

I admit, that question was a mis-step (I conflated your negative opinion of atheists/rationalism with your example of homophobia in China, somehow thinking that you were trying to say that the homophobia in China was due to rationalism). I was wrong and you were right to ask for clarification, but I didn't bother to give it because it became clear where you were going with the China example - that the root cause of the homophobia there is "social conservatism".

Gonzo wrote:

fails to engage,

I'll engage how I please, that's not for anyone else to decide. Likewise, it's not for me to decide how anyone else should engage.

Gonzo wrote:

implies points with questions,

So what?

Gonzo wrote:

and then claims he really was asking a true question honest,

If I ask a question, it's because I'd like an answer and probably believe it will lead somewhere.

To wit, I asked what the causes of this "social conservatism" might be - because just one look at the Catholic Church would imply that in some cases (but not all, as your China example demonstrates) Religion is a strong proponent of conservatism.

Gonzo wrote:

but it's for me to explain everything and for him to just fail to apply his mind to the question.

If you make a claim (e.g. "Religion does no harm") then yeah, onus is then on you to qualify that if questioned (if you want, not saying you have to). And if I'm asking questions, then I'm applying my mind.

Gonzo wrote:

So I won't accept a foul in relation to him; you maybe, but then goading you is fun.

innit.

Gonzo wrote:

Now, do you believe: a belief in a creator (the divine, spirituality, godliness) is harmful per se? is your answer different if the belief is religious credo, or the issue about harm arises from adherence to organised religion? In answer to the first, for reasons which appear from this here thread (and past ones), is no to the first (you could argue it's wrong, but is it harmful?) And I think far more arguably, no to the second. That's because I'm assuming built in societal safeguards, such as separation of church (used relatively abstractly) and state, democratic government, individual liberty etc. I think it's important to separate the two, because they get conflated. But even in the case of the second question, I think religion is neutral, it's a tool. It can (and has) been a force for good. It can be a force for bad. I therefore see no value in some of the crusading efforts of atheists to eliminate religion from society.

Agree roughly with you there about spirituality etc. - people can believe what they want (hence I've never tried to tell people that they *shouldn't* believe in whichever religion they want to). If people wish to make statements I consider to be false, I may disagree, but I won't tell them that they shouldn't believe in God or whatnot.

However, I don't believe you can argue that Religion (religious credo, established religious organisations) are only a value-neutral tool - when one of the fundamental aspects is sin and value judgement (are they going to hell or not etc.) and the holy books are full of rules.
Religion is not just a tool that "social conservatism" uses to spread its agenda (which is damn near tautologous; "homophobes causes homophobia"), it goes a long way to setting that very agenda and is often (but not always, as your China example demonstrates) a crucial component in spreading that agenda. cf the Catholic Church.
Sure, due to the vagueness of the Bible, probably takes a homophobe to pick that bit out of Leviticus to get hung up on, but the fact that it's written in there and the idea that the members of the religious hierarchy have a more direct connection to God, thereby authority, thereby the right to tell others what to think about subjects, thereby the right to tell others that homosexuality is a sin and a bad thing because GOD said so - seems to me that it's not value-neutral at all.

Also, again with the strawman, "crusading efforts of atheists to eliminate religion from society" - that just simply isn't true. The "crusading efforts" (nice turn of phrase) only arise when Religions try to force their dogma into schools as "science" (creationism/ID etc.) or their value judgements into politics (gay marriage, anti-abortion etc.).

Ali

Mod74 wrote:

I've always been and still am an agnosticÂ atheist

I don't think you can be both. The latter over-rules the former.

As for normal services, they seem to be merely a communal gathering, much like the scouts, the masons, the rotary club, the local 5 a side club. A bunch of people listening to a bloke drone on about being nice or burning in fire, and then having a good old chat afterwards. But it's not that part I object to. It's the tiers above the grass roots. The power brokers. The wealth hidden away by religions that then preach, ironically, about helping the poor. All the while, sitting on immeasurable wealth that could solve third world debt, poverty and the current recession with ease.

Ali

Gonzo wrote:

What's harmful about godliness, or spirituality, then? I've already stated why it's neutral.

THey are not mutual. You can be spiritual without godliness. Ask any Buddhist or Taoist. Neither religion has any form of god.

Tempy

Those embrodied robes ain't cheap.

cockbeard

Hahaha, a friend actually makes those for a living, and her name's Cross o_0

WorKid

Oh God, another God thread!

FTR, I'm an atheist, kids go to a CofE school, I'm encouraging them to learn about all world religions. There's some mental shit, but there are some great lessons for them too, as well as some really great myths and fables that really everyone should know.Â

The flood one is a classic. Revenge, destruction, drunkenness and nudity. Plus animals and artisan ship-building.

Tempy

cockbeard wrote:

Hahaha, a friend actually makes those for a living, and her name's Cross o_0

Can I place an order?

cockbeard

http://www.crossdesignsltd.com

Hahaha, be my guest, kinda weird seeing her looking all respectable at work

Mod74

Ali wrote:

Mod74 wrote:

I've always been and still am an agnosticÂ atheist

I don't think you can be both. The latter over-rules the former.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

djchump

Gonzo wrote:

No, you implied a point in half-arsed way with a question, and when pulled up on it, claimed - and still claim- it was a genuine bona fide question.

It was.
I see you're still trying to put words and claims into my mouth. i.e. strawman.

Gonzo wrote:

You can choose to label the source of western homophobia "religion", while in china it is something else. I argue this is obfuscatory, and that religion in the west has become a tool of social conservatism. It is one form of propagating homophobia- but certainly some anglicans have moved in a different direction. And the church has been in great decline in some parts of the west, and yet homophobia- to take one example- persists. But it certainly is difficult to find out which is the dog and which is the tail.

So you agree that religion is not just a "value-neutral tool" used by "social conservatives", but is actually part of the many influences that goes to form and spread that "social conservatism"?

Gonzo wrote:

There's a lot of confusion in this post; about tautology (two words sound similar so one can't cause the other);

I'm not entirely sure if you've understood the word tautology there - it's not a causality statement, it's an identity statement.

Gonzo wrote:

social conservatives might be homophobes because they believe in the nuclear family, that social fabrics must be maintained, they believe in menaces they might label depravity, chaos, anarchy, they believe in sacrificing individual wants for a greater good. These often find certain religions a useful harbour for their views. Did religion shape their views, or the other way round? Well I don't know,

So why are you saying that you *do* know and that they *don't* shape their views (and then play an integral part of the dissemination and proliferation of those views)?

You say religion is only a "value-neutral tool" used for spreading homophobia, but then you say that you don't know if religion shaped those views or not - you are contradicting yourself.

Gonzo wrote:

but since your focus is on christianity, we can find plenty of social conservatives well before christianity's advent. Take Augustus, ore the older Romans, well known for prudishness and cultural conservatism. The idea that humanity's heading into depravity and the wrong path is very old, and might well have shaped religions rather than the other way round.

So what? What bearing does that have on whether or not religion is currently one of several/many causes of homophobia?Â

Gonzo wrote:

Another source of confusion is about rules. The "right to tell others that homosexuality is bad because god said so" is identified as an ill. But I have that right. I can tell anyone that. It's up to them whether they believe it. What is so special about God that makes my claim that he posited a rule so harmful?

Because anyone that comes to religion (for whatever personal reason) and believes in God, places authority in the holy book and the religious hierarchy.

You going round telling people your POV about gays has the weight of a single man's opinion - for the religious, someone claiming to know God's will making that claim has much more weight.Â
And, like, it's in the bible, with a whole bunch of other mad shit, but it's in there.

Gonzo wrote:

... [a bunch of stuff about rules and legal authority]....

I wasn't talking about legal authority, I was talking about the credence believers place in the authority of the scripture as passed down and the authority of the church to tell them what is and what is not God's will.

Gonzo wrote:

I don't kid myself that if I got rid of the very concept, the sort of people who want to hate muslims, eradicate homos, etc etc will disappear.

Neither do I - they won't disappear overnight, but one of the causes would be gone, so maybe there will be less of them in time.

Gonzo wrote:

A particular medium for their views will have disappeared. They'll find another one.

Maybe, or maybe they won't. It would probably help that they can't point at an old book that is supposedly God's unchanging last word on the matter and say "look, it says it's a bad thing right here, so that's all the justification necessary".

Gonzo wrote:

I find it more valuable to concentrate on root causes. And that's one of my chief objections to the fanatic anti-religious elements out there: I ultimately believe that they help obfuscate the root causes of very real harm. In some cases, like Chomsky observes, theirs is a state religion. That's why I'll never forgive Hitchens, teh fucking cunt.

Sure, concentrate on root causes.Â Leviticus 18:22 would be a start.

Really, this whole idea that religion is "value-neutral" and only a tool is patently false. The Catholic Church is not "value neutral", it has plenty to say on the nature of good and bad/evil.Â

You're going to have to give that one up.

Tempy

Hang on, hang on...

Continue...

Some_Guy

cockbeard wrote:

See I'm confused again, it's easily done so I apologise. The existence of gods is surely true or false. Having a belief is true or false as well. We have three words, and three situations. Why does atheism get to cover two of those bases

Because theism and atheism are statements about belief in the existence of god, whereas agnosticism is a methodology for establishing knowledge and makes no statement about belief in the existence god. What one believes and what one knows are not the same thing but there can be overlap. With certain definitions theists get to cover two bases as well, as agnostic theists believe in the existence of god even though they acknowledge they cannot know that their position is true.

The confusion with agnosticism arises because the word has come to mean different things in the 150 years since it was coined by Thomas Huxley who defined it as such:

â€œAgnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively, the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can take you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend that matters are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.â€

Agnosticism is an epistemological methodology about how to come to conclusions about what is true and what is untrue, and by implication what is uncertain or unknown given the limits of reason and evidence. When this methodology came to be applied to metaphysical claims, the faithful pointed out that just because god's existence cannot be established as fact doesn't mean that they should give up their faith because one can acknowledge that god's existence is uncertain and perhaps altogether unknowable, but chose to believe in a god anyway. That is what it means to have faith after all. Huxley thought this was a shit idea and an abandonment of the rationality required to be a true agnostic:

â€œThat it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.â€

But the damage had already been done and agnosticism started to be used as a word that did not necessarily imply that one did not believe in god. It was also used as a word to describe those who had not made up their minds on the matter one way or the other, because god's existence is uncertain and perhaps unknowable.

When atheism of the 'non-belief in god' variety started to define their own terms they decided to qualify their atheism with the agnostic label as well, to distinguish their methodology from atheists who believe there are no gods.

Yay for linguistic evolution!

Huxley's opinions

Atheist vs agnostic

Agnosticism wiki

cockbeard

OK, I can see where you identify with that then. It still seems strange to me, but I was discounting nutters who would hold a belief in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary. Though that may have been a dick move being as texts often state that faith will be tested, and therefore evidence may be as supernatural as the deity being believed in. Discounting these nutters though I still fail to see any difference between Theism and Atheism, two opposing views but I imagine in the face of evidence either party would change their belief to accommodate reality

WorKid

A god with no discernible effect on the world is, in practical terms anyway, exactly the same as the absence of a god, no?

Facewon

Gonzo wrote:

And the church has been in great decline in some parts of the west, and yet homophobia- to take one example- persists. But it certainly is difficult to find out which is the dog and which is the tail.

I know this is only picking out one thing from a long post. But surely the highlighted bit is a touch misleading. Or at least requires some qualification. Surely I could say that homophobia has been in decline also? At least in the western countries where religion has also been in decline. And yes, correlation does not imply causation, and tails and dogs, but I don't know that you can just say that homophobia still happens, ergo religion gets a free pass.

(Am borrowing a little from memory some of Pinker's work in Better Angels... homophobic violence in the states is in decline - granted in line with general violence - and I don't think the increasing support for gay marriage in quite a few western countries can be ignored.)

Now to go back some pages and find some other stuff I meant to reply to.

Facewon

Ali wrote:

A bunch of people listening to a bloke drone on about being nice or burning in fire, and then having a good old chat afterwards. But it's not that part I object to.

I know this was slightly tongue in cheek, but I'm not sure it's necessarily fair to go on about the burning in hell. I still find there's enough objectional stuff at even the most liberal service. (My mum's church is certainly at the liberal end of the spectrum, yet the stock passages and blood scacrifice of Jesus is disturbing enough.) But for the most part, at most of these churches, I think I can see a little more of what Mod was mentioning.

I also don't know that it's fair to just mention the service. Certainly at all the anglican churches in melbourne there's more than just the service: prayer groups, spiritual direction etc, and they're certainly not passive like the service.

To straddle a couple of points, I'd like to mention (as I may have on the previous forum) a sermon my mum gave last year at around the time of her 40th wedding anniversary.

The conclusions of the sermon I was completely down with: marriage can be great, but it's hard work. Divorce shouldn't be taken lightly, but sometimes it's the right choice, love and respect each other, etc. Cool. No big beef with that.

The issue is how she got to those conclusions. "God in his/her wisdom...allows some people to divorce." etc. How do you know that?

Facewon

cockbeard wrote:

Over zealous Atheism, as described by Gonzo above, even if innocently just wishing to lift the veil from people's eyes, could easily become the devil it wished to eradicate

btw: What's described by gonzo there bares very little resemblance to reality, so it's probably not a big problem, at the moment you have a slippery slope starting from a fabrication, I don't know that I'll be losing any sleep.

WorKid

Right, Petey, sort us out a poll function, so we can settle this once and for all.

Facewon

Gonzo wrote:

Ah, it's impossible to have a long post anymore.

I was about to mention that. This is the thread to test the editing and length capabilities of the forum. I'm off to the upgrades thread, methinks.

Facewon

Gonz, was that post going to be longer? Is that a limit you reached, or are you just meaning that sorting the quotes was a bit messy?

g.man

WorKid wrote:

Right, Petey, sort us out a poll function, so we can settle this once and for all.

Â
Do you really think the participants of this thread would be able to agree on how this poll should be conducted?

g.man

cockbeard

Where was the fabrication? Why is the slope slippery? I genuinely believe that religion is not a force for ill, but that any text can be used to assert anything if so desired. The Leviticus passages oft quoted about homosexuality, also state don't fuck your ma, your auntie, kids, and animals. Elsewhere it states don't spill seed on the soil. To my (non-homophobic) mind that seems to clearly state that you shouldn't partake in sex except to produce offspring. Taken alongside the stories of Lot and the goings on at the foot of Sinai, I would assume the intended meaning was stop being self serving, turn away from hedonism

If a hateful prick wants to interpret that as anti gay, they'd likely interpret anything else as anti gay as well

Facewon

cockbeard wrote:

Where was the fabrication?

Not yours, gonzo's description of nu-atheists as wanting to completely irradicate religion and that it is the source of ALL ills and if it was irradicated everything would be gravy. And that they're zealots, etc etc. I haven't over done it by much there, you can see what he said. And what he described is pretty much a characature (how the hell do you spell that?!) and really isn't the reality.

Why is the slope slippery?

Your idea that there is a risk that atheists could become something they are fighting against is a kind of slippery slope argument, is it not? (I may have to look up the formal definition myself.) And my point was that you're worrying about the (potential) risk posed by a creation from gonzo's head.

I genuinely believe that religion is not a force for ill, but that any text can be used to assert anything if so desired. The Leviticus passages oft quoted about homosexuality, also state don't fuck your ma, your auntie, kids, and animals. Elsewhere it states don't spill seed on the soil. To my (non-homophobic) mind that seems to clearly state that you shouldn't partake in sex except to produce offspring. Taken alongside the stories of Lot and the goings on at the foot of Sinai, I would assume the intended meaning was stop being self serving, turn away from hedonism

If a hateful prick wants to interpret that as anti gay, they'd likely interpret anything else as anti gay as well

To my non-homophobic mind the very idea of sex being only for procreation is a problem in and of itself. I also think you've melded a bunch of seperate arguments there into one. All the stuff you mention is about sex in general. When people rile against it, they're (generally) angry/opposed to [insert church here]'s stance on sex in general, of which homophobia is just one of a number of problems.

I would assume the intended meaning was stop being self serving, turn away from hedonism

I would say you're being amazingly generous, and I'd also say what's wrong with self serving if you're not hurting anyone else?

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories