In the What is it about religion that destroys brain cells? department, there’s this story from Denmark. A Muslim adherent from Somalia tried to kill the Danish cartoonist that created one of the more infamous cartoons of Mohammed that resulted in the much-ado-about-nothing brouhaha a few years ago. You remember? Death to the cartoonists!
This would-be assassin was most likely looking for a free ride to heaven.
These are the same people that believe that one can insult their prophet, and therefore their religion, by depicting his image in print. This is the same religion whose Madison Avenue PR firm would like us to believe is a religion of peace. Here is one of their spokesmen advocating peace:
Al-Shabab spokesman Sheikh Ali Muhamud Rage told AFP news agency: “We appreciate the incident in which a Muslim Somali boy attacked the devil who abused our prophet Mohammed and we call upon all Muslims around the world to target the people like” him.
I feel so warm and fuzzy inside when I contemplate the peaceful nature of such a nice religion. I’m sure that’s what Allah would want.
How exactly does a religion that not only allows, but advocates, murder as retribution against those who “insult” that religion, also get to promulgate morality for its adherents? Isn’t there something incongruous about the Muslim equivalent of “Thou Shall Not Kill” and “Go Kill The Cartoonist” being simultaneously required by the same religion? What kind of theology tries to rationalize this?
More importantly, how do millions of Muslims agree that this makes sense? What is it about their religious indoctrination that causes such brain damage that they can’t, as individual human beings, come to the simple conclusion that this is an abomination against humanity, themselves included? Are there not Muslims with brains intact?
I know this has been hashed and re-hashed ever since the original incident, but it needs to be repeated on a regular basis. This is sheer madness. Religiously induced madness. When one believes in a religion, a worldview, a philosophy that can reduce humans to ideological targets, expendable in the name of worship of a non-existent being, then we, as a species, have got our priorities backward. If humans can be killed in the name of an idea, to the point that the idea is deemed more important than the human, then we’ve learned nothing from the experience of the Holocaust and Stalin’s purges.
In this example, religion is no better, indeed worse due to the patina of reasonableness and holiness it glosses over its surface, than National Socialism and Communism run amok. Christianity doesn’t get a pass here either, because you don’t see the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury or any other Christian leader denouncing such madness, other than the individual itself. The inherent stupidity of religion itself, that which motivates such thinking, is never examined or criticized.
As Voltaire once said: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities”
As SI says: “Those who believe in gods believe in nothing”. What a waste of brain cells.
SPANISH INQUISITOR 
If Allah is so powerful, why can’t he just cause the cartoonist to spontaneously combust? My response to these kinds of people is “why does a being powerful enough to create a universe filled with billions of galaxies need to outsource the murder of human beings to other human beings for the offense of blasphemy?”
The inherent stupidity of religion itself, that which motivates such thinking, is never examined or criticized.
Maybe because I try to make an effort to be a more fair minded atheist, I would ask what is it about some people that makes them believe it is okay to murder other humans for any reason? Yes, religious belief certainly comes into play. But ultimately, the impulse to commit murder stems from the person feeling detached from the rest of humanity regardless of the reason, whether it is a militant religious fundamentalist, or the street thug who shoots another person just because he didn’t like the way that person looked at him.
It’s not just any reason, though. Maybe I’m simply projecting my own predilections, but I find the very thought of harming someone else repulsive, and antithetical to my nature. Obviously, as you say, Tommy, there are a lot of influences that cause people to kill. But not all of them profess to be the source of all goodness and morality, as religion does. The hypocrisy and incongruity of this state of affairs is glaring.
I’m reading Leaving Islam, which contains lots of testimonies from deconverted Muslims. One I read last night really struck me. It was written by a guy who’d bought into the whole “Islam is Peace” idea. The Islam he’d been taught as a child was fairly moderate. His disillusionment with Islam came when, as a college student in a foreign country, he befriended some less moderate Muslims and was compelled to read the Koran to figure who’d gotten the religion right. As a child, he’d been taught portions of the Koran, but had never read it in its entirety (does that sound like adherents of any other major religion with which we’re familiar?). Once he began reading the Koran from cover to cover, he realized that his conception of Islam was not at all accurate and renounced it.
Another instance in which reading holy scriptures in their entirety destroyed faith rather than bolstering it.
Another instance in which reading holy scriptures in their entirety destroyed faith rather than bolstering it.
Yeah, reading the Bible sure played a part in destroying my faith.
“More importantly, how do millions of Muslims agree that this makes sense? ”
I don’t remember there being millions of terrorists in the world so I would say that there, in fact, aren’t millions of Muslims who agree this makes sense.
In fact, with 1.57 billion Muslims in the world, even a million Muslim terrorists would seem like outliers. Right-wing extremists tend to focus on the tiny minority in order to make it seem like Islam is the enemy and justify their wars.
“If humans can be killed in the name of an idea, to the point that the idea is deemed more important than the human, then we’ve learned nothing from the experience of the Holocaust and Stalin’s purges.”
I agree entirely here.
However,
“you don’t see the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury or any other Christian leader denouncing such madness”
Exactly what madness do you think they’re not denouncing? I’m pretty sure that terrorism is against both the Catechism of the Catholic Church and accepted Anglican norms. Both have spoken out against abortion clinic bombers, if that’s what you’re referring to.
1. Why don’t we hear from those 1.5+billion Muslims who allegedly don’t agree with the right-wing extremists? (To be fair, the same goes for other religious moderates who don’t denounce their extremely nutty brethren)
2. The Catholic church has spoken out against cartoons and other things which mock and thus offend Islam because hey, they’re protecting their own ass there by trying to elevate ANY jab at ANY religion as being bad, unless of course if it’s them jabbing at other religions, then it’s ok.
And we both know that what the Christian bible says or what a particular brand of Christianity says it believes, and what they may preach or promote don’t necessarily have to have anything to do with one another.
You don’t have to be a Muslim terrorist to sympathize with Muslim terrorism.
The madness of failing to hold the “religion of peace” accountable for the violence, instead of just the individual. But I would not expect one religion to be critical of another. It’s one thing to say “violence is deplorable”. It’s another to say “violence instigated by religion is deplorable”.
To the contrary, when the initial reaction of violence took place against the countries that were perceived to be behind the cartoonists back in 2006, here’s what the Vatican said:
link
“…offend religious feelings.”!!! That’s one religion covering another religion’s back. Not renouncing that religion for encouraging violence, which is what Islam was guilty of. This is akin to General Motors paying for Ken Lay’s defense, rather than denouncing the excesses of Enron.
My next rant will be about Muslims failing to hold the Pope accountable for the AIDS crisis in Africa. 8)
What exactly would you like the 1.5 billion Muslims to do? Issue 1.5 billion individual press releases each time another Muslim does something immoral? As a Christian, am I obligated to scour through the daily headlines for things done in the name of my religion and condemn them? Do you do the same for atheists?
I honestly would like to know what your standard is here.
The problem is that the terrorists put their ideas ahead of human freedom. There have been atrocities committed in the name of EVERY viewpoint.
It makes a lot more sense to hold the murderer responsible. Otherwise we’d be saying atheism caused the North Korean regime and Marilyn Manson caused Columbine.
The little tyrant in North Korea isn’t doing anything in the name of atheism, and the kids at Columbine didn’t do anything in the name of Marilyn Manson, so your comparison isn’t applicable.
I would think a standard for moderates would be to speak out whenever and however they can and certainly moderate leaders should be and those condemnations would be easily noticed due to their positions. Instead, what do we usually get? Well for Islam, we don’t usually hear a peep, and from Christians we usually don’t either unless the egregious action is REALLY bad, then we’ll get a deluge of “he wasn’t a true Christian” comments which isn’t exactly the right thing either, but it’s better than nothing.
And the 9/11 hijackers didn’t do anything in the name of theism. A particular brand of theism is one of the things they used to justify their actions, just as a particular brand of atheism – communistic materialism – is what Kim Jong Il (and of course the Soviets and Chinese communists) use to kill and imprison Christians.
Since I haven’t read you condemning each of Stalin’s actions, should I conclude you agree with them? Or was he “not a real atheist?”
[sidebar: Of course, bin Laden rarely mentions Islam in his speeches; he spends a much greater percentage of his time talking about American imperialism. He’s recommended we read Chomsky but not the Koran.]
You must be watching Fox News if you think moderate Muslims rarely speak out. Nearly every Muslim leader in the world condemned the 9/11 attacks.
Since I haven’t read you condemning each of Stalin’s actions, should I conclude you agree with them?
Well, I don’t think any of us were alive at the time. But if it makes you feel any better, I do condemn the atrocities committed by his regime.
As for bin Laden, one of his stated reasons for his hostility to the United States was the stationing of U.S. troops on the Arabian peninsula. As for some of his Chomskyite speeches, you have to consider what his aims are. In one sense, he is trying to rally Muslims to commit jihad against the United States. On the other hand, he is trying to send a message to his enemies to divide them.
I do agree with you that moderate Muslims do speak out more than they are given credit for. If anything, they detest Islamic militants because they provide an excuse for American military intervention in Muslim countries. From their perspective, they are probably incensed that we have probably killed more civilians in Afghanistan than we lost on 9/11.
I think it has been pretty well established that militant Islamic fundamentalism thrives in certain conditions, one among Muslim immigrants in non-Muslim majority countries like France where they are not well integrated into society, where the lack of a flexible labor market keeps many jobless and resentful, and in Muslim majority countries where weak and corrupt states fail to provide basic social services to their citizens. For instance, in some countries, a lot of Muslims started turning to sharia courts to settle disputes because the government courts were backlogged or the civil servants were just plain lazy and indifferent.
The thing is, tackling such problems takes decades and it just isn’t as sexy or attention getting as dropping bombs on people.
Oh, I should add that the little tyrant forces his people to worship him AND his dead daddy like gods, in effect creating a religion.
““The freedom of thought and expression, confirmed in the Declaration of Human Rights, can not include the right to offend religious feelings of the faithful. That principle obviously applies to any religion.”
If I’ve read this before, I’d forgotten it. In other words, godfolk get a pass when it comes to established human rights. “…offend religious feelings of the faithful.” OFFEND RELIGIOUS FEELINGS OF THE FAITHFUL??? Fuck the Vatican! The Catholic church should be stripped of all its tax exempt status for this.
On the other hand, it’s perfectly fine for the faithful to offend the faithfree.
“A particular brand of theism is one of the things they used to justify their actions, just as a particular brand of atheism – communistic materialism – is what Kim Jong Il (and of course the Soviets and Chinese communists) use to kill and imprison Christians.”
See, this is what I never understand about people—they like to manufacture beliefs for atheists. I don’t really need help with that, though, so I’d appreciate it if they’d stop with the act.
Communistic materialism is not a form of atheism. Atheism has no beliefs, no doctrine–nothing. Just a rejection of a claim. Communism, on the other hand, and this goes for any branch of it, puts the Nation ahead of everything, including individual rights.
Hm. Worship of an entity. Sounds familiar.
In this case, the State, is a form of religion. They had doctrine, they had punishment, and promise of reward. And a whole host of other things. They thought God detracted from the peoples worship of the State though. It can be rather distracting.
The purpose of killing God belief in those nations was to streamline the beliefs of the State. If people couldn’t worship a God, then they’d worship more of the State.
I entirely agree with you. The problem is that King Jong Il doesn’t. He believes that atheism necessitates communism and a rejection of individual rights. He is wrong.
That’s what it’s wrong for me to expect you to spend your time condemning his actions. Notice how (rightfully) offended you were when I suggested you should be associated with someone who has no idea what atheism is and just uses the word to jump start his own cult.
That’s how we theists feel when you get upset that we don’t condemn every lunatic who claims belief in God compels him to murder.
Oh, but I do condemn people who commit atrocious acts, affiliation be damned (Kim included). Any time I come across any act I find to be against my code of conduct and ethics (if you’ll allow me that phrase), I will condemn.
The problem that Philly proposed is that many religious people don’t do this. If it’s a religious organization or, more likely, their own church… they’ll protect it. Even if it has done harm to a number of people.
However, I think this same thinking can be used for everyone in certain situations. Or, nearly everyone, because I have a tendency not to care if you’re my family or friend… I’ll condemn your actions if I see fit. I am probably in a minority there, though.
I forget the psychological term for this behavior. Something to do with a sense of community.
Really? I’d love to see your reference for this. Usually the argument goes the other way, religion being the opiate of the people and all that.
Why not? You wouldn’t expect freethinkers to condemn the actions of a despotic tyrant?
Set theory, you’re not doing it right…
I’m confused about what you’re asking for with Kim Jong Il. He’s a Marxist materialist atheist who opposes Buddhism, Christianity, etc., for what he thinks are rational reasons.
I probably should clarify then. Of course we should all condemn all evil. What I object to is the blogger’s attempt to hold theism and all theists who don’t issue press releases responsible for the acts of those who misunderstand and pervert theism.
It’s absurd to hold theism responsible for the actions of the 0.05% of theists who commit murder because they think theistic reasoning says they should. It’s likewise absurd to hold atheism responsible for the actions of 0.05% of atheists who commit murder because they think atheistic reasoning says they should.
My primary point is that a myopic focus on outliers distorts the picture.
First of all, this isn’t the same as saying he believes that atheism necessitates communism. Causality vs. correlation. He may oppose religion in general because he’s a Marxist, but what part of disbelief in gods necessitates communism? One could become a libertarian just as easily.
Second, how do you know this about him? I’d like your source for this information. He’s a mysterious figure to most of the world.
Third, what is your basis for saying that any of the dictators who were avowed atheists (notice that neither Hitler nor Stalin qualify) committed murder because they think atheistic reasoning says they should? In fact, what Kim Jong il, Hitler and Stalin all seem to in common is the cult of personality.
I can cite you sources for where the religious say they committed murder because their religious thinking says they should (e.g., Scott Roeder, pretty much any religious war you care to name). I’m merely asking for some data to go with your assertions.
I think that it has more to do with the leaders of the religion, than with the minor individuals who take part in it. SI mentioned that the Pope didn’t condemn the reaction of Muslims towards the cartoonist, but rather, supported them in that unreasonable anger. Where he should have condemned.
When the leaders of a particular organization/movement aren’t willing to condemn acts of immorality, then what might the followers of that leader, supporters of that leader have to say about the matter?
We’ve seen over and over again that people follow who leads.
You’re incorrect on this. The Vatican condemned both the cartoons and the reaction of Muslims towards the cartoonists.
–The statement also acknowledges that “violent actions of protest are equally deplorable.”
“Reaction in the face of offense cannot fail the true spirit of all religion,” the Vatican said. “Real or verbal intolerance, no matter where it comes from, as action or reaction, is always a serious threat to peace.”–
http://www.zenit.org/article-15193?l=english
Ah, I should have looked back up at the quote SI used. It was someone from the Muslim community.
My mistake on mis-stating the group who said what, but the same point.
Adam
I saw that when I looked it up, but really, is that credible? It’s the old “giveth with one hand, taketh with the other”.
Of course The Vatican will deplore violence. What religion will not do so, in official pronouncements? As you mention, even all the Muslim countries “officially” condemned 9/11. But when they make statements like
and
then what you’re getting is the old Monty Python {wink, wink, nudge, nudge}.
The faithful can read behind those lines.
Condemnation should be emphatic and unequivocal.
So if a Christian doesn’t support terrorism in deed and opposes terrorism in word, they still probably support it anyway because there are cults that teach murder and have theism as a tenant.
However, if an atheist adheres to a system of thought, say, Marxist dialectical materialism, that has atheism as a tenant, and commits murder because of it, they’re not really an atheist.
We could easily come up with reasons as to why the Vatican phrased things the way it did (my guess is that the Vatican was speaking to Christians, not Muslims, and so spent its time chastising Christians) or times when the Vatican was flat-out wrong. Or, ways that Marxist cults aren’t *really* atheistic.
But my point is that you can’t hold billions of people responsible for the actions of a tiny few who claim to share the same beliefs. This is true whether those billions craft press releases that fit your standards or not.
Well, the part you’re glossing over is that the god that is being worshiped by a particular cult, including Xianity, is ordering the murder. “Kill the infidel” is integral to the message. You’re just cherry-picking your “sacred” texts to ignore this unpalatable fact.
Meanwhile, there is nothing inherent in atheism (or Marxism, for that matter) per se that requires the murder of anybody.
But he’s not ordering the murder. The murderer only thinks he is, incorrectly.
Marxism doesn’t require murder. Stalin only thought it did, incorrectly.
Sure he is! It’s written right there in the Bible/Koran/whatever. You’re just choosing to ignore it.
Point me in the direction of any writings of Stalin that indicate he thought Marxism required murder. What of Marx’s writings was he interpreting to mean that the blasphemer – er, dissident must be killed?
That last comment was by me, again.
1) There’s nothing about atheism that prompts action.
2) Someone could use it as an excuse for action, but that’s a rationale of their own making. That’s FAR different than being able to cite directives in their belief system as calls to action (ie – ‘Kill non-believers’ Dt.13:6-10, Koran 8.12: “When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”)
3) The Kims have in effect declared themselves gods, or god-like beings sent from heaven to the top of Mount Paektu where they assumed human form, so they’re persecution of religion was, and continues now with the son is to destroy anything which threatens their total control. From the constitution – “No one may use religion as a means by which to drag in foreign powers or to destroy the state or social order.”
As for the Vatican, yeah, the Muslim protests were condemned, but it also acknowledged that they were provoked. I’m sorry, that’s not good enough.
No
See 1 & 2 above.
1) There’s nothing about theism that prompts action. Theism is simply belief in a deity. That’s it.
2 & 3) Like I’ve stated several times, I think that both Kim Jong Il (and Stalin, and Leonard Peikoff, and all others who adhere to atheistic systems that they think require murder) are confused and wrong. Most atheists agree.
I likewise think that bin Laden (and Cortez and all others who adhere to theistic systems that they think require murder) are confused and wrong. Most theists agree.
Our quarrel isn’t with atheism in itself – but with totalitarian Marxist materialism.
Our quarrel isn’t with theism in itself – but with bin Laden style extremist Sunni Islam.
You’ve been trying to make this odd comparison between atheism and theism for awhile now. Atheism is an end of a line, whereas theism is a beginning. You can’t compare the two the way you’re trying to.
As for quarrels, I have a quarrel with anyone who’s going to suggest faith is good enough to believe anything, ESPECIALLY when it means there’s a god who says to do this or that. Sunni, Shi’ite, any flavor of Christian, Hindu, whatever. As a matter of fact, I also have a quarrel with atheists who take shit on faith, like Buddhists or any clown who says they just know this or that is true by their gut or tea leaves or something similarly silly.
I’m not comparing atheism and theism, although I find your ‘end of a line/beginning’ contrast bizarre and unfounded. atheism = lack of belief in a deity theism = belief in a deity
I’m comparing the culpability of atheists as a whole and theists as a whole when a minority member of one of the groups uses his position on ‘the god issue’ as part of a rationale to commit murder.
As for your second paragraph, I’d have to ask how you’re defining faith to respond fairly, but that’s a whole other discussion.
Hmmm
Period.
…with an incredibly large body of dogma, rules and regulations telling believers who, when, where, what and how to believe.
Nice contrast.
Oh, I missed that earlier. Atheists don’t lack belief. You only lack what’s desirable (ie – money, fame, sex, etc), not what’s undesirable (ie – cancer, hemorrhoids, taxes).
SI,
As far as the OP,
I agree in spirit, but this is horrible in terms of establishing anything meaningful. As just one example, as a society, we value the idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness more than the life of any humans who would thwart it, hence the death penalty, the military, etc., so it seems relatively easy to hoist you by your own petard here.
As far as this thread, lots that could be said, but I’ll take this:
Adam’s contrast was correct and respects standard definitions of langauge. Consider the accepted definition of the prefix a as “lacking, not, or without.” In terms of sexuality, a person who is sexual is a person who has some kind of sex, period. That sex could be hetero, homo, bi, etc., but the proper scope of “sexual” is a person who has sex, and that’s it. Similarly, in terms of theism, a person who is theist has some belief that God or gods exist, and that’s it. That belief may or may not be accompanied by “dogma, rules and regulations.”
If you wish believers to respect the limitations you place on the word atheism – a wish that I wholeheartedly support you on – let’s keep it fair. Theism is belief that God or gods exist. Atheism is lack of the belief that God or gods exist.
Can we agree there and get a two-for?
I’m trying to wrap my head around this.
OK, as far as it goes. But people’s lives are not taken from them (death penalty) for holding the mere idea that life is not valuable, but for acting on that idea.
Kind of hard to hoist any petards for that.
Again, OK as far it it goes. But as Philly noted, theists rarely, if ever, stop at the mere belief. They almost always go a bit further, or a lot further, and make up “dogma, rules and regulations”, so in the practical world, theism is more than simply a belief in gods. It’s usually a belief in a particular god or gods, who have certain rules and regulations. It’s a nice dictionary definition, but it always goes beyond that. Jefferson and Washington to the contrary.
Do you know any pure theists? Ones without any other beliefs integral to their theism?
Atheists, OTOH, simply stop at “lack of belief”. However, many atheists may then move on to other “isms” such as humanism, but not necessarily because of their atheism, but more because of their skepticism, rationalism and natural materialism, among others.
Yes, but there’s no next for atheism (ie – end of line). Not so for theism (ie – Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc).
I know you’ve been trying to argue there’s a next, like atheism comes first, then one has this -ism and that -ism, but that’s incorrect. That’s the card the Christians like to play when claiming atheism caused this or that and then point to Stalin, Mao and Hitler (Hitler wasn’t even an atheist, btw) and that’s pure bullshit.
Yeah, I saw Peikoff in an interview once some years ago. I was like “What a douchebag!”
A little comic relief.
And a little visual.
Ah, so it’s a holy war you want, eh? Take THAT!
This looks like the beginning of a nice post. I’ll have to write one. Thanks
Nope. There’s no argument for clarity that can be made for “lack” which makes it necessary, for other words can be used instead which don’t carry or lay the ground work for ulterior agendas. For instance, ‘atheism holds no belief that God or gods exist’ works just fine; therefore insisting on using “lack” implies an ulterior motive. That motive, no doubt, is to exploit the common usage of the word which is reserved for describing desirable items only (ie – lack cash, lack sex, lack patience, etc). So the insistence of using “lack of belief” implies atheists are deficient, for they are without something desirable.
I would also object to the use of big G “God” in that definition as well, which reveals the definition was probably created by a monotheist, and since we’re using English, chances are that means a Christian. I find it troublesome, as an atheist, to be defined by another, especially a Christian. More on that here.
SI,
I agree, and that’s certainly a valid distinction. That’s why I said I agree with you in spirit: if we (meaning contemporary people living today) assume we can just eliminate ideological dissenters, we haven’t learned anything from history. My point of contention was with what you wrote here:
Any religion, worldview or philosophy can be twisted to accomplish such ends. Eugenics, Pekka Eric-auvinen, etc. I feel your outrage against common human decency, but where we part ways is that I think you over-attribute that to religion when religion is but one of many vehicles delivering it. I just get a certain feeling of predictability with atheist blogging: find some atrociousness, connect it to religion, and offer that as an argument against religion. I find that strategy unpersuasive because it can be done with anything.
As for our discussion on the meaning of theism and atheism, Philly’s objections are semantic and imagined. He’s concerned about my use of the word lack which he feels portrays atheists as lacking something desirable. Yet, I don’t load the definition thusly, and simply use “lack” to allude to the quality of “not having,” i.e. in this case “the absence of belief in God or gods.” I say the atheist lacks faith in the same way I say a female lacks a penis. My statement that the atheist “lacks” belief in God or gods makes no pronouncement as to whether the belief itself is desirable or undesirable. There’s no ulterior motive in my comment. I don’t know why, but Philly assumed ulterior motive without warrant.
Similarly, atheists rarely, if ever, stop at mere disbelief. They almost always go a bit further, or a lot further, and make up “dogma, rules and regulations” about what is and is not acceptable as reality, so in the practical world, atheism is more than simple disbelief in God or gods.
Theism is belief in God or gods. That’s it. Atheism is “not having” belief in God or gods. That’s it.
In the practical world, of course there are theists who are Christians, Muslims – Jews and Hindus, just as in the practical world – of course there are atheists who are metaphysical naturalists, materialists, determinists and metaphysical supernaturalists (meaning they believe more than this universe exists).
The wild and varied sub-stratas of theism and atheism certainly exist, but they should be evaluated individually. Really, at the end of the day, regardless of how we word it, all I ask is that you allow for me whatever you expect me to allow for you. If you expect me to refer to your atheism as “not holding belief in God or gods,” I expect you to refer to my theism as “holding belief in God or gods.”
OK. But the post, indeed the blog, is about the stupidity of religion. You can’t say my points are invalid simply because the same point can be made about numerous other things. Maybe you don’t find it persuasive, but it is still an effective argument against religion.
You’ve never heard of penis envy?
I don’t know… perhaps because of your history of argumentation here? Leave it be. He cleared it up.
Yes, but atheism is not a precondition to say, humanism, like theism is an absolute precondition to say, Catholicism.
Theism is not a precondition to religion, though. See, cf. Buddhism, which is more akin to a philosophy of life, though it can cross boundaries.
Again, if you want to stick with dictionary definitions, fine. But if you want to deal with the real world, such sterile distinctions don’t really have much meaning. Atheism is not the negative image of theism.
It’s been adequately explained how the use of “lack” is both not necessary and undesirable, so there’s no apparent reason for insisting on using it when other words will serve better.
Indeed! Try telling a woman they lack a penis and are thus envious. You better be protecting yours when you say it. If anything, we’re the envious bunch. Sadly, they can get along quite well without penises, but we’re a sad lot without pussies, which is why many men are “pussy whipped”. Speaking of which, I have to go and work on my friend’s wife to let him out tonight to see the Eagle’s game. ugh
I laughed out loud at that.
Remembers me of a line from a Woody Allen movie. Someone mentions penis envy to Allen’s character, and he replies “Women have it too?”
SI,
I didn’t. I said I find your general strategy of exploiting religious stupidity unpersuasive, because the strategy of exploiting stupidity is fallacious and can demonize anything from science to atheism.
Oh, I agree that said strategy is certainly rhetorically effective. What I’m concerned with is whether or not this post (or any other post using said strategy) constitutes a cogent argument against theism.
That you label something stupid says nothing except that you labelled said thing stupid.
Non-sequitur. Neither of those facts have any import on the proper scope of the words.
When I stick to the dictionary definitions, I’m accused of non-pragmatic rigidity. When I object to the dictionary definitions, I’m accused of arbitrary use of language. Think about that for a little bit, because the “methodology” I’m hearing from you right now is, “When SI says we should use dictionary definitions, we should use them, but when SI says we should use “real world” definitions, we should use them.
I’ll be the first to agree with you that dictionaries often provide more ambiguity than clarity, but at the end of the day, I just want consistency. If atheism is the absence of belief in God or gods, then theism is the presence of belief in God or gods. In the real world, atheists can be more defined in their views, of course, just as in the real world theists can be more defined in their views, too, but neither of those facts need change the meaning of language. Prefixing a word with “a” indicates the absence of whatever that word originally indicated, and all other conditions remain equal.
I fully expect you to disagree, so, perhaps you can provide your personal definitions of theism and atheism, so that I can at least know what you mean when you use them?