What is faith? Really?

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

So why do you spend so much time and effort denigrating theists if you really don't care?

Clarification time. Like many on the forum, a fair few of my posts argue against a theist position, essentially saying that there is no need to postulate a god of any sort, either to explain the nature of the universe or to bring meaning to a human existence. This does not involve a futile attempt to logically prove that a supernatural being does not exist, but simply that we are perfectly happy to live our lives under that assumption.

As for denigrating theists, that is far from the mark. Someone's individual faith is their own business, up and until they start applying their evidence-free position to the rest of us. Every time a theist tries to apply the weird rules of their personal sky fairy universally, outside their own life and outside their church, they will get a robust argument from me, basically saying keep your fucking god out of my life, and out of any attempt to model the universe - you can let the grown-ups do that by the scientific method.

Why should they do so? If they are in the majority, it is their right in a democracy to have their beliefs inform their societal and moral decision making.

You're the minority, so you just have to suck it up and take it because, well, that's how democracy works and it's absolutely certain that if Atheists were in the majority the program of suppression, repression and Inquisition would rival anything the Catholics ever came up with, including forcible "reeducation" and very likely Soviet style commitment to mental institutions (gulags) for anyone who manifests any sort of theistic belief on the premise that they are "delusional" and therefore must be locked up for their own and everyone else's safety.

You think you're better than theists? You're not. No Atheist is.

[Animavore]

No it's not 'absolutely certain' that if atheists were in the majority Communism follows along with all that other shit. That's a lie.

[JimC]

No it's not 'absolutely certain' that if atheists were in the majority Communism follows along with all that other shit. That's a lie.

Exactly. It may be fair to say that communism implied atheism (or at least that communist ideologues of the past rejected religion for a variety of reasons), but the reverse is a complete nonsense. The variety of political viewpoints avowed by modern atheists spans nearly the entire spectrum, I would say (with the sensible ones being moderate centrists, of course... )

And, in any case, what is more to the point in these arguments is not atheism or theism, but the principles of secularism - that the political structure of a society should not be influenced by a particular religion, and that religions have no more or no less rights in society than an embroidery club...

[pErvinalia]

Seth wrote:

So why do you spend so much time and effort denigrating theists if you really don't care?

Clarification time. Like many on the forum, a fair few of my posts argue against a theist position, essentially saying that there is no need to postulate a god of any sort, either to explain the nature of the universe or to bring meaning to a human existence. This does not involve a futile attempt to logically prove that a supernatural being does not exist, but simply that we are perfectly happy to live our lives under that assumption.

As for denigrating theists, that is far from the mark. Someone's individual faith is their own business, up and until they start applying their evidence-free position to the rest of us. Every time a theist tries to apply the weird rules of their personal sky fairy universally, outside their own life and outside their church, they will get a robust argument from me, basically saying keep your fucking god out of my life, and out of any attempt to model the universe - you can let the grown-ups do that by the scientific method.

Why should they do so? If they are in the majority, it is their right in a democracy to have their beliefs inform their societal and moral decision making.

You're the minority, so you just have to suck it up and take it because, well, that's how democracy works and it's absolutely certain that if Atheists were in the majority the program of suppression, repression and Inquisition would rival anything the Catholics ever came up with, including forcible "reeducation" and very likely Soviet style commitment to mental institutions (gulags) for anyone who manifests any sort of theistic belief on the premise that they are "delusional" and therefore must be locked up for their own and everyone else's safety.

You're a fruitcake!

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Why should they do so? If they are in the majority, it is their right in a democracy to have their beliefs inform their societal and moral decision making.

Where in anything I said did I say that their faith would not inevitably effect their politics and voting patterns? Of course they do, but I was saying something subtly different.

If a conservative religious viewpoint dominates a particular society, and, because of that, the majority vote for positions of conservative morality, that is of course their right. I would argue against such positions (and in fact, the tide of public opinion in western democracies, as they move away from religion is gradually altering such morality laws), but that is just one more argument at the ballot box. What I object to is them implying that their conservative religious morality should apply to me simply because they claim their imaginary god has power over all humans, over and above any given democratically based law.

Also, they claim that their faith gives them a privileged position in areas it should not apply, like special tax dispensations. If the embroidery club can't get the special privileges, neither should a religion.

Also, atheists (or at least people with no avowed religion) are rapidly becoming a large bloc in most western democracies, and traditional christianity is shrinking to a shadow of its former self - less and less can the traditional position of privilege and power assumed by the church for centuries be justified.

[Hermit]

Every time a theist tries to apply the weird rules of their personal sky fairy universally, outside their own life and outside their church, they will get a robust argument from me, basically saying keep your fucking god out of my life, and out of any attempt to model the universe - you can let the grown-ups do that by the scientific method.

Why should they do so? If they are in the majority, it is their right in a democracy to have their beliefs inform their societal and moral decision making.

You're the minority, so you just have to suck it up and take it because, well, that's how democracy works

The beauty about democracy is that he does not have to suck it up and take it. We can fight it, and we do. Democracy actually allows us to fight theocratic elements that sneak into our secular government.

For instance, a previous Prime Minister declared some years ago that Australia is a Christian nation. He then proceeded to use taxpayer's money to finance evangelists polluting schools, government as well as privately owned, spreading their filth among students. One individual, Ron Williams, a Queenslander whose four children went to one of those schools, objected to this initiative, and took the matter to our High Court. The verdict came out last week. It was unanimous: The program is unconstitutional and has to be scrapped.

The same Prime Minister had the Marriage Act amended by defining marriage to be explicitly and exclusively between a man and a woman. This Federal law overrides marriage laws of the all states. We're fighting that one too. We certainly have not won on that issue yet, but to say we have to suck it up and take it is errant nonsense. Jim is right and you are wrong.

[pErvinalia]

Every time a theist tries to apply the weird rules of their personal sky fairy universally, outside their own life and outside their church, they will get a robust argument from me, basically saying keep your fucking god out of my life, and out of any attempt to model the universe - you can let the grown-ups do that by the scientific method.

Why should they do so? If they are in the majority, it is their right in a democracy to have their beliefs inform their societal and moral decision making.

You're the minority, so you just have to suck it up and take it because, well, that's how democracy works

The beauty about democracy is that he does not have to suck it up and take it. We can fight it, and we do. Democracy actually allows us to fight theocratic elements that sneak into our secular government.

For instance, a previous Prime Minister declared some years ago that Australia is a Christian nation. He then proceeded to use taxpayer's money to finance evangelists polluting schools, government as well as privately owned, spreading their filth among students. One individual, Ron Williams, a Queenslander whose four children went to one of those schools, objected to this initiative, and took the matter to our High Court. The verdict came out last week. It was unanimous: The program is unconstitutional and has to be scrapped.

The same Prime Minister had the Marriage Act amended by defining marriage to be explicitly and exclusively between a man and a woman. This Federal law overrides marriage laws of the all states. We're fighting that one too. We certainly have not won on that issue yet, but to say we have to suck it up and take it is errant nonsense. Jim is right and you are wrong.

Sith is never wrong, you Marxist!!

[Seth]

No it's not 'absolutely certain' that if atheists were in the majority Communism follows along with all that other shit. That's a lie.

I didn't say communism, I said Soviet-style use of loony bins as places to put dissidents using the argument that anyone who dissents against the government or Marxism must be mentally ill and in need of "treatment," which is often in the form of 140 grains of lead and copper injected at high velocity into the head. The only good dissident thought is no thought at all.

I'm certain that if Atheists were in charge something similar would happen to religious people. They would make it a crime just like Muslims make Christianity a crime.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Why should they do so? If they are in the majority, it is their right in a democracy to have their beliefs inform their societal and moral decision making.

Where in anything I said did I say that their faith would not inevitably effect their politics and voting patterns? Of course they do, but I was saying something subtly different.

If a conservative religious viewpoint dominates a particular society, and, because of that, the majority vote for positions of conservative morality, that is of course their right. I would argue against such positions (and in fact, the tide of public opinion in western democracies, as they move away from religion is gradually altering such morality laws), but that is just one more argument at the ballot box. What I object to is them implying that their conservative religious morality should apply to me simply because they claim their imaginary god has power over all humans, over and above any given democratically based law.

Maybe he does.

Also, they claim that their faith gives them a privileged position in areas it should not apply, like special tax dispensations. If the embroidery club can't get the special privileges, neither should a religion.

Actually they don't claim it here in the US, it's extended to them for a very specific reason, which is that historically taxation has been used as a weapon against disfavored religions as a way to bankrupt and disrupt them, so in America our system avoids the inevitable corrupt urge of politicians to use taxation as a weapon against the disfavored by exempting religious organizations from income taxation.

The necessity and desirability of this is amply demonstrated by the IRS scandal currently in progress where Obama and his minions abused their power and used the IRS to violate the rights of conservative political groups in order to marginalize them during the reelection of Obama.

Lois Lerner and a good many other IRS minions should, and I hope WILL end up in prison over this, and Obama should be impeached and removed from office, and then prosecuted for his high crimes and misdemeanors, which exceed anything done by any president in American history.

[pErvinalia]

The shit you say gets more and more stupid by the day! Obama worse than Bush?? What a joke. Bush is responsible for the state of Iraq today, the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi's as well as the displacement of shitloads more, the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans, and the waste of at least 1 trillion dollars on that clusterfuck. He's a war criminal, and he's fucked your economy.

And that's not even mentioning the shit about atheists killing Christians. What an idiotic statement.

[Animavore]

No it's not 'absolutely certain' that if atheists were in the majority Communism follows along with all that other shit. That's a lie.

I didn't say communism, I said Soviet-style use of loony bins as places to put dissidents using the argument that anyone who dissents against the government or Marxism must be mentally ill and in need of "treatment," which is often in the form of 140 grains of lead and copper injected at high velocity into the head. The only good dissident thought is no thought at all.

I'm certain that if Atheists were in charge something similar would happen to religious people. They would make it a crime just like Muslims make Christianity a crime.

You're a liar.

[JimC]

JimC wrote:

What I object to is them implying that their conservative religious morality should apply to me simply because they claim their imaginary god has power over all humans, over and above any given democratically based law.

Seth wrote:

Maybe he does.

That throw-away line goes right to the heart of why I detest religions with all-powerful gods. He (and it always is a he) is a bully, a Nazi, a Stalinist; in fact a piece of authoritarian scum. That depiction is not a surprise - monotheistic religions arose when agricultural societies were coming under the rule of the pre-historic equivalents of Saddam Hussein. Naturally, the imaginary god that arose was modelled on powerful, autocratic rulers, and the priestly caste was always careful to have the worldly ruler seen as god's deputy on earth, to reinforce his rule.

We created gods from our own fears, insecurities and hunger for power. The sooner we let them fade back into mythological status, the sooner we will stop being frightened children.

[Seth]

No it's not 'absolutely certain' that if atheists were in the majority Communism follows along with all that other shit. That's a lie.

I didn't say communism, I said Soviet-style use of loony bins as places to put dissidents using the argument that anyone who dissents against the government or Marxism must be mentally ill and in need of "treatment," which is often in the form of 140 grains of lead and copper injected at high velocity into the head. The only good dissident thought is no thought at all.

I'm certain that if Atheists were in charge something similar would happen to religious people. They would make it a crime just like Muslims make Christianity a crime.

You're a liar.

How can I be a liar when I'm expressing an opinion?

[Seth]

The shit you say gets more and more stupid by the day! Obama worse than Bush?? What a joke. Bush is responsible for the state of Iraq today, the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi's as well as the displacement of shitloads more, the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans, and the waste of at least 1 trillion dollars on that clusterfuck. He's a war criminal, and he's fucked your economy.

And that's not even mentioning the shit about atheists killing Christians. What an idiotic statement.

No, Saddam Hussein is responsible for everything that happened in Iraq.

At least Bush was no traitorous Marxist mole.

[Seth]

JimC wrote:

What I object to is them implying that their conservative religious morality should apply to me simply because they claim their imaginary god has power over all humans, over and above any given democratically based law.

Seth wrote:

Maybe he does.

That throw-away line goes right to the heart of why I detest religions with all-powerful gods. He (and it always is a he) is a bully, a Nazi, a Stalinist; in fact a piece of authoritarian scum.

This may well be the case. However, being a god, that only makes it all the more rational to do as he wishes, lest you piss him off.

That depiction is not a surprise - monotheistic religions arose when agricultural societies were coming under the rule of the pre-historic equivalents of Saddam Hussein. Naturally, the imaginary god that arose was modelled on powerful, autocratic rulers, and the priestly caste was always careful to have the worldly ruler seen as god's deputy on earth, to reinforce his rule.

All very true.

We created gods from our own fears, insecurities and hunger for power. The sooner we let them fade back into mythological status, the sooner we will stop being frightened children.

Scientifically robust objective evidence of this claim please....