National Public Radio tells us today that A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113889251&ft=1&f=2100608
To those who favour the deferential approach, I pose this example: Suppose I assert that my religion is founded on the belief that Santa Claus is God and that it is blasphemous for shopping malls to employ "fake" santas. Presumably, most would laugh at my demand that shopping mall santas be outlawed. Now suppose that I convince a million followers to share in my santa delusion. Should strength in numbers be sufficient to justify my demand? How is respect for the beliefs held by Judeo-Christians, Muslims or any other religion beholden to a divine deity any different?
You cannot respect a religious person by letting let them think that you respect their religious beliefs if you truly believe those beliefs are irrational. That is not respect - that is hypocrisy.
I believe that modern progressive beliefs are irrational as well. Those beliefs are forced on me every day by well meaning progressives.
ReplyDeleteShould I respect their beliefs? Are their beliefs somehow different, because despite their illogicality they don't believe in an invisible guy in the sky?
bedeviledegg, you fail here by making a sweeping generalization. Progressive ideas with logic behind them are different from progressive ideas without. I would recommend making a specific case because with your current argument, you're biting off more than you can chew. I understand the importance of playing Devil's Advocate, but it doesn't work if you don't play the logic game as well.
ReplyDeleteThat entire story was utter crap...I woke up to the teaser, which was something about the "doctrinal rift" in atheism. Not kidding. Pretty sure I shouted "WHAT?" while still half-asleep.
ReplyDeleteSanta Claus - we do it for the children because they are innocent, naive and in no hurry to grow up.
ReplyDeleteGod - we do it for the Bibleists because they are...
Oh Oh. Bad analogy?
As you may or may not know, I am an against gun control measures that aim to disarm law-abiding citizens. A couple weeks ago, newscientist.com posted an article about a completely flawed and biased research paper, slanted in favor of gun-control advocates, and it sparked a heated debate. But then, some nut on the pro-gun side of the debate started exalting the virtues of 'god-fearing citizens who love their neighbors' -yeah, I don't see what that has to do with guns either- , and at that point I lost my cool. I said 'fearing non-existent gods isn't a hallmark of good citizenship, it is a hallmark of being ignorant and superstitious, but thanks anyway for supporting the Second Amendment'.. and my comment got deleted!
ReplyDeleteThat is a science magazine. Why is science respecting mindless superstition? Some cretard probably got offended (by the truth!) and reported my comment. Why not delete the superstitious God-nut comment instead? That was offensive to me. I should have reported it.
"You cannot respect a religious person by letting let them think that you respect their religious beliefs if you truly believe those beliefs are irrational."
ReplyDeleteCan you respect someone's beliefs while at the same time believing that those beliefs are irrational?
That's not snark; it's meant to be a serious question, and I'm not sure how I would answer it myself. (That's why I'm asking.)