A new day of the NZ Atheist Bus Campaign
12.12.09 | simon | 
Email This Post
Yesterday was a huge day for the campaign in media coverage, donations, and discussion online and on the radio. I’d like to throw out a big thank you to all those who donated and all those who emailed in positive messages of support, or suggestions for improving and expanding the campaign. Much appreciated!
Just to reiterate, our new target is $20,000. We’re nearly three quarters of the way there and still climbing!
Please continue to support/share the campaign on Facebook, on Twitter, and just by talking to friends and family about it. That is one of the main points after all – to raise awareness of atheism and humanism in NZ. To show that it’s perfectly fine to not believe in a deity and that you can be good without one.
December 12th, 2009 at 9:09 am
What do you think the reaction would be if you also use the slogan “THERE’S PROBABLY NO ALLAH”
and are you prepared to do this ?
December 12th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Nothing is so uncommon as common sense – I remember a summer job I once had convincing people to wear their seat belts. Despite the overwhelming statistical evidence we provided that showed one’s chances of surviving an accident and of minimizing injury were hugely improved by wearing a seat belt, at least once a day someone would argue that they had heard of a person who survived only because they were thrown clear of a wreck. They therefore had decided they would never wear a seat belt again.
The simple math involved had no effect on their thinking, even when gently explained. To this day I don’t understand their reluctance to use math/science/rationality to improve their chances (and those of their loved ones).
The current bus campaign highlights another example of this human foible.
I hope the campaign has the intended effect (stimulating debate), but in reality I expect the lasting effects will be limited. (I have nonetheless donated).
There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.
December 12th, 2009 at 10:02 am
First day of donations inspired by religious and otherwise ignorant commenters: Grand total comes to $31.
December 12th, 2009 at 10:11 am
“THERE’S PROBABLY NO ALLAH”
That doesn’t make any sense for this campaign — “Allah” is just Arabic for “God” anyway. But accepting for the moment the idea that the god of Islam is somehow a different god from any of the other ones, why would an atheist single it out? The whole point is we don’t believe in any god at all.
Possibly the all-caps setting of THERE’S PROBABLY NO GOD is confusing into thinking that it applies merely to the Christian (and perhaps Jewish) deity. But it doesn’t.
December 12th, 2009 at 10:15 am
@Billy – Your stupid little comment is commonly known in atheist circles as “fatwa envy”.
This has already been discussed ad nauseum during other bus campaigns such as in the UK. Get up to speed.
And no, atheists are not scared of muslims, nor their threats of violence.
In fact your comment highlights one of our criticisms of religion – namely that religion can only be maintained by suppressing opposing points of view.
December 12th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Came across this quote by chance this morning. Seems appropriate…
Rational arguments don’t usually work on religious people. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be religious people.
– Doris Egan
December 12th, 2009 at 11:00 am
@wayno- perhaps you should compile a list of the most ignorant comments… maybe a top 10 list.
my favourite was that Robert Mugabe was an atheist.
and my favourite from the tvnz site
“The usual double standards. It’s fine to knock Christianity but if you try to knock Maori beliefs and legends it’s a different story. Harawira all over again.”
I respect people who can justify their arguments, but some of the crazies that have posted there god bothering ignorance amazes me….
plus I enjoy shooting them back down (even though I know its pointless)
December 12th, 2009 at 11:22 am
There are several issues to be raised here.
First, we need to lose the smarmy attitude we as Atheists have about people with religious beliefs.
As Dale McGowan, editor of Parenting Without Belief, says (to paraphrase) religious people are not the enemy. We hold similar values, our ethics are the same, we just arrive at them from two different ends of the spectrum. So we shouldn’t be looking to alienate one another. It’s religious FUNDAMENTALISTS that are a problem and both religious and non-religious people agree on that point. They make us both equally uncomfortable.
McGowan also used a good example when talking about the nose-up snobbery of the “New Atheism”. McGowan’s son was talking to him about how “silly” religionists are, “How can they believe such things?”.
McGowan said to him, “That’s interesting son, now could you please fetch me a soft drink from the basement?”
“The basement?” his son said. “I don’t like going down there alone.”
“Well, what do you think is down there? A monster?”
McGowan was emphasising the fact that we ALL hold irrational fears and beliefs about SOMETHING. We, as Atheists, shouldn’t think we’re exempt from irrationality.
Second, if you’re proud to be an atheist, why not study religious philosophy or the reasons why you don’t believe? It’s all well and fine to say, “Nope, I don’t believe in God or the supernatural, end of story”, but you end up coming off an an ill-prepared fool when anyone poses you a question.
How about visiting the wonderful resources at The Secular Web (www.infidels.org) where you’ll find articles and essays on things such as Theological Noncognitivism (bet most of you don’t know what THAT is, haha), The Argument From Design, Pascal’s Wager, and other philosophic gems.
Watch some Richard Dawkin’s documentaries. Might I suggest ‘The Root Of All Evil’ and ‘Enemies of Reason’. The roundtable discussion between Dawkins, Chris Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett entitled ‘The Four Horsemen’ is a wonderful discussion.
Documentaries such as ‘Constantine’s Sword’, ‘A Twist of Faith’, Deliver Us From Evil’, ‘Marjoe’, ‘Jesus Camp’, and even ‘A History of the Devil’ all fan the flames of our sometimes righteous indignation towards religious belief and should be required viewing for all secularists and atheists.
Just PLEASE have some fun with this and stop freaking out. We all have to live in the world, and religion (being an off-shoot of our inherent human need to anthropomorphise our environment) will always be around.
December 12th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Check out the poll on the Stuff website asking “Is there a god?”. Large participation from everyone out there.
Yes
19092 votes, 26.8%
No
50056 votes, 70.2%
I’m not sure
2199 votes, 3.1%
Total 71347 votes
These stats show that this issue needs to be debated in New Zealand and whether we are a religious nation.
December 12th, 2009 at 11:52 am
@Jon Pawson – you do what you like, but I want NO accomodation with religious believers, including the middle of the road ones!
Religions weedle themselves onto things like medical ethics committees, school boards and the like, in order to impose their values on the rest of us. They are the automatic go-to people for the media whenever there is a story about reproductive medicine or genetics, etc.
They have billboards everywhere, and have radio stations and TV programs to relentlessly push their irrational dogma. Religion is odiously pervasive, and is nearly always given automatic respect that it has not earned.
Showing religion the disrespect that it so richly deserves is not a “smarmy attitude” nor is it “snobbery”.
Moderate religionists protect the fundamentalists by complaining about atheist’s “tone” or “aggressiveness”, and not addressing the actual issues raised. They stand in the way.
So when you say “we need to lose the smarmy attitude” you should speak only for yourself.
December 12th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
“bet most of you don’t know what THAT is, haha”
@ Jon Pawson, that sounds very “smarmy” to me.
I don’t feel the need to arm myself with a pre-packaged defense, such as those populist philosophy examples you gave.
December 12th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Wow. I wish we had something like this in the US.
I did not grow up with religion at all. I am absolutely clueless as to the stories in the bible but I feel that my sense of responsibility, decency and fairness to others is much stronger than many that were indoctrinated with religion.
Reading these responses is so interesting to me. I agree with so many of them but I think the two most relevant points here are:
1. Fundamentalists, on either side, are the real problem.
2. Religion is given undeserved, automatic respect and that they do try to inflict their will on all of us through the boards and committees they sit on.
I have never paid attention to religion because it simply has never affected me. When I hear silly stories about god I usually just glaze over. I like to think that we can all be tolerant with each other however, point 2 up there is weighing heavily on my mind. So thank you, whoever is organizing this campaign, for making me think.
Though, I was enjoying my life and not worrying but now that will be harder.
December 12th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Guys, why bother even posting on a board if you don’t feel the need to argue with religionists at all? If your atheism refers to a total lack of belief in deity, the stock standard definition of the word, then you probably don’t care at all about religion. So why bother with the adverts? Why not just go about your lives?
I think it’s important that things like these adverts are out there to spark debate. Believe what you want, but to the vast majority of people, religion is nothing but a comforting belief in life after death. Ask your average religionist if they’ve ever even READ their Holy Book and you’ll note they know next to nothing about their religion. Ask them whether they’d jump off a bridge if the Bible advocated bridge jumping and you’ll see just how sure of their beliefs they really are.
Those people are NOT the enemy. Fundamentalism of all kinds is what we should seek to expose. And that’s atheist fundamentalism as it is religious fundamentalism. If you’re one of those militant atheists drooling every time Richard Dawkins is mentioned, you’re just participating in a cult of personality as much as the Christians are.
December 12th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
The problem with mentioning any god is that is assumes there is one(the hardline christians will applaud the mention of one even in an atheist ad), and putting ‘probably’ shows weakness and vacillation. I think these ads need to promote life to live rather than attacking entrenched dogma(waste of time as the entrenched don’t see it and the mildly infected ignore it or think it’s harmess).
December 12th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Many of the so called ‘New Atheists’ refuse to enter into debate or argument with the religious because they believe that by doing so it gives the believers validation. “Well, if the scientists can argue with us, they MUST be frightened of something”, sort of argument. There is a new form of atheism out there too – it’s the ‘completely indifferent to any argument’-ism. These people just can’t be bothered to argue.
I agree with Cyberguy. These religionists are all pervasive in our society, like a cancer; they get tax breaks to proselytize their message in the disguise of doing good deeds. I want to ban them from the reins of power. I mean, why would we want to let anyone who ardently believes in fairies a position of authority in our country?
No, we should promote rational thought from which nobody will ever arrive at a belief in an invisible magic friend in the sky, irrespective of which of the 38,000 gods it happens to be!
December 12th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
@Jon Pawson said: “Guys, why bother even posting on a board if you don’t feel the need to argue with religionists at all?”
You just don’t get it, do you?
It is because I object to the free ride that religions get. They dishonestly sneek into wherever they can to manipulate the system.
Here is a typical example. My kids have “bible study” for the older children at their primary school, and I let my eldest son attend, as there is nothing like really reading the bible to make an atheist out of someone. I was later dismayed to discover that they were making the kids pray! That is not bible study. That is indocrination by stealth. Get ‘em young, and all that.
This is typical christian dishonesty, getting their dogma in by any means possible.
My boy later asked to be let off the class and I agreed. He was smart enough to see through their charade, disguised behind so-called “bible study”.
That is why I argue with theists – give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.
Also, silence equals assent. So I will not be silent!
December 12th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Damn, I just hit submit comment and encountered an error. Lost everything. And it was A LOT of everything!
@Cyberguy. I don’t disagree with you AT ALL. I agree completely. My comments to the effect of “why should we bother?” were aimed at a previously poster who said, “I don’t feel the need to arm myself with a pre-packaged defense.”
I agree that if you don’t see the relevence of religious debate, or religion at all, then having to articulate your non-belief is probably not necessary. But for someone like myself, who WILL call religionists to account, needs to know why they believe what they believe or why I disbelieve it. Demanding that someone else expand or explain the reasons behind their beliefs and then not having the courtesy to explain myself is plain bad manners.
I also agree that proselytizing in public schools is a big no-no. I don’t think it’s ever right to try to indoctrinate children in anything. Children should have their faculties of natural inquisitiveness and critical thought nurtured and strengthened. Indoctrination in a religionist worldview or an atheist one is bad either way.
But something I think necessary to keep in perspective is that creating a false US-THEM dichotomy is needless and dangerous. Moderate religionists generally hold the same ethics and values as we do, they just claim to come to them by different means (albeit means we find irrational). We’re all humans. We don’t need to respect their beliefs, but we do have to shown them respect as people. Showing a person respect is a humanist ideal.
Also, Cyberguy, could you please explain what you meant when you said, “Religions weedle themselves onto things like medical ethics committees”. Do you believe that religionists are incapable of objective, rational thought in non-religious matters simply because of their religious beliefs? Do you think that ALL religionists are incapable of objective, rational thought?
One last point I’d like to make: I don’t remember who the speaker was that was being interviewed by DJ Groethe on the Point of Inquiry podcast, but they made an interesting point about how atheists need a community hub, a place to gather. In a recent US survey, something like 70% of respondents replied that they go to church for the feeling of community and NOT for the religious teachings. That’s food for thought, I think.
December 13th, 2009 at 1:40 am
@Jon Pawson
You stared your text with “Guys, ” which implied you were addressing everybody. Your comment came off as a lot of back-peddling towards theists. And you talked about “atheist fundamentalism” which is nonsense – we have no book of rules to be fundamentalist about! Using the phrase “atheist fundamentalism” is another way of saying “atheism is just another religion”, which has been debunked so many times it is not funny.
And “militant atheists”! Tell me – when was the last time an atheist blew themselves up in a crowded marketplace? A “militant atheist” is one who does nothing more than dares to criticise religion in blunt terms!! Don’t misuse the words, you play right into the hands of the religious apologist with ill-thought out phrases like that!
You ask “Do you believe that religionists are incapable of objective, rational thought in non-religious matters simply because of their religious beliefs?”. YES!!! Because many of them don’t see things like reproductive medicine (IVF, pre-implantation genetic testing, cloning), sexual health (AIDS, condoms, etc), the “right” to smack a child, and even the teaching of evolution, as non-religious issues. Read the news.
For example, a proposed Ugandan law that has life imprisonment as the MINIMUM punishment for anyone convicted of having gay sex, and the DEATH PENALTY if the accused person is HIV positive, a “person of authority” over the other partner, or if the “victim” is under 18.
The proposed law would also jail anyone who knows a gay man but refuses to report them to authorities. Further, anyone who publicly defends the rights of gays and lesbians would be subjected to a seven year prison term.
This has been aided by a US-linked evangelical campaign alleging that gay men are trying to “recruit” schoolchildren, and that homosexuality is a habit that can be “cured”, which has ensured widespread Ugandan public support for the bill.
Ok, that’s just the American religious right you say, but look at the repeated involvement of the right wing christian organisation Family First in NZ politics, who claim to “speak from a family friendly perspective with an emphasis on the Judeo-Christian values”.
Don’t be too complacent. What you might consider a non-religious issue, they don’t.
December 13th, 2009 at 8:09 am
@ Cyberguy
Sure, you mention a lot of examples of sickening religious fundamentalism. I’m talking about religious moderates, the people over the fence from you, not Ugandans or Evangelicals from the US.
I cringe when people use the word “most” about a group of people and then talk about EVERYONE. Most isn’t everyone. Most religionists may be insidiously conspiring to take over the world, but that’s not ALL religionists.
A “militant” atheist can be just as bigoted as a fundamentalist religionist. And I’m inclined to side with the militant atheist in most instances because I am a “strong” atheist. Where Simon Fisher says he is “almost certain” there is no God, I’m 100% completely certain there is no God, no supernatural realm, no airy fairy crap lurking in the ether, no Jungian Collective Unconscious, no psychics, and no Tooth Fairy.
But if we’re to make this campaign work, and take it far past adverts on buses, we need to alter our attitudes towards religionists.
I’m not talking about a “softly-softly” approach, one that is ineffectively worded so as to lose all meaning.
But let’s face it, religionists have all the power, all the clout, and they could have this campaign halted before it ever started with a single phone call to iSite Media or whichever advertising company is involved.
We don’t want that!
December 13th, 2009 at 9:45 am
For a “strong atheist” who is not talking about a “softly softly” approach, you could have fooled me.
I am not against your politer approach, but I think the time for that should be past when we take the attitude “I’d really, really like to put a polite little sign up expressing an atheist viewpoint – please….?”
Your approach is a lot like a black man telling his neighbours not to get too “uppity” as it will just alienate the whites. If you recall it was not until black people finally said “enough!” that change occurred.
Regarding moderates, I made myself 100% clear in an earlier post. Moderate religionists protect the fundamentalists by complaining about atheist’s “tone” or “aggressiveness”, and not addressing the actual issues raised. They stand in the way.
Despite your claims to be a strong atheist, your posts seem to fall into the same category of complaining about tone.
Actually, I think it will take the clear expression of all styles of atheism to change people’s minds. I just don’t apologise for my style – I think it is important and necessary, and that someone has to do it.
December 13th, 2009 at 10:35 am
@Cyberguy, don’t compare this to the fight that African-Americans had (and continue to have) against racism. Race isn’t something you choose. religion is. I do realise that the fight to legitimize Atheism in countries like the US has many parallels with the Civil Rights movement, and the Gay Rights movement of a later era. Perhaps this is the “new” rights movement? The right to disbelieve? That claim would seem a little dubious to me.
We have no choice but to stick to humanist ideals. I’m choosing to be the “bigger person” in relation to the blatant hatemongering of some religionists. Because the way I really want to go about it would win us no victories.
I’ll elaborate on that last statement I made.
I’m an anthropology graduate, taught not to make ANY generalizations about human behaviour or the relative validity of cultural practises. But I honestly DO believe in the universality of human stupidity. I DO believe that for the vast majority of humankind, a parental figure is necessary. Some top-down authority needs to be in place to keep most people happy because they lack the ability to make decisions and choices for themselves. We vote in politicians like Hone Harawira. We elect mayors like Michael Laws. We play into the hands of those who know exactly how to pull our strings and extract what they need from us. You might say religious leaders do this also by appealing to the common human fear of mortality and the unknown.
But what is needed, and what I try very hard to do, is to exercise some objectivity, some perspective, and some empathy. The alternative path is not one that any of us would benefit from travelling down.
I don’t think you should apologise for your style or tone. It is refreshing and enjoyable for a cynic such as myself. We’re on the same path, we’re probably just playing the “Good cop, bad cop” routine. I don’t think we fundamentally disagree on the content of our message, just it’s delivery.
December 13th, 2009 at 11:13 am
@Jon Pawson
“We’re probably just playing the “Good cop, bad cop” routine.” Exactly, we are.
My combative stance is exhibited in blogs and other debating situations – such as when a religionist accosts me at my doorstep or in a shopping mall.
I never raise atheism as a subject at work. That would be totally inappropriate. And if the subject comes up in a social discussion with friends, I try to leave the religious members with suitable questions in their minds where their religious ideas have not been fully thought through.
I always try to use real world examples to back up my arguments, or ask for examples where an assertion has been made. With respect, if you re-read your own posts, you might see that this is one area you could work on.
For example,
, you write “Race isn’t something you choose. religion is.” Is it? Really? Is that why most people hold the same religion as their parents? They have really CHOSEN to same the same religion, out of all the other possible ones? Are you sure?
An earlier post had “A “militant” atheist can be just as bigoted as a fundamentalist religionist”. I would really want some real world examples of what you are talking about there, because I disagree. I have never met an atheist that would not be persuaded by evidence – which is in no way bigoted, militant or fundamentalist.
I see all sorts of holes in your posts like this. I don’t like to criticise a fellow atheist, but I am heartily sick of hearing the old rebutted arguments that say “atheists are strident”, “atheists are fundamentalists”, “atheists are dogmatic”.
I am even more disappointed hearing a self-described “strong atheist” making the same claims.
December 13th, 2009 at 11:57 am
@Cyberguy:
I think you might actually be trying to read my comment wrong. I’m not saying atheists are dogmatic, strident, or fundamentalist. Far from it. I’ve not once said “Atheists are…” anything. I’ve simply said that there CAN be militant atheists who refuse to allow that religion CAN be a positive thing in people’s lives. We’re talking about subjective experience, people’s experiences. I’m not saying that just because religion may hold some relevence or value to any particular person, it’s claims about reality are objective fact. They’re NOT.
But fact is atheists CAN be bigoted. I’ve heard numerous comments about how religion should be outlawed, churchs disbanded, things of this nature.
Those comments are anti-theist. And being atheist doesn’t infer that an invidual is anti-theist. I’m certainly not. I can recognise the value religion holds for people just as much as I can recognise the evils perpetrated in religion’s name.
I make NO blanket statements other than my statement about the universality of human stupidity.
I don’t see the point of picking apart me as a person. Perceiving that I may be lacking in some areas of dialogue doesn’t add anything of value to this discussion. That’s a personal criticism you have of me, and you’re entitled to it.
However, you may want to criticise the arguments I put forth. And they’re rather straight-forward:
-I refuse to see religion as a wholly evil phenomena. The evils done in religion’s name would have been done regardless of the name they were committed under. Religion has VALUE to people. So I refuse to discount the importance of religion in people’s lives and the positive experiences people have had with it. I do, however, refute religious claims to the nature of reality.
-Moderate religious people are NOT the enemy. They are your neighbours, workmates, and friends. Fundamentalists who take a literal interpretation of their scriptures are the real enemy. You may perceive moderates to be doing the dirty work for the fundamentalists, but you’re taking a very narrow view on things.
-Believing in different things to me does not automatically disqualify you from possessing the ability to make objective, rational decisions in non-religious matters. A religious person will still see the same rock that I see. They’ll merely see it’s ORIGINS as different to the way I see them. What they do with the rock will probably be the same as what I do with it.
In fact, I know this from discussions with my workmates, I have plenty of colleagues who support things like stem-cell research even though they believe in a Christian god. I have a close associate who relishes philosophical discussions on the subject of religion, acknowledges the blatant contradictions of Christian scripture, enjoys ripping on Christians as much as anyone else… but still believes in a Christian god. These people are not my enemy. I’m not sure they even believe that their God created EVERYTHING at its beginning, but they still believe in God. See what I mean about human stupidity?
One last point: An atheist is not automatically my fellow ANYTHING by virtue of their non-belief. Them being an atheist doesn’t mean they have anything in common with me, not even their atheism. I will not walk into a room of atheists and automatically see friends, colleagues, associates, or anything of the sort. I just see PEOPLE.
That’s not to say that you, Cyberguy, are not someone that I wouldn’t align myself with. That’s not to say that by reading my comments you don’t already think me a moron. But your atheism does not make you similar to me in any way by virtue of your atheism alone. We could be fellow well-wishers, but this small area of our lives doesn’t establish anything between us or any of the other atheists anywhere.
December 13th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
@Jon Pawson
Further to my previous post, I liked your comment about the “universality of human stupidity”. As a joke my brother calls people who fall into this category SDFs – “stupid dumb f$@ks” and points out they are everywhere, and always will be. He claims the welfare state exists primarily to protect these people from themselves.
One other thing that my brother pointed out to me, was that people often tend to see the world through the goggles of their profession. To an artist the world is a profusion of colour and form; to an architect the world is an arrangement of designed spaces; to a geologist they see landforms, laid down, twisted, and thrust back up again.
It is hard to see our own intellectual constraints. As an anthropology graduate, I would say you have to be careful about how your deal with cultural relativism.
However I would expect that you hold strong opinions on the “relative validity” of cultural practises such as FGM, stonings, witholding modern medicine from sick kids by religious groups, etc.
It is important to suspend judgement when you are actually scientifically studying them – but not to suspend judgement all the time. That would be a postmodernist trap.
Postmodernism wrongly says there is no meta-narative. There is. It is called the Universe, which is what science directly and successfully attempts to understand. The proof of this is in the longer lifespans and better standard of living that we all enjoy. Proof of the pudding, and all that.
We truly have to stand up and resist those cultural artifacts from bygone ages that would set us back. Cultural relativism just won’t cut it.
December 13th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
@ Cyberguy, okay, I agree. Cultural relativity doesn’t cut it. FGM is the old gem when discussing this subject. That’s fine. But that was only one tiny part of what I said in that last post. I’d like to hear your thoughts on all the other points I made.
I don’t suspend judgement 24/7. I try to retain my objectivity in all things. This is another exercise in that. Especially the comment about the capability of religionists to make an objective, rational decision in non-religious matters.
December 13th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
@Jon Pawson
I am an anti-theist.
I definitely do NOT think you are a moron!! You are clearly intelligent. I just think some of your points need more reflection. I am not attacking YOU, I am critiquing some of your ideas.
Please don’t take it personally, although I understand that it may hurt to have your ideas critiqued. I have been on the receiving end myself, and I have used it to sharpen my game.
- I’ve heard numerous comments about how religion should be outlawed, churchs disbanded, things of this nature.
Even as an anti-theist, I would never advocate that, and I have never heard any other atheist say such things. The most I would say is that I think churches should be taxed. Can you provide a link to any atheist quote that says this?
- I refuse to see religion as a wholly evil phenomena.
Saying “I refuse to see” comes across as dogmatic, which is what you said you object to.
- The evils done in religion’s name would have been done regardless of the name they were committed under.
I disagree for the reason summed up by the following quote. “A good man will do good deeds, a bad man will do bad deeds, it takes religion to make a good man do bad deeds.” – Steven Weinberg
- Moderate religious people are NOT the enemy.
No, but they are an obstacle.
Otherwise I generally agree with your points, especially about respecting PEOPLE. Ideas are a different story.
I have enjoyed this conversation and have not intended to cause you hurt. I hope you take my comments as constructive.
December 13th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
@Jon Pawson
On the capability of religionists to make an objective, rational decision in non-religious matters – generally they can, but you can never tell when the old religion is going to creep in – even in the back of their minds.
I would rather bronze age ideas are left in the history books, not brought onto school boards and ethics committees to tell the rest of us what we can and can’t do.
That is why I oppose religion.
December 13th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
@Cyberguy
The more I read what you say, the more I agree. Ideas CAN BE dangerous and DO need to be critiqued. Dale McGowan puts it quite well when he acknowledges Richard Dawkins’ disrespect for religion…
“…so may some others find Dawkins’ approach disrespectful to religious belief. There is good reason for this: He does not respect religious belief. Not one bit.
This raises an important question, one that makes for excellent dinner table conversation. Is it okay to disrespect someone’s beliefs? Notice that the subject is ‘beliefs’, not ‘believers’ – we can presumable agree that people themselves deserve respect. But can we allow disrespect – not just disagreement, but disrespect – for opinions?
If the word ‘respect’ is to retain any meaning whatsoever, then respect must not be granted to all opinions automatically. I might disagree with an opinion but still respect it, if I feel it was arrived at by legitimate means…
Because he thinks religion DOES greatly and negatively impact the world, Richard Dawkins’ disrespect for religion leads him to passionate and strident denunciation of what he sees as a real and present danger.” (McGowan, Parenting Beyond Belief, pg. 2)
I like the emphasis on respect for people, not ideas. And that ideas should not be granted automatic respect.
Your comments are not scathing, they are not unnecessarily harsh or hurtful, they are intelligent, well thought out and supported reasoning. No one should be personally hurt by comments such as yours, and indeed I am not in the least.
I’m mostly trying to keep this discussion balanced by showing compassion and understanding. It may very well be unwarranted by the attitudes religionists take towards us.
Something you said, which I agree with, made me laugh…
“The most I would say is that I think churches should be taxed.”
While Judeo-Christians will most likely jump on this as evidence that we are in league with their Devil, your point is exactly the same as Point 2 of the Church of Satan’s ‘Pentagonal Revisionism’ which is “The strict taxation of all Churches”.
Got a laugh out of that! Bring on the Christian indignation at THAT comment!
December 13th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Jon
Thanks for that thoughtful post which I agree with 100%.
I have not read Dale McGowan’s book, but his description of Dawkins is accurate, and reflects my attitude exactly.
Like Dawkins, I think truth is important!
I will look out for McGowan’s book.
It’s been good talking to you. And from one atheist to another, have a great christmas!
December 13th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Bloody good stuff you two. I’ve found this discussion very interesting and you both raise valid points. It’s like you were both saying the same thing for a while, just a bit got lost in the web translation.
Regardless it’s nice to have to have real open discussion.
Perhaps Peter Cooke and Dudley Moore said it best in Derek and Clive’s “bible”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AgJgQYPXyk
Peter: You know like it says in the bible, that Jesus on the whole was fairly nice? Do you think that was true?
Dudley:No I think he was probably a cunt..