I’m Out. Are You?
More Links
Recently, I managed to mix myself up in some one’s religious views on a blog comment under a post linking to a debate about whether or not Atheism could be considered a new kind of fundamentalism. What I had to say as a short comment managed to offend some one, another sask’ blogger. Actually, his blog ain’t so bad for a pastor’s blog. I mean, he does call the senate “a festering pustule on the arse-end of Canada’s democracy” in one of his recent postrs so it’s not like he’s an idiot. Anything but.
Anyhoo, he seemed to take offence at my comments as posted on Enormous Thriving Plants…which I think I’ll need to add my my links on the left hand side there. This should drive down yet again the frightening percentage of homosexual blog authors on my blog roll thus comforting some truckers who may associate with me from time to time though not enthusiastically.
The rest of this blog post is actually a blog comment that was too long to be posted on Audrey’s blog and so I offer it here to Malcolm, the fellow I offended and anyone else who wants to read it.
People! It’s blog drama. This is the good stuff! Malcolm’s commentary is italicized. My response is plain except near the end where I quote myself because I’m such a grand and awesome fellah! So, without further ado, this is the comment I respond to below.
There is a strong intellectual case for atheism. If you care to make that case, Zach, I’ll happily take you seriously. Since all you can manage is snide and belittling comments, I’ll conclude instead that you don’t have the intellectual confidence of your position and must therefore resort to childish insults.
Neither the existence nor the non-existence of God (regardless of the understanding of God) can be proven, therefore your claim that there is no God has no more intellectual merit than my belief that there is one.
You then commit the logical error of conflating all religious believers into one gang of authoritarians, imposing their own religious view. I think that, were you to think on this issue instead of merely flinging insults, you might notice that there are a range of religious views on such matters as the use of secular authority to enforce religious belief. In fact, if you approached the issue with any honesty at all, you might notice that most religious folk (at least in the last 100 years or so) would actually have issues with the broad imposition of religious dogma by the secular authority.
I don’t ask you to respect my beliefs, Zach. I do, however, expect you to respect my right to hold them. You claim to do so, but your deliberately offensive comments rather put the lie to that.
It is indeed unfortunate Audery that the thread went south so quickly. It’s also unfortunate that I was accused here of conduct that I wasn’t engaged in. Name calling for instance and that Malcolm took my mention of religion being given the force of law in the past as being offensive as referring to him as an authoritarian…well also unfortunate. Malcolm should learn to be much less defencive so he doesn’t take offence to unapologetic opinion.
It’s some times an amazing wonder to me that so many religious folk can take so much offence to even so simple a concept as mentioning that unicorns don’t exist as a comparison for faith related arguments. I mean heck, one of my best friends from Manitoba is such a fanatical Christian that he was kicked out of a baptist congregation for challenging the authority of the pastor almost causing a split in the church. Kind of entertaining actually but I wonder why it is he can talk unapologetically to me about his religion and not throw a snit every time I make an unapologetic argument that compares his belief system to fairy tales. Perhaps he’s more secure in said system of belief than Malcolm is.
There is a strong intellectual case for atheism. If you care to make that case, Zach, I’ll happily take you seriously. Since all you can manage is snide and belittling comments, I’ll conclude instead that you don’t have the intellectual confidence of your position and must therefore resort to childish insults.
Frankly, I have no interest going toe to toe with a pastor or whatnot. I’ve done it many times in the past and I’ll do it again but why waste the time today? These arguments very often end up boiling down to matters of faith and not on the part of the atheist.
As for snide and belittling comments, please point them out. I’m certainly not going to try and be diplomatic but I think that you’ve taken offence to any of this (especially anything in my first post) is much more an indicator of how you feel rather than how I do. Hell, you actually ignored Audry’s entire post which she seemed to put some effort in to and chose to zero in on me because you were offended. If my post was so terrible, why not just ignore it and engage in the pleasant and diplomatic conversation that Audry offered?
Is your problem here the fact that I’m so completely ready to admit openly and readily that I have no respect for religion? Would you rather have me pretend to respect you? Frankly, wouldn’t that be an unforgivable insult to pretend you respect an argument when you in fact do not? Would you rather I lie to you?
Actually, when I re-read my own posts, I can’t for the life of me see where I called you a name. I can’t even see any demeaning insults on my part. I really think you’re just insecure and oversensitive perhaps though I can’t claim to know that for sure.
Neither the existence nor the non-existence of God (regardless of the understanding of God) can be proven, therefore your claim that there is no God has no more intellectual merit than my belief that there is one.
There is intellectual merit in claiming that there is no proof of God and thusly that the idea should not impact our lives to any great or notable degree aside from perhaps good fiction novels. There in intellectual merit in trying to find out if God exists though there seems to be no credible indication of such a being existing and certainly not as any religious organization has illustrated that being to be.
Let me make this clear again Malcolm; (codsarn it, I’m being draw in like a fruit fly!) giving a religious book any intellectual weight is no different than giving a garden variety fairy tale the same type of intellectual weight. This is as ridiculous an argument as you insisting that because I can’t prove that mother goose does not exist, we should seriously consider that she does and has an impact on our lives somehow beyond the consideration of fictional works. There is intellectual merit perhaps in wanting to develop a scientific process of examination to prove absolutely that mother goose does not exist, but the authority is exceptionally insignificant isn’t it?
There’s no problem in trying to find an answer but there’s every problem in creating ridiculous institutions like marriage all because you’ve started believing in mother goose…err…God without proof. Do I believe in the nonexistence of mother goose? I do indeed. If mother goose was proven to exist would I adjust my world view to include the existence of a mother goose? Sure, why wouldn’t I? Does this mean I have faith that mother goose does not exist? Absolutely not. It just means that mother goose isn’t a part of my life and is absolutely insignificant to me. That people like you insist on making it significant is where some consternation can be realized. It’s like a five year old insisting that I play a simplistic video game when I have no interest in it.
This actually makes me think of a theist who, upon finding out that I’m a non-theist asked me how I could be against God. She seemed to think that god was a part of my life and that since I professed no belief in the being, that I was somehow in opposition to God. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am no more against God than I am against Puff the Magic Dragon.
Now, I’ll bet you’re getting offended again so I should be clear that my comparisons to fairly tales and those too young to drink spirits are not an attempt to upset you. you seem to think they are but they’re not. I’m telling you clearly, on what type of plane I see this issue. It doesn’t mean I think that you’re childish or stupid because generally, people aren’t these things despite it being so tempting sometimes to project these qualities onto another.
I’ve seen no indication that you are anything but a sensible and considerate fellow who is convinced of certain things. I just happen to think that those things you are convinced of are silly and that you’re wrong. Again, I’m not going to hide that opinion for the sake of appearing to be something I’m not.
You then commit the logical error of conflating all religious believers into one gang of authoritarians, imposing their own religious view.
Well, generally speaking, religion does forward the notion of using the coercive power of the state to make people act and think as some religious leaders do. It is no accident that the word “theocracy” exists. If you want to look back to religious roots, I suggest you see how the Roman emperor Constantine bought his empire around to his way of thinking as an early Christian. In fact, when he bought Bishops from around the empire together to bang out a bunch of writing, he established a good portion of the foundation for what modern Christianity is today.
You know an anti-blasphemy law was passed just a short while ago in Ireland? Given half the chance, there are a very alarming number of religious folks who would enact laws that force their religion on others. This is not a logical fallacy, (though it is the way you took it) it is simply what happens in government when people arrive with an agenda. This is one reason that I am an anarcho-capitalist of sorts; because I don’t believe that government power can ever escape the entirely fallible human condition that puts us in so great a mess all of the time. While I think you should live one way, you likely think I would be better of living another way and it’s because of this type of thing that government as a one size fits all authority is so terribly illegitimate…but again I wander into a different topic.
Not all Christians are authoritarian scumbags…in fact, the vast majority of them are not. You’re right on that count, but then I never said otherwise. I said that in the past, religion has been given the force of law and that’s true. I also said that such a thing is offensive and to me, that is certainly also true.
If I’m conflating, let me ask you, have you condemned the Irish state’s recent passage of a law that calls for penalties inflicted upon those who would blaspheme against God? It’s not too late for you to do so if you have not done so yet.
But again, this is not to say that religious folk are authoritarian. In fact, in my own example there, you can find a great number of religious groups being kind of baffled. No one was really asking (aside from a very small group of extremists) for this law. No one notable really wanted it and every one was fairly surprised when it was revealed that it was quietly shuffled through the government halls of power into the law books. This is however a danger of religion in that it certainly can be very very easily used to coercively impact the population at large.
Does that mean religion should be banned? No! As an avid gun rights fellow myself, to me, this simply means that it should be discouraged, much like general gun use. Aside from hunting…and I guess in the case of religion, aside from play acting and such.
I think that, were you to think on this issue instead of merely flinging insults, you might notice that there are a range of religious views on such matters as the use of secular authority to enforce religious belief.
I think that if you tried to understand a blunt point of view, you may not be so inclined to be insulted by some one who does not intend to insult you. I don’t apologize for my point of view, why do you think I should?
I’m aware of a number of views on the topic. I also have my own view which I’m giving to you with no request for anything in return.
In fact, if you approached the issue with any honesty at all
So, was that tit for tat?
you might notice that most religious folk (at least in the last 100 years or so) would actually have issues with the broad imposition of religious dogma by the secular authority.
I have noticed that. Have you also noticed that a notable number of religious individuals have taken to the opposite tack? This is like talking about how war is a non-issue in the early 1940′s because Switzerland can be cited as an example of neutrality in the world. Well, not that extreme, but certainly there is a significant threat of the abuse of the “secular authority” by religious wing nuts all around the world.
Lemme ask you, do you think marriage licenses should be distributed by the state? Why or why not? Please be honest in your approach to the question.
I don’t ask you to respect my beliefs, Zach. I do, however, expect you to respect my right to hold them.
BUT…*sigh* RIGHT THERE! Second comment!
I have very little respect for your belief system though all the respect in the world for your right to engage in it.
You claim to do so, but your deliberately offensive comments rather put the lie to that.
How? Even if I was being deliberately offensive, how would that really indicate that I had no respect for your right to engage in religious belief? I’m failing to make a connection here.
If I was calling for religion to be banned or billed as child abuse under the law as some seem to think it should be, then perhaps I would have a little bit of trouble defending myself here but again, I think you’re falling victim to your own sensitivity. Respect does not necessarily carry with it, particular mannerisms and tactful pussy footing around an issue of contention among parties involved. Very often, respect is demonstrated by engaged parties casting off the feeling for a need to hide their intentions and feelings from one another.
I, in general, respect that people are better served by discussions which do not omit points of view or facts of contention for the sake of giving some one an inflated sense of ego. If you should take this as an attempt to insult you, you have misinterpreted and I ask that you reevaluate why I may express myself to you as I do.
I guess I do have some desire to engage in this argument. Disappointing actually because frankly, I don’t know how I’m going to find the time as I go back to the grind tomorrow but I promise that I will certainly try if you desire it Malcolm.
Peace out Bruthah!
Comments
Thank you for taking the time to look at Simple Massing Priest. I don’t know how much time you spent there beyind the first page, but your explorations may have shown you that I spend a good deal of time confronting Christian fundamentalism, particularly as it has reared its head in the Anglican Communion.
A few observations – in particular order:
You admitted yourself that you understood why I would find the tone and content of your original post at ETP offensive. You seem like a reasonably bright fellow and must surely understand that being offensive runs counter to effective communications (particularly online). I really don’t see your need to keep going there.
I’m not aware of anyone positing the thesis that (to use one of your examples) Mother Goose exists per se (although there are those who have concluded that the name is probably a corruption of the name of a real person who gathered many of these tales into a collection at some point). There is certainly no one arguing that belief in the existence of or in particular attributes of the putative Mother Goose is important in any way. Don’t see that the comparison is particularly relevant.
There are lots of religious folk who have done nasty things. There are lots of atheists who have done nasty things. The former list is longer, in part because atheism is a relatively recent phenomenon and relatively few atheists have really been in a position to be truly nasty on a grand scale. There are also religious people whose service to humanity has been truly heroic as well as atheists whose service to humanity has been similarly heroic. Again, the former list is longer for similar reasons.
Marriage is actually a social institution more than a religious one – though all religions seem to have teachings on the subject. It may interest you to know that part of the impetus for the creation of civil marriage commissioners in Saskatchewan was a relosution from the Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Qu’Appelle saying that the secular government should provide a means for those of no particular faith to marry without having to go to a religious institution.
Marriage “in the church” is a relatively late development which arose in the middle ages because the priest (as one of the few reliably literate folk in town) was in a position to record the marriage. This happened at the church door. The church wedding evolved from the simple nuptial blessing the priest would usually offer the couple.
In any event, those who have used religious arguments against the state providing for same sex marriages have confused parallel but separate institutions. The secular and religious definitions of marriage have differed in the Commonwealth since the Deceased Wife’s Sister’s Marriage Act of 1907, which legalized certain marriages in secular law which were forbidden in the canon law of the Church of England.
I don’t see any particular need for a discussion between religious believers and atheists to include assertions that the other person’s belief system is stupid. I don’t think (most) atheists are stupid.
That should have been NO particular order.
As a followup to my closing comment:
“I don’t see any particular need for a discussion between religious believers and atheists to include assertions that the other person’s belief system is stupid. I don’t think (most) atheists are stupid.”
Even if I did think atheists were stupid (or at least that their belief system was stupid), I somehow doubt that saying “your belief system is stupid” is going to be very persuasive.
Welcome, Malcolm! Nice to see you over here. I like your blog. My dad is an Anglican priest (now in Florida, but formerly of Newfoundland), so I’m adding you to my reader.
Always a good topic for discussion. ‘Believers’ have always baffled me. It is truly amazing to me that some people can attach a system of morality to human existence based on the art of brainwashing. Religion does nothing but allow people to go through their lives without ever truly self-examining themselves. You must believe that you are truly insignificant; your only purpose to sell ‘God’s’ word, grow the flock. A shepherd with no flock…..
Lastly, the damage that Religious beliefs have on society are somewhat immeasurable. Logic and Reason have no place where religion exists. It is the only example of a discussion that flips the burden of proof to proving a negative – like you mentioned Zach.
It really does upset me sometimes that so many people in all of our lives could be doing so much more for themselves if only they believed they were worthy.
Thank you for taking the time to look at Simple Massing Priest. I don’t know how much time you spent there beyind the first page, but your explorations may have shown you that I spend a good deal of time confronting Christian fundamentalism, particularly as it has reared its head in the Anglican Communion.
I didn’t look beyond the first page but it seemed a reasonable enough blog.
You admitted yourself that you understood why I would find the tone and content of your original post at ETP offensive. You seem like a reasonably bright fellow and must surely understand that being offensive runs counter to effective communications (particularly online). I really don’t see your need to keep going there.
I said I understood why you would find it offensive. It doesn’t mean I think it’s sensible that you’re offended because I think you misunderstand as a result of your core beliefs. It does help communication to be tactful in some instances but I don’t wish to cloud a discussion with vague and fuzzy conversation because I’m beating around the bush.
I say what I mean to say and frankly, that shouldn’t offend you. It should offend you if I am not entirely honest with you or perhaps too disrespectful of you to speak plainly. I “keep going there” only because you think I’m going there. I place that entirely on you.
I’m not aware of anyone positing the thesis that (to use one of your examples) Mother Goose exists per se (although there are those who have concluded that the name is probably a corruption of the name of a real person who gathered many of these tales into a collection at some point). There is certainly no one arguing that belief in the existence of or in particular attributes of the putative Mother Goose is important in any way. Don’t see that the comparison is particularly relevant.
The comparison is relevant in that some one in my position will try to demonstrate that a fairly tale has as much intellectual authority as most any organized religion.
You’re correct that positing the idea that mother goose is real is not a popular stance. Why is it not popular? Because it’s an outlandish idea. The comparison is relevant because some one like myself sees Mother Goose as tangible as Jesus Christ or any God.
There are lots of religious folk who have done nasty things. There are lots of atheists who have done nasty things. The former list is longer, in part because atheism is a relatively recent phenomenon and relatively few atheists have really been in a position to be truly nasty on a grand scale.
Firstly, Atheism is not a recent phenomenon. Not only would it be reasonable to conclude that as long as there has been some one to theorize on the existence of gods there have been those that may counter the theories; it is also supported by texts recovered in the centuries BC.
Now as per religious folks doing nasty things and the list of atheists being a smaller number due to their smaller numbers in the population, that’s an interesting speculation. What do you make of laws that demand people have a religious faith to serve office? Some of those laws still exist today. Of course leave it to religious authoritarians to turn on those most like them. In our own land here under George III in England, Catholics weren’t allowed to vote as they had supported James II. Jacobites were also denied the right to vote. These groups were also denied the right to sit in parliament and vote there.
I think when I talk about government and religious authority, it’s only a single facet of a much larger argument I like to engage in which is the moral illegitimacy of governance by way of force. You’re correct in that an atheist in power can do just as much stupid junk as a religious person in power; I’m just saying that in some cases, religion demands it. I’m not aware of an atheist doctrine that does the same or any formalized atheist teaching that promotes such an idea. The bottom line for me is that government given the force of any one particular set of beliefs is a terrible thing.
. There are also religious people whose service to humanity has been truly heroic as well as atheists whose service to humanity has been similarly heroic. Again, the former list is longer for similar reasons.
People can be good regardless of whether or not they believe in a God. Agreed.
Marriage is actually a social institution more than a religious one – though all religions seem to have teachings on the subject. It may interest you to know that part of the impetus for the creation of civil marriage commissioners in Saskatchewan was a relosution from the Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Qu’Appelle saying that the secular government should provide a means for those of no particular faith to marry without having to go to a religious institution.
Well that failed miserably then. When me and my own partner were seeking out the possibility of becoming formally married, we found that was no way to avoid having to participate in a ceremony. There was no possibility for us to simply sign some forms without having to stand about as there was some reference to a deity made. Not really our cup of tea.
Marriage has at the very least been made an institution of primarily religious significance at its core. The state should have no business in it.
Marriage “in the church” is a relatively late development which arose in the middle ages because the priest (as one of the few reliably literate folk in town) was in a position to record the marriage. This happened at the church door. The church wedding evolved from the simple nuptial blessing the priest would usually offer the couple.
This I did not know. What I do know is that today, it is a religious institution and formally, there is no escaping the spiritual quality of it. That’s a lack of choice in my corner and it’s some what offensive.
In any event, those who have used religious arguments against the state providing for same sex marriages have confused parallel but separate institutions.
No they have not. Marriage has undeniably become a religious institution no matter what the technicalities are. It’s almost schizophrenic to claim in one breath that faith, spirituality and belief are integral to religion and then fob off religious arguments on marriage as not being in tune with some very minor and obscure technicalities.
I don’t see any particular need for a discussion between religious believers and atheists to include assertions that the other person’s belief system is stupid. I don’t think (most) atheists are stupid.
Perhaps you don’t…I don’t see any need to hide an opinion that I think religion is a product of being deluded. This doesn’t mean people are stupid, rather that they are misled. It doesn’t require stupidity that you be a religious person and even the smartest among us can very easily be convinced of something that isn’t true. Again, this isn’t mean to insult you but I’m sure you’ll be hard pressed not to take it that way.
Cheers
