To Mr. Stone? Note that at times, many atheists, like myself, speak against all religions; Islam is just one of many.
I feel that all religions are bad. So there's no particular discrimination here.
By the way? Having lived for 5 years in moderate Islamic countries, I get along well enough with Muslims. But when they bombed our faculty room and started hijacking local airplanes, it seemed like it was a good time to leave.
show a lack of discrimination. But not in the way that you used the word.
.. can be shown to be bad, I respectfully submit.
As is every country, in fact every group of humans, for that matter.
But this only proves that humans are not perfect. Which we already knew.
So if your point is that humans are imperfect, I agree.
Then it is flawed from the beginning. There is no Good religion "behind" our imperfect human conceptions.
that belief is probably in something that is not human, that is greater than human. So if there is a perfect Creator, that Creator can only be perceived by imperfect humans.
So any perceived imperfections in the Creator or the message might be a result of imperfection in the viewer.
In my opinion.
well,.we cannot know whether he is perfect or imperfect. Or even whether he exists.
SO if you cannot take it on faith, as it were, I understand. But some people obviously can, and do.
Last edited Sun Dec 4, 2016, 04:21 AM - Edit history (2)
False prophets, bad priests; even a "false Christ" who deceives the whole world. To me, if ever I am tempted to take any part of the Bible at all seriously, it seems that prophesy has already long since been realized.
Christianity itself has been following a false idea of Christ for 2,000 years; all too faithfully.
Which is why even the Bible itself began to note some problems with "faith." Which end up with the blind, faithfully following the blind. Or related to that, following "false priests." Like Catholic priests, and Protestant ministers.
Following atheism is better.
If you come to what is essentially a debate forum, it is not really following the format to simply assert your position, with no proofs. Normally dialogue is the point here.
I'd suggest furthermore, that given so many historical problems with religion, following any given position - especially one like your own - blindly and with no good evidence, is a rash thing to do. Since you might very well be following false religious ideas - "False priests" as even the Bible calls them - all too faithfully, all too blindly.
I would urge you to now and then consider staying on line, rather than continually hanging up on such conversations (with an "EOM," etc).
So applying the same rules that would be applied in science is not applicable.
There are scientists who reconcile faith and science, but they generally seem to do so by recognizing that the two areas do not overlap as far as methodology. The non-overlapping magisteria argument.
And what you say in describing religion can also be stated in regard to patriotism, or political beliefs.
So, in the interests of clarity, what is your personal position on faith? How do you describe yourself if the question arises?
Last edited Tue Dec 6, 2016, 09:13 AM - Edit history (3)
Everyone assumes religion should be based on faith, not proven facts, or science. But in my reading, the Bible warned hundreds of times about countless bad and false things in religion; even Christianity. So finally the Bible itself told us to follow not holy men; but visible material evidence (1Kings 18.20-40; Dan. 1.4-15 KJE; 1Thess. 5.21; Mal. 3.10, etc.).
Christian religious leaders, even St. Peter, are so unreliable that Jesus himself calls them "Satan"ic (Mat. 16.23). So we shouldn't have faith in them, or their God. Instead we should "test everything," in religion with "science," (1Thess. 5.21; Dan. 1.4-15 KJE; Mal. 3.10).
So I find in my writings in this that even according to the Bible, we are NOT supposed to follow faith, and the suspension of disbelief.
To be sure, once we apply science and critical thinking to religion, most of religion - its promises say of "all" the physical miracles we "ask" for, for instance (John 14.13), is immediately found to be false. And so our original religion collapses; is found false.
It was to get around the obvious physical failures of religion that writers like Paul and Origen, began to semantically spin the old promises if material mirackes; to insist they are mostly only symbols - allegories, figures, metaphors, parables - for not literal, physical things. But for invisible "spirit." Even tthough? The Bible championed not just spirit, but also the material universe. Which God made in Genesis, and found "good."
So the attempt to separate science and religion, matter vs. spirit, science vs. faith was not entirely biblical. But was an apologetics sophistry. Which was used to cover up obvious failures in our original, very materialistic religion.
But that apologetic doesn't even stand up to a look at the Bible itself. Jesus himself say, asked for only a tiny bit - a mustard seed - of faith. It was only St. Paul who writes many pages dedicated to faith. Even as he cites physical "works" as proof of goodness.
And so, as for our spiritual heaven? Heaven itself is supposed to "dissolve." And the "New heaven" is supposed to return here; to be not a metaphor, but a physical, material place, here in this physical material earth (Rev.21 ff.; Isa. 65-6?).
So in my reading, in the end, the Bible cancels much of what it once said; cancelling faith and it's Platonistic/Marcionism spirituality, in favor of science.
(In effect, the Bible self-deconstructs.
These matters, sketched briefly here, are developed more adequately in the Woodbridge Goodman books. On the Science of God, versus priestly, ministerial overspirituality.
As for the supposed confusions between religion and patriotism? I note that Judaism, like many tribes, had a religion that was tribal, or in effect, nationalistic. Or patriotic. Its god most often favored their tribes, Jews, as "God's chosen people."
So in Judaism, in its often theocratic "kingdom," just like many ancient theocracies, church and state, religion and science, were not yet separate areas, or "magisteria". Nor did they become entirely separate, even in the New Testament. That separation happened more later; in subsequent church history. Though to be sure, the first outline of the schizophrenic "magisterial" split, matter/spirit, state/church dualism, can be seen in the New Testament, and its flirtation with "spirit." Which was basically a long flirtation with hierarchical, Platonistic idealism, dualism; later, Gnosticism. )
in the interest of dialogue,
belief in the existence of a deity requires faith.
As to the Bible, speaking specifically of Christianity, there are numerous Christian variants. Some believe that the Bible is literally true. Others believe that the Bible combines metaphor with history/genealogy.
But most variants of Christianity with which I am familiar hold that the words of Jesus are the pathway to salvation, self-awareness, and an awareness of mans' relationship with the Creator.
I have a very unusual theology therefore. But?
The Bible notes that conformity to mass opinion in religion, is no guarantee that you will be adopting the correct view on say, Jesus. Since the Bible warned that essentially the whole world would be found to have been deceived one day, in its idea of who or what is the true representative from God (Rev. 13.5-8).
Every church asserts that it is itself the unique exception to that deception. Or that especially its "faith" cannot be deceived. But in my own reading of the Bible, the Bible itself subtly backed away from "faith," and even Jesus. So? Essentially all churches, which stress faith, are deceived.
Yes, this is very, very unconventional. But with my PhD in textual analysis, I''ve uncovered this. And I'm now defending this view in my book drafts.
I don't know how much patience you will have for my unconventional views. But many serious scholars have long considered similar theories. Noting that 1) most Jews themselves did not accept Jesus as a Christ. While 2) Wrede noted that Jesus kept his status as Christ unclear; or a "Messanaic Secret." Then too, not only would Jesus himself not consistently affirm he was specifically the "Christ." But furthermore, 3) on the cross he doubted his status; feeling he had been "abandoned" - or in other words, not chosen - by God. Even as 4) in my reading, because so many things in religion, even Christianity, can be bad or false, finally the Bible in effect, notes massive failings in faith and belief. And urged that we adopt science instead.
Yes these are very unusual views. But consider this defense among others: if, as according to liberal Christianity, no one knows who is right about religion until the End, and if, as the Bible says, the whole world can indeed be deceived in its faith? Then plausibly my theology is right. And the conventional view of the whole world of Christians - stressing faith in Jesus - is simply, surprisingly, unexpectedly, wrong.
Keep in mind that God's judgements in the End, are known to be, often, completely unexpected.
Nobody knows how God will judge us on judgement day, as they say. Possibly my theology is right. And your conventional stress on faith, is unexpectedly, wrong.
Thanks for taking the time to consider my views.
And if 30 people read something and report on what was read, there might be 30 subtly different versions.
As to Jesus and the Jews, the Jews are still awaiting the Messiah.
When Jesus doubted, on the Cross and in the garden at Gethsemane, he was expressing his dual role as man and as Savior.
Yes, your views are interesting, and I do not claim any particular insight into which is the correct view, or that there is one correct view.
Last edited Wed Dec 7, 2016, 07:54 AM - Edit history (1)
If nothing definite can be said in religion, and if so many different views are acceptable, then finally religion really isn't saying anything clearly. And therefore, being hopelessly vague and equivocal, it can be of little use in guiding our lives.
Modern religion is like having a set of directions telling you ten contradictory things, every time. To the point that it is useless as a map.
Or worse than useless. SInce it often pretends have answers... but really has none. As it thereby wastes our time. And deceives us all.
In this view, 1) the old, literal or fundamentalist religion, has its sins and errors. 2) But modern permissive, indecisive, equivocal religion, isn't a whole lot better. Reiterating infinite undecidability, often does not give us useful guidance.
Regarding your other defenses of your faith? I see you were well schooled in standard church sermons,.or apologetics defenses against common complaints about Christianity. But over the years I became dissatisfied with standard excuses. I 1) note biblical problems with the conventional emphasis on "faith."
Next? It is 2) commonly asserted for example, that Jesus and Christianity were completely loyal, faithful, to the Old Testament and its God. But? The OT normally embraces Jews, as God's chosen people. Even as Jews themselves - who should know Judaism - overwhelmingly asserted that Jesus blasphemous their - and in effect, the Old Testament - tradition. In addition, Peter for that matter, changing Old Testament kosher food laws, etc.
So Jesus and Christianity don't really conform to the God of the OT here. And 3) neither does Jesus'' "dual nature." God is immortal and does not die. So Jesus dying, is not wholly Godlike. Indeed, if Jesus is partly human, then he is not wholly God. And makes human mistakes.
Then too? 4) Scholars agree today there are more than minor discrepancies in biblical accounts of Jesus: the differences are extreme enough to suggest the document overall is unreliable. Indeed, Jesus calling the apostle Peter "Satan" in Mat. 16.23, suggest extremely serious - not subtle or minor - doctrinal errors in our highest apostles, and their conflicting accounts.
There are therefore, many objections to standard apologetics sermons, homilies, defenses, of traditional and modern Christianity.
First, I am a human, with a human level of intelligence and understanding. So I would not compare my knowledge or abilities with a being that Created all of existence. An amoeba cannot debate with a human. The differences are too great to permit of dialogue and understanding.
The Bible is considered to be revelation. An example of the Creator revealing truths about existence.
As to Jesus and the Old Testament, Jesus did state that he came to make a new covenant, a new testament. And that is a part of the reason he was judged to be blasphemous by the Jewish priests. The other part is that the priests did not accept him as the true Messiah.
As to the nature of a Creator, what would humans know about that nature? Do you feel confident to state that a Creator would have to embody any particular traits?
As to your final comments, if you are not a believer of course you would have many objections. I would expect no less. But your objections are based on your opinions only.
1) You are saying God is beyond understanding ... but then stipulating things you feel you understood he said. Like stressing faith.
2)The Bible is considered holy revelation by some. But others note factual errors in it.
3) Jesus at times claims to follow God ... but then changes the rules, his view of God, to something new. Though God earlier called his laws everlasting and unchangeable.
4) Jews did not accept Jesus because they - rightly I show - felt he was changing too many things said by my God earlier. Like the changes made by the New Covenant. Which God in the Old Testament did not authorize .
5) The Bible assigns many traits to the Creator. If you reject those traits, sayings, what you're left with is hopelessly vague and featureless.
6) I originally didn't ask questions because I was always a nonbeliever. Long ago, I was a believer. Who asked questions about God in part because the Bible's God himself said "put me to the test," Mal. 3.10; 1 Kings 18.20-40; 1 Thess. 5.21.
Ironically, I was following the Bible, when I began to question God.
1) I am stipulating my interpretation of the message of Jesus.
2) The difference between Biblical literalism and "Bible as metaphor" people.
3) Jesus stated that he came to replace the old, but he generally honored the old in observance.
4) The Jews are still waiting for the Messiah.
5) What is written about the Creator, even if it is inspired, is still filtered through a human consciousness.
6) Following your own path. I respect that and I would not seek to convince you to follow another path.
If you see a blind man about to walk over a cliff, shouldn't you say something?
Your typical modern Christianity, is essentially hypocritical and inconsistent. At times it supports the idea of 1) a "mysterious" ineffable God, about whom nothing definitive can be said. This is perhaps a good idea, some would say. But 2) often its advocates are not loyal to it. One second they tell us nothing can be said about this ineffable God. But then the start saying lots of things about him.
Related to that, is an opposite problem: what good is a religion, a God, who is always ineffable and equivocal, or vague. Who never gives us good solid, pointed advice when we need it?
So your own typical, modern vague, metaphorical God, is a ... rather useless appendage. At best.
In some ways in the past, I was attracted to our vague, modern/postmodern God. But eventually...
And I have found what works for me.
You frequently support one of the central tenets of modern Christianity: 1) almost anything you believe is OK, if it works for you. But 2) then? You insist, inconsistently, that critics of many of your positions on Democratic Underground, are wrong. Even if, their criticisms (and any of their positive beliefs) presumably, work for them.
So here's the problem: if 1) almost any belief is OK ... then 2) how can you say that critics who believe your position is not good (say your general support for Christianity) are wrong?
It turns out your position is not as consistently liberal and permissive as it appears at first. At first you liberally allow that many views are acceptable. But then you say that the positions that oppose your views, however, are really in effect, wrong.
I have disagreed with you when you restate things that I have said, but that is calling your restatement incorrect. I have been accused by some at DU of attempting to define what Christianity is, but my statements here are prefaced with words like "in my view" or "in my opinion". I do not declare what any religion is. I give my opinions.
So please make this easier on you and point out this:
I might disagree with your interpretation of something, but disagreement is not calling you wrong. It is disagreement.
Though often it does not insist on it quite as strongly, modern intellectual, allegorical Christianity still ends up stressing many of the old doctrines of dogmatic literalists and fundamentalists. Like "faith" and so forth.
In this way, even modern "enlightened" Christianity still partially follows - and reinforces - the old.
And any attempt to characterize "enlightened" Christianity fails because every believer finds a path that may differ from others.
I attempt to follow the message of Jesus. When I fail I make another attempt.
And obviously faith is necessary in order to believe in the unprovable. That is where faith differs from science. But even scientists speculate.
All your remarks typically reveal the strong points ... and weak ones, of modern, post-fundamentalist Christianity.
One of the questionable acts of modernist Christianity, is its 1) frequent citation of 2) but then notable deviation from, the Bible, overall: Old AND New Testaments.
"Following Jesus" is a standard modern code for not following God. It is well known by moderns, that the New Testament broke away from the Old with a New Covenant. Even as moderns fail to note the hypocrisy of claiming to follow the Bible, and God... while Jesus departs from the "everlasting" laws of God.
Here, I am not bothered so much by the fact that Jesus and Paul and modern Christianity, broke away from God; I'm just troubled by their hypocritically not making that break crystal clear.
Some Christians believe that the New Testament represents a better understanding of what was previously understood to be the role of a believer.
But modern Christians hide that implication from fundies
That's not honest.
I would personally say that the message was refined and distilled down to its essence.
Classically, and from the original Hebrew, faith is merely "trust in that of which we do not have full knowledge." Seems that we place faith in many, many thing... unless we presume to have a full and absolute knowledge of it...
(Source: Hebrew Concordance of the Old Testament: Coded with Strong's Concordance Numbers by George Wigram)
And, since humans largely invented most of politics, nations, philosophies, arts, etc., do you yet apply your unsupported premise consistently in that there is no Good art, Good philosophy, etc.?
I don't hate Cathics or Muslims. I just don't trust their churches, and fundamental as well as optional beliefs.
Especially given their history of murder.
Just what the FUCK are you talking about?
Remember, atheists are so despised that we can't possibly "normalize" anything. If we say the sky is "up," most folks will flip over and try to stand on it to prove us wrong.
who distrust. And what it indicates is not very good. And we are still waiting for an explanation of what this post involves.
As 'stoned space' alleged in the OP.
Unless simply to start a conversation.
When we spew hate, it has impact.
Both on the targets of that hate, and on others as collateral damage.
Islamophobia here in Iowa leads to xenophobia and racism.
Xenophobia and racism make ethnic cleansing both thinkable and possible here in Iowa.
Hate speech has effects in the real world.
Don't sell us short. We aren't helpless. Our words and our actions influence the atmosphere all around us.
I've heard come from someone who refers to themself as a militant atheist.
I've heard come from someone who refers to themself as a militant atheist.
That's a myth.
If I tried hard enough, I could even find an internet meme that would prove that it's a myth.
I'm an atheist.
But I know militant atheists. They hate all religion. They say very little like what you say. I have no idea why you label yourself that way.
A friend's 7 year old son was told that he was going to be deported to Mexico in school, in the small town of Nevada (pronounced differently than the state), right next door from here.
He's afraid, now.
Your friends' hateful rhetoric has nothing to do with atheism, militant or otherwise.
It's about spreading a climate of hate to make others unsafe.
Lots of people are afraid, now.
People keep coming up, crying, worried that they will be deported, that their parents will be deported, that their brothers and sisters will be deported, that their aunts and uncles will be deported.
All I'm saying is you should probably stop using that label. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
All I'm saying is you should probably stop using that label. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
Your hateful friends are your hateful friends.
When they spread their hate, that has consequences.
But atheism is not about hate.
That's a myth.
You might want to tell your hateful friends to knock it off.
What they are doing is not atheism.
As compared to say.... catholics.
Thanks for bringing that point up, rug.
But they are a tiny minority, and nobody trusts atheists anyway, so if you're looking for 'normalization of islamophobia', one should go bark up the correct tree.
Tell me all about how a completely distrusted minority among minorities 'normalizes islamophobia'.
I am ALL ears.
Because if it is genuine, we really do have a problem.
None of this should be a surprise to you.
The data for that claim is still absent.
crowd of 'new atheists' became visible, I too am wondering where's the data supporting Stone Space's original claim.
The number of 'new atheists' depends on how you define it, and I'm not aware of a single number to work with. As used, it could apply to a VERY small number of talking heads.
The 'newfangled atheists' are a subset of that.
I don't see you asking Stone to substantiate the OP. Why so worried about what I said? (That is self-fucking-evident)
However, rarely does the content of what you say match the attitude which accompanies it. That is the interest.
(That is self-fucking-evident)
If you disagree with the group I specified, the size of it, or the fact that the 'newfangled atheists' are a SUBSET of that group, by all means, go ahead.
Let's assume (fabricating out of whole cloth the assumption) that SS was claiming just about within the 'new atheists' population, islamophobia has been normalized. (By their own actions/desires)
Daniel Dennett. Not an anti-islam kinda guy. Sure, he's called it things like a 'parasitic mind virus'. But that's true of any religion he'll talk about.
Hemant Mehta. (Patheos)
Here's a starting place:
So the headline "Atheists More Tolerant of Islam Than Christians" (which doesn't really reflect the body of the article) doesn't establish that either group is not Islamophobic.
Nor does it establish which subgroup of each are Islamophobic (which is the point of the OP).
Regardless, the link in the article is worth watching:
Do they have the power and stature in society to make the changes the OP is claiming?
Hint: No, they don't.
If you wish to start an OP in which you discuss some finding about how many atheists are Islamophobes, I'm sure people would respond.
So, both your question and himt are straw.
The particular question is whether Islamophobia has been normalized within "new atheists".
but, as it reads, it seems to be indicating that the new atheists have normalized Islamaphobia and that has caused bad things to happen in "Biblical proportions." I see no indications that this is just about within the atheist community. The "Biblical proportions" phrase is what leads me to believe that. Now, what the specific outcome from this "normalization" is, is beyond me.
And I would argue, No, it hasn't been normalized within the new atheists. Are there some atheists that are Islamaphobic? Of course. There are atheists of all stripes.
Attention to detail and all that.
through the thread, I'm clearly not the only person who got to that conclusion.
If it was limited to just that group, it wouldn't be a catastrophic error at all. The damage would be highly localized.
on tbe alt-right Libertarian movement, though it seems to be happily in bed with the Tea Party brand of Christians.
I suspect that, barring a miracle, an atheist president will be sworn in on January 20. The idea that a being greater than himself exists seems totally outside the scope of the Donald's thought process. (I use the term "thought process" loosely.
Form of; 'not really a christian'.
No thanks, Christians can keep their baggage. Not going to sit back and have him 'classified' by external entities as an atheist just because some people don't like his politics/behavior.
You may notice that there are no "" and no lower case "c" in my post. The Tea Party Christians are just that--and are different from, say, MCC or Episcoplian or mainstream Protestant Christians--who are in turn different from Roman Catholics to varying degrees--to cite a small sample.
Can you produce any evidence that Trump practices any religion or believes in god(s)?
Good luck proving he's not.
I have yet to find a single christian that survives all scrutiny against christian ideals.
It's a question of simple Christian literacy, and Trump doesn't have it.
So, speaking of 'diversions'...
And yes, there are probably Tea Party members from most liberal denominations, but their churches as a whole do not support Tea Party principes.
There is no 'tea party christian' church to my knowledge. They come in all shapes and sizes, and while there is some overlap, their political identity does not perfectly match their religious identity.
but they are overwhelmingly evangelical or pentecostal, as well as fundamentalist.
You can read numbers, can't you?
Are you saying that the reason the religious supported Trump so much is that they followed some atheist's lead?
and the Islamophobes are Trump and his supporters - he called for a blanket ban on Muslims entering the country, remember? You know, the guy the Catholics preferred. The guy the churchgoers preferred. The guy the evangelicals preferred. The guy the religiously unaffiliated and non-churchgoers were against. The guy in the news this year, and who becomes your president next year. The religious favourite.
and you've not attempted to explain it - you just made a remark about the right wing, as if American believers weren't more right wing than average.
I really think you're still in denial about who supports Trump. You need to face reality. Look at the facts. Leave your bubble.
It's still one of the biggest fallacies extant.
Response to rug (Reply #19)
(Are you as upset about the Catholic Church's normalization of Homophobia and misogyny?)
to be atheists so they could spend all day every day attacking atheists.
Sort of like Starboard Tack would sit around arguing for marriage equality, so people could marry bicycles, because that wasn't a total right-wing talking point verbatim.
Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #51)