Author Topic: Should we try to eliminate religion?  (Read 16482 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2685
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #116 on: November 29, 2011, 02:47:16 AM »
He is literally taking that quote out of context, as it came from another thread regarding a different subject than the one we are discussing.

Okay, How about this one

Religion does not exist beyond the people who believe in it

How can you marginalize a set of beliefs that do not exist independently without marginalizing the people who hold so tight to those beliefs they are willing to kill or die for them?

I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #117 on: November 29, 2011, 02:56:02 AM »
I do not feel personally responsible for children dying in Africa. I'm not ashamed to admit that. He is literally taking that quote out of context, as it came from another thread regarding a different subject than the one we are discussing.

Like I said, the point was not to say that you didn't care about religious people, just that your sense of morality and/or empathy is warped, thus proving that your ideas about marginalization are wrong.

They can define themselves however they wish. We are attacking their beliefs. Our weapons are logic and truth. Only ridiculous ideas and falsehoods can be damaged by them.

Agreed.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #118 on: November 29, 2011, 03:00:48 AM »
How can you marginalize a set of beliefs that do not exist independently without marginalizing the people who hold so tight to those beliefs they are willing to kill or die for them?

Buildings have 'no smoking' signs. I've never seen a 'no smokers' sign.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #119 on: November 29, 2011, 03:02:40 AM »
How can you marginalize a set of beliefs that do not exist independently without marginalizing the people who hold so tight to those beliefs they are willing to kill or die for them?

Buildings have 'no smoking' signs. I've never seen a 'no smokers' sign.

False analogy.
Smokers can stop smoking, even if only for a short while.
Believers cannot stop believing. They can only stop acting on those beliefs. That is what we should try to achieve.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #120 on: November 29, 2011, 03:04:05 AM »
I do not feel personally responsible for children dying in Africa. I'm not ashamed to admit that. He is literally taking that quote out of context, as it came from another thread regarding a different subject than the one we are discussing.

Like I said, the point was not to say that you didn't care about religious people, just that your sense of morality and/or empathy is warped, thus proving that your ideas about marginalization are wrong.

I think most people don't feel personally responsible for children dying in Africa, otherwise more would be done to help. You call it warped, I call it realistic.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #121 on: November 29, 2011, 03:04:54 AM »
I think most people don't feel personally responsible for children dying in Africa, otherwise more would be done to help. You call it warped, I call it realistic.

I called it what I think Jay was trying to call it. If I am wrong, he will correct me.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #122 on: November 29, 2011, 03:05:44 AM »
Believers cannot stop believing.

I disagree, former theist.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #123 on: November 29, 2011, 03:06:57 AM »
Believers cannot stop believing.

I disagree, former theist.

Let me rephrase: Believers cannot stop believing by sheer force of will.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #124 on: November 29, 2011, 03:14:16 AM »
Let me rephrase: Believers cannot stop believing by sheer force of will.

I agree, which is why this website exists. Let me ask you this:

Do you think this website has helped free any theists of their irrational beliefs?
Does this website restrict anyones freedom?
Does this website use mockery as a tool?
Does this website try to marginalize religious beliefs?
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12293
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #125 on: November 29, 2011, 03:26:59 AM »
I really really really don't see how when it comes to religion.

Then to be consistent, you must not be able to see how marginalizing any other belief or action can be done without marginalizing the segment of society which believes or acts in the way being marginalized.

Right, but religious belief is not an action. It is illegal for a person go down to the local Wicca gift shop and burn the witch. They will not be found innocent of the crime just because their Bible told them to do it. As a result witches are as safe as anybody else in America today.

I know it's not.  I included an "action" example for the purpose of demonstration of what I'm talking about.  Since the topic is marginalizing beliefs, I also included a "belief" example...though, as Joe has noted, people are having their actions marginalized in your counter-example.

Unfortunately that depends on your definition of *abuse* and is a subject for which I am currently struggling with.

Every point either of us brings up will depend on the definitions of the words we use to make those points, so I don't see why you're bothering to bring it up here.  It does not bear on my point; it only distracts.

I see how it equates with the subjective nature of the definition of *marginalization* though. I would not have as much trouble accepting you using the word marginalize if you said you were using it the way Joe is trying to use it. I would still voice my concern however.

This doesn't do any better of a job of addressing what I said.  Care to take another stab at it?  I was making a point in my paragraph.  It had to do with the question at the end.

I did find something I think can put the language being used into perspective.
...
What good does it do to use the same tactics as the EVIL Christians?

Your question makes no sense.  We are using those 'evil' tactics right now.  They are enshrined in our culture and our law.  We just take the marginalization of those things, such as of egregious child abuse, for granted as "right".

Another example that might be educational:  The belief that "God hates fags" and that, following from this, gays are abominations and don't deserve the same rights as others.

This view has been marginalized by much of society.  Is that oppression?  Is that wrong?  Don't dodge this time, please, because this very sense of "marginalization" is what Joe is advocating.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Darwins +406/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #126 on: November 29, 2011, 06:46:35 AM »
We can create various types of arguments that will work on various types of people[1], but we will never have a "complete victory". These people are like the "bluepills" in the Matrix. Their brains simply cannot handle the fact that everything they've dedicated their lives to is wrong, so they will deny it until they die.
 1. Note that humans are individuals, so no argument will ever have a 100% success rate, regardless of how good it is.

Sure, they can believe whatever ridiculous things they want, just like the New Agers and the UFO cultists and the 2012 apocalypse/sudden planetary enlightenment believers and the New World Order/Illuminati conspiracy theorists and all the rest.  And their stubbornly-held ridiculous ideas should be marginalized when it comes to anything to do with how society should be run, just like all the rest.  Notice that there is no "complete victory" over any of those things.  Skeptical Inquirer has not worked itself out of a job and there is no indication that it will in the foreseeable future.

No one here expects that mockery or any other tactic will result in a "complete victory" where everyone becomes a Bayesian Master.  You're arguing against a straw man.

Shame can come without ridicule.

Sure it can.  It can also come with ridicule.

Imagine this:
You are a theist. You and an atheist start talking. He finds out you're a theist and yells "Hey, your beliefs are fucking retarded, man! Seriously? We all came from a rib-woman and a dust-man? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Here, have some rational arguments against that."
How would you react?

I would have to overcome embarrassment, especially if there was an audience, and the mockery was even a little bit more clever than that.  Then, I would feel a need to try to explain why Young Earth Creationism is actually sensible and scientific.  This need to overcome the "giggle factor" would impede my ability to evangelize, or get Creationism taught in the schools.  On the other hand, if I could be a Republican candidate for President of the United States, and raise my hand along with most of my competitors when we're asked if we reject evolution, and I'm still a condendah after the end of the next news cycle, then I'm already on third base.

I know what I'd do. After the first sentence, I'd have ignored him.

Yeah, and the kind of hardcore believers you're talking about never ignore brilliantly argued, fully-referenced logical and evidential arguments against religion.  All through this thread you've been emphasizing that the theists will never, never, NEVERNEVERNEVER change their minds because they [Jack Nicholson]CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH![/Jack Nicholson].  And then you hold up, as a bugaboo, that they might ignore us if we mock them?

Yes, fact-proof faith-heads won't change their minds.  We. Get. It.  Really.  This is precisely why mockery should be in our tool-set.  You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into to begin with.  They hold their beliefs for non-rational "reasons," such as childhood indoctrination, fear of death, and group conformity.  Mockery (among other things, like passionately expressed moral outrage) is effective at changing beliefs and actions in non-rational people because it works on the non-rational levels where their minds function.  One of the primary non-rational factors shaping what people believe and do is the perceived beliefs of their fellow humans.  See: The Asch Conformity Experiments.  Collective mockery of a belief sends a powerful signal: "This Belief Is Ridiculous."  For people who willfully shelter their beliefs from rational scrutiny, such non-rational signals are the only way to get through.  If the person wants to guard their belief from ridicule and social opprobrium, they will be more likely to hide it, except in the presence of others who share it, i.e. in church.  Which means: they'll be a lot less likely to be running around proclaiming that society ought to be run on the basis of that belief. 

At the very least, they will feel a need to come up with a rational fig-leaf to advance as their reason for the policy.  Example: anti-abortionists who argue that abortions cause breast cancer or long-term depression, instead of "it makes baby Jesus cry."  As soon as they try to enter the arena of reason, they're on our turf and we crush them with the facts.

Right after 9-11, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson both got on national TV and blamed it on the liberals, gays, and atheists causing Yahweh to "remove his hand of protection" from America.  This brought a shitstorm of criticism down on their heads, because Americans weren't in the mood to hang their heads and say, "Yes, we deserved it, because Britney Spears is too sexy.  Please forgive us, Al Qaida!"  And you know what happened?  Falwell and Robertson backed right the fuck down.  Did they change their minds and become critical-thinking Rationalists?  No.  But, we didn't have fundamentalist lynch mobs hunting down gays, lesbians, and Democrats because they got Yahweh pissed off at us, either.  Their viewpoint was marginalized.  And it was a good thing.

After the death of Jerry Falwell, Christopher Hitchens was all over the talk shows puncturing the halo of sanctimonious eulogy being erected around him and reminding the world that Falwell was a disgusting man promoting disgusting ideas, with (in addition to an unimpeachable factual case) brilliantly-executed wit and mockery.  And it was a good thing.

Now imagine this:
You are a theist. You and an atheist start talking. He finds out you're a theist. You have a debate about the existence of god, he refutes your every argument with his superior knowledge of the Bible, logic and analogies.
How would you react?

Like this.

Sorry, that's not what I meant at all. If you read the part I quoted from kcrady, you'll see that he asked me to give examples. I did. I'm not saying "let's not ridicule them because they might be right". They're not.

I'm saying "let's not ridicule them because some bad shit might happen". We all know how fundies good christians are; they're not above killing anyone cleansing the United States of America God, and they would probably be prayed for if they did it.
Hell, given the fundies' good christians' usual state of mind, I'm surprised they haven't tried to exterminate all of us convert us using the power of the holy ghost because of the billboards.

OK, set aside mockery for a moment.  What about moral outrage?  Can we use that?  As in an attitude of: "You people sanction genocide.  You have no moral high ground to stand on.  You have no morality at all, because you confuse morality with chust followink ordersss.  That didn't work at Nuremberg, and it won't work now.  So, no, you have no right to talk about morality or values or ethics at all, much less exhibit the unmitigated gall to act as if you've got the patent and trademark!" 

Or should we limit ourselves to "Here are some logical arguments you can safely ignore.  Please don't hurt us!"
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Darwins +406/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #127 on: November 29, 2011, 07:07:52 AM »
They were not always a minority! They used to have power!
<snip>

I'm gonna need some evidence for this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KKK#The_second_Klan:_1915.E2.80.931944

In 1924, the KKK had 4 million members.  President Woodrow Wilson is on record agreeing with the pro-Klan "history" presented in the influential motion picture The Birth of a Nation.  Lynchings of black people used to be performed in open public gatherings, just good clean family fun.  The Civil Rights struggle was a long, hard fight.

The minorities cannot marginalize the majority, by the very definition of "marginalize". It's absurd and illogical.

Really?  Minorities marginalize majorities every single time social change occurs.  That's why it's called social change.  How do you think the Suffragettes won?  It wasn't because they had the most votes!
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Darwins +406/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #128 on: November 29, 2011, 07:22:25 AM »
My argument is that if we want to improve society, then we cannot do the same thing that has been the downfall of just about every social movement - marginalization and ridicule.

The Divine Right of Kings as a political theory?  Marginalized. 

The idea that women are too weak and hysterical[1] to be trusted with the vote?  Marginalized.

The idea that black people are inferior to whites?  Marginalized.

The idea that committed gay people are a threat to the Sacred Institution of Marriagetm and Newt Gingrich's serial infidelities aren't, because he's heterosexual?  Partially marginalized.

All of this is progress.  And the groups that ultimately succeeded in marginalizing these ideas all began as minorities, often tiny minorities within the society of their time. 

Quote from: Margaret Meade
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
 1. The root word is the Latin for "uterus"--as in, "hysterectomy."
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Darwins +406/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #129 on: November 29, 2011, 07:29:58 AM »
I think what you two are trying to say is:


The message seems to be that religion is a pointless add-on to human life. It does not alter anything. It does not prevent or encourage the worst or the greatest behaviours. Not only is it pointless but, like carrying anything around with you, it hinders your progress as it makes for lazy thinking.

This attitude is self-contradictory.  If religion "hinders your progress as it makes for lousy thinking," then it does alter something.  And if it hinders progress--but not regress--and if "lazy thinking" makes one less able to understand reality and make good decisions, then it will generate a tendency toward "worst" rather than "best" even if some believers use it to motivate good deeds.  Only evil has an actual use for an all-purpose anti-criticism shield, which is what religious faith is.

Edit: if defenders of theism really want to argue that it does nothing, then why cling to it?
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 07:31:38 AM by kcrady »
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7277
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #130 on: November 29, 2011, 07:40:38 AM »
I'm not seeing it Jayb and Lucifer.  You're not convincing me of anything, other than the fact that you don't like Joeb.  Neither of you are making a convincing case for your position.  The closest I've come to agreeing with any of what you are saying, is to accept that there will be some Christians who are not happy being mocked or marginalized.

I don't care about hurting anyone's feelings.  How many more centuries are atheists going to be the most hated group in the U.S., just because we don't believe?  How many more centuries is the U.S. going to pander to religious nut jobs who think it is a good idea to pray to Jesus to solve our problems?


Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2685
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #131 on: November 29, 2011, 08:50:38 AM »
Do you think we would be having votes today to recognize same sex marriages in many states if the gay movement had openly mocked and ridiculed the religious majority in this country during the 50's and 60's?

I think the militant language and attitude of atheists like Joe do more to damage public perception of atheism. He is the perfect stereotype of the evil, soulless, baby-eating, arrogant atheist. Hell, he's even a white male. I am not saying this to disparage Joe. I am saying this to outline the fact that on the other side you have Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptists Church. They are doing more to marginalize the religion than any atheist could ever hope to do from outside the faith.

They are a caricature of every negative aspect of religion. They are what justifies atheist complaints about religion today.



I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Darwins +406/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #132 on: November 29, 2011, 08:51:24 AM »
Nobody. I grew up with christians, went to school with christians and never discussed religion with any non-christians.
Granted, my memories of that time are hazy, but I think I'd remember my first encounter with an atheist.

I can't speak for Joe or anyone else on this thread, but I'm not talking about prowling the sidewalks collaring everyone with a cross necklace to point and laugh.  Or visiting Granny in her retirement home to make fun of her belief in the Blessed Virgin Mary.  There may be some contexts in one's personal life when mockery is the right approach, but I expect those instances to be pretty rare (mainly in response to aggressive evangelism or "You're gonna burn in hell!" screeds, i.e., self-defense).  The best targets for mockery are public figures, and the best venues for it are the biggest, most public media channels one can find.  Christopher Hitchins is a master at this.  Books, blogs, YouTube videos (see Thunderf00t's "Why People Laugh At Creationists" series) and forums like this one are also good places.
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Darwins +406/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #133 on: November 29, 2011, 08:56:05 AM »
C'mon, Jay, look at your own signature, for goodness' sake.  And BTW, who is this guy:

What do you suppose would happen if we combined Jesus's foreskin with Marry's belt?

Who would want to put their lips on something that hundreds of thousands of icky, germy lips have slobbered on?

I could ask the same question about Ron Jeremy's dick.
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #134 on: November 29, 2011, 09:13:44 AM »
kcrady, I am assuming that your definition of "marginalization" is the same as Joe's, so I'm not going to reply to those parts, as it has been taken care of.

No one here expects that mockery or any other tactic will result in a "complete victory" where everyone becomes a Bayesian Master.  You're arguing against a straw man.

Actually, you are. I wasn't arguing; I was merely stating a fact. Also note how I didn't mention "mockery" or any tactic other than "logical arguments".

Sure it can.  It can also come with ridicule.

Why should it if non-ridicule achieves the same thing without the increased tension between atheists and theists?

I would have to overcome embarrassment, especially if there was an audience, and the mockery was even a little bit more clever than that.  Then, I would feel a need to try to explain why Young Earth Creationism is actually sensible and scientific.  This need to overcome the "giggle factor" would impede my ability to evangelize, or get Creationism taught in the schools.  On the other hand, if I could be a Republican candidate for President of the United States, and raise my hand along with most of my competitors when we're asked if we reject evolution, and I'm still a condendah after the end of the next news cycle, then I'm already on third base.

I gotta say, I very much doubt this.
The audience would most likely agree with you, according to USA statistics. Why would you feel shame unless you already believed that your beliefs were ridiculous? Most creationists do not realize that their beliefs are ridiculous.

Yeah, and the kind of hardcore believers you're talking about never ignore brilliantly argued, fully-referenced logical and evidential arguments against religion.  All through this thread you've been emphasizing that the theists will never, never, NEVERNEVERNEVER change their minds because they [Jack Nicholson]CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH![/Jack Nicholson].  And then you hold up, as a bugaboo, that they might ignore us if we mock them?

Even open minded individuals would ignore people who mock them. Why should you pay attention to someone who just wants to call you an idiot?

Yes, fact-proof faith-heads won't change their minds.  We. Get. It.  Really.  This is precisely why mockery should be in our tool-set.  You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into to begin with.  They hold their beliefs for non-rational "reasons," such as childhood indoctrination, fear of death, and group conformity.  Mockery (among other things, like passionately expressed moral outrage) is effective at changing beliefs and actions in non-rational people because it works on the non-rational levels where their minds function.  One of the primary non-rational factors shaping what people believe and do is the perceived beliefs of their fellow humans.  See: The Asch Conformity Experiments.  Collective mockery of a belief sends a powerful signal: "This Belief Is Ridiculous."  For people who willfully shelter their beliefs from rational scrutiny, such non-rational signals are the only way to get through.  If the person wants to guard their belief from ridicule and social opprobrium, they will be more likely to hide it, except in the presence of others who share it, i.e. in church.  Which means: they'll be a lot less likely to be running around proclaiming that society ought to be run on the basis of that belief.

At the very least, they will feel a need to come up with a rational fig-leaf to advance as their reason for the policy.  Example: anti-abortionists who argue that abortions cause breast cancer or long-term depression, instead of "it makes baby Jesus cry."  As soon as they try to enter the arena of reason, they're on our turf and we crush them with the facts.

I did not know this. I will consider if the increased tension is worth the potential benefit and get back to you.

Like this.

A fundie? Seriously? Those people cannot see reason and will never be deconverted.

OK, set aside mockery for a moment.  What about moral outrage?  Can we use that?  As in an attitude of: "You people sanction genocide.  You have no moral high ground to stand on.  You have no morality at all, because you confuse morality with chust followink ordersss.  That didn't work at Nuremberg, and it won't work now.  So, no, you have no right to talk about morality or values or ethics at all, much less exhibit the unmitigated gall to act as if you've got the patent and trademark!"

Or should we limit ourselves to "Here are some logical arguments you can safely ignore.  Please don't hurt us!"

Moral outrage is not only acceptable but should be a part of everything, IMO.
Also, I don't like how your last sentence implies that you "knew" I would disagree. I'd call this "strawman", but I'm not exactly sure if it fits.

<snip>

This had already been established, but thanks for the link.

Really?  Minorities marginalize majorities every single time social change occurs.  That's why it's called social change.  How do you think the Suffragettes won?  It wasn't because they had the most votes!

Let me rephrase: Minorities (in the sense that they have opinions that other people do not share) cannot marginalize the majority (in the sense that they have opinions that other people share).


The Divine Right of Kings as a political theory?  Marginalized. 

The idea that women are too weak and hysterical[1] to be trusted with the vote?  Marginalized.

The idea that black people are inferior to whites?  Marginalized.

The idea that committed gay people are a threat to the Sacred Institution of Marriagetm and Newt Gingrich's serial infidelities aren't, because he's heterosexual?  Partially marginalized.

All of this is progress.  And the groups that ultimately succeeded in marginalizing these ideas all began as minorities, often tiny minorities within the society of their time. 

Quote from: Margaret Meade
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
 1. The root word is the Latin for "uterus"--as in, "hysterectomy."

See above.

I can't speak for Joe or anyone else on this thread, but I'm not talking about prowling the sidewalks collaring everyone with a cross necklace to point and laugh.  Or visiting Granny in her retirement home to make fun of her belief in the Blessed Virgin Mary.  There may be some contexts in one's personal life when mockery is the right approach, but I expect those instances to be pretty rare (mainly in response to aggressive evangelism or "You're gonna burn in hell!" screeds, i.e., self-defense).  The best targets for mockery are public figures, and the best venues for it are the biggest, most public media channels one can find.  Christopher Hitchins is a master at this.  Books, blogs, YouTube videos (see Thunderf00t's "Why People Laugh At Creationists" series) and forums like this one are also good places.

See way above about mockery.

I agree, which is why this website exists.

So we've established that your previous argument was a false analogy.

Do you think this website has helped free any theists of their irrational beliefs?

I don't think it, I know it.

Does this website restrict anyones freedom?
Does this website use mockery as a tool?

No and no.

Does this website try to marginalize religious beliefs?

By your definition, no.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 09:20:35 AM by Lucifer »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Darwins +406/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #135 on: November 29, 2011, 09:46:07 AM »
Lucifer, look at your own signature.  "God is Santa on steroids."  Isn't that the kind of stuff you're saying we shouldn't be doing?  You're doing it with every.  Single.  Post.  So doesn't that mean you agree that mockery is OK at least sometimes?  If not, could you square the circle for me please?
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #136 on: November 29, 2011, 09:48:29 AM »
Lucifer, look at your own signature.  "God is Santa on steroids."  Isn't that the kind of stuff you're saying we shouldn't be doing?  You're doing it with every.  Single.  Post.  So doesn't that mean you agree that mockery is OK at least sometimes?  If not, could you square the circle for me please?

I consider that a joke, as well as a reasonable analogy. However, if you want to see it that way, be my guest.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #137 on: November 29, 2011, 10:01:43 AM »
In Land of the Spotted Eagle, Chief Luther Standing Bear of the Lakota tells about how they dealt with wrong thinking/action (in his time-1800s).

If someone lied or stole or otherwise went against the tribal ways.They ignored them for a time. As the offender would approach or walk by, they simply turned their backs to them. It didn't take long for the offending person to make restitution and be accepted back into the tribe with open arms.

Talk about marginalizing, or cutting off. Their system worked so well, that they didn't have police, or judges or jails.
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #138 on: November 29, 2011, 10:05:37 AM »
In Land of the Spotted Eagle, Chief Luther Standing Bear of the Lakota tells about how they dealt with wrong thinking/action (in his time-1800s).

If someone lied or stole or otherwise went against the tribal ways.They ignored them for a time. As the offender would approach or walk by, they simply turned their backs to them. It didn't take long for the offending person to make restitution and be accepted back into the tribe with open arms.

Talk about marginalizing, or cutting off. Their system worked so well, that they didn't have police, or judges or jails.

I approve of this because the person was punished for their actions. From what I can gather, the marginalization would be based on theists' beliefs, rather than actions.

We do not have to accept them. We do not have to like them. We should marginalize (per the definition Joe provided) actions (and the people who perform them) that are harmful. Not beliefs or thoughts.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2685
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #139 on: November 29, 2011, 10:06:45 AM »
C'mon, Jay, look at your own signature, for goodness' sake.  And BTW, who is this guy:

What do you suppose would happen if we combined Jesus's foreskin with Marry's belt?

Who would want to put their lips on something that hundreds of thousands of icky, germy lips have slobbered on?

I could ask the same question about Ron Jeremy's dick.

Yeah, that's comedy gold.

You may or may not be aware of my current personal challenge to re-evaluate my views of corporal punishment. I alluded to this in post reply #29

I suppose I should have been more clear on the spanking issue.  I don't think that every parent has to be hitting their kids all the time.  No, we don't have to spank children publicly or ridicule them when they misbehave.  If someone wants to try gentle hand-holding with them and say, "There, there, you can do whatever you want just try to be careful Ok?" with a nice, big smile, go for it.  Let a thousand flowers bloom. 

However, I think spanking definitely has a place in responsible parenting strategy and tactics, and that children should not be privileged with a pass, by anyone who cares enough about society to raise their kids right.  If you're the type who would tiptoe carefully around your kids feelings  then by all means, do the same for adults when they commit a crime. But, I think it is hypocritical to sneer derisively at those criminals while advocating that we make all efforts never to offend them just because they have broken the law.

I just happen to think that spanking is okay if used properly. Although my stance on the issue is evolving.

Two months ago I would not have been in the state of mind I am in now. I was positive that spanking was beneficial to a child's development. I wouldn't have given much of a second thought to mocking or humiliating a Truebeliever tm for
taking the Bible literally...ON THIS FORUM. I don't do that sort of stuff in real life, at least not in certain company.

In reviewing and researching the effects of spanking and child abuse I also read about the negative impacts emerging from other non physical means of behavior modification like isolation punishment aka "time-out" and yelling. To a child, mocking them or ridiculing them is devastating. Teen suicide is a very real problem. Since adults are essentially just big kids who survived I can assume that mocking and ridicule has the same basic affect. As a result I am in the process of reevaluating my approach to these issues.

My arguments against mocking and ridicule are more for me than anybody else as I try to figure it all out. There are new thoughts in my head.

Here is another comment from the same night I posted the ones you showed above

Oh, and I'm sure this guy accidentally stumbled across that website.  &)

wait...why am I doing this...why is it so easy to make fun of people like this. fdlaieoiuroiuweoijf;alskjdflksadcvasnc, :-X

Now i'm all conflicted again. damn it.

If the only real harm to a child from spanking is the potential psychological damage, then it is in the same category as all other non physical forms of corrective punishment. Mocking and ridicule causes psychological harm and therefore is just as bad as spanking or hitting. Therefor I am starting to think that it's a bad idea to make fun of people.

In any case I think it is a horrible idea to have phrases like "marginalize them" associated with your ideas for correcting a social issue.

 
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4366
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #140 on: November 29, 2011, 10:17:52 AM »
In Land of the Spotted Eagle, Chief Luther Standing Bear of the Lakota tells about how they dealt with wrong thinking/action (in his time-1800s).

If someone lied or stole or otherwise went against the tribal ways.They ignored them for a time. As the offender would approach or walk by, they simply turned their backs to them. It didn't take long for the offending person to make restitution and be accepted back into the tribe with open arms.

I once heard about another system that was even more effective -- and intriguing, in certain ways:

Quote from: Nathaniel Branden
I recall a story I once read by a psychiatrist, a story about a tribe that has a rather unusual way of dealing with moral wrongdoers or lawbreakers. Such a person, when his or her infraction is discovered, is not reproached or condemned but is brought into the center of the village square — and the whole tribe gathers around. Everyone who has ever known this person since the day he or she was born steps forward, one by one, and talks about anything and everything good this person has ever been known to have done. The speakers aren't allowed to exaggerate or make mountains out of molehills; they have to be realistic, truthful, factual. And the person just sits there, listening, as one by one people talk about all the good things this person has done in the course of his or her life. Sometimes, the process takes several days. When it's over, the person is released and everyone goes home and there is no discussion of the offense — and there is almost no repetition of offenses (Zunin, 1970).

Source:
http://nathanielbranden.com/ayn/ayn03.html
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #141 on: November 29, 2011, 10:21:25 AM »
Yes, I heard of this (I believe) from Chester Mahooty, keeper of 400 Zuni songs.

Awesome.


ADDED:
Depending on which definition one uses for rebuke and chastise, it seems much kinder than the Christian Gods way (Chastising and rebuking):
http://bible.cc/revelation/3-19.htm
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 10:24:10 AM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #142 on: November 29, 2011, 10:22:57 AM »
<snip>

Wouldn't work with psychopaths (for obvious reasons) and fundies. Fundies truly believe that what they do is right. That method only works when the person knows they did something wrong.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #143 on: November 29, 2011, 10:25:05 AM »
Lucifer, this website does user mockery as a tool, and it was created with the sole purpose of marginalizing religion. What else do you think the purpose of this website is?

I'm done with this debate. We've proven that marginalization has worked to change the minds of majorities since the beginning of human history. Mockery is just one of the tools used to achieve it, and it is very effective. Hitchens and Dawkins use it regularly, and they are spearheading the modern atheist movement.

You've brought nothing solid to refute this, and we've dragged on for many pages trying to convince you. It seems to me your argument boils down to just not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings. Well, you can sit on the sidelines if you don't want to get your dress dirty, but the men have work to do. You can thank us when it's over.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Should we try to eliminate religion?
« Reply #144 on: November 29, 2011, 10:31:59 AM »
Lucifer, this website does user mockery as a tool, and it was created with the sole purpose of marginalizing religion. What else do you think the purpose of this website is?

Where does this website use mockery as a tool?
Also, you should check the thread by a member asking what its purpose is.

I'm done with this debate. We've proven that marginalization has worked to change the minds of majorities since the beginning of human history.

As I have explained, marginalization of people for their beliefs and thoughts rather than their actions is unfair. Do you approve of marginalization of atheists for their thoughts and (lack of religious) beliefs? If not, why the double standard?

Mockery is just one of the tools used to achieve it, and it is very effective. Hitchens and Dawkins use it regularly, and they are spearheading the modern atheist movement.

I don't care about what Hitchens and Dawkins do. I hadn't even heard of them until I joined this site. (So much for "spearheading the modern atheist movement").
And, as I have said, I am now rethinking my position on mockery.

You've brought nothing solid to refute this, and we've dragged on for many pages trying to convince you.

See above.

It seems to me your argument boils down to just not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings.

Clearly you haven't read my arguments.

Well, you can sit on the sidelines if you don't want to get your dress dirty, but the men have work to do.

This is not an insult to me, but women. Congrats.

You can thank us when it's over.

I will thank no one unless the methods used to achieve something are in accordance with my own moral values.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.