tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post3048571582534395848..comments2023-09-30T10:36:23.154-05:00Comments on Accidental Historian: In Defense of not Being HospitableGedshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15047239425466517786noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-39661302041550882962009-07-13T09:41:19.302-05:002009-07-13T09:41:19.302-05:00Anon:
That's a good gift...
One of the probl...Anon:<br /><br />That's a good gift...<br /><br />One of the problems with the whole debate is that lots of people don't actually want to think through the issues. But, of course, that's largely how any debate works these days, at least in America. There's black and white and one side is wholly right and the other side wholly wrong and there's nothing in between.<br /><br />That's why I constantly try to define the terms of what I'm talking about when I get in to religion. I personally know many religious people who are wonderful and believe their holy book(s) tell them to go out and make the world a better place. They're generally not the ones who are trying to get science curriculum replaced by creationist claptrap, either.<br /><br />I don't have a problem with the so-called "accomodationists" like the New Atheists do, either. I think it's fine for people to try to believe in religion and believe that science is a good way of looking at the universe. The problem that I see is that the accomodationists expect the far-out religious to be as polite about the matter as they are. They're not and they have a lot of political power. That's not a good thing.<br /><br />So that's the basis of my argument. Myers, Dawkins, Hitchens, <i>et al</i>. aren't necessarily wholly right in what they do, but they are necessary. They can be just as myopic as their opponents, but they are more willing to try to understand how the religious think than most of the fundagelicals I've met are to figure out what the atheists think. For the most part the people like those I used to go to church with are content to read somebody's else's opinion about what the opponents of religion say than to try to engage with the actual opponent.<br /><br />Hitchens goes to religious trade shows and appears in panel discussions. Most atheists I've run in to have read the Bible and a lot of them know it a hell of a lot better than the people I used to go to church with. It's probably part survival instinct and part byproduct of the fact that we have such a religious society, but that's what I've noticed.<br /><br />There's still plenty of misinformation and demonization on both sides. There's a lot of projection, too. But as long as one side needs everyone to believe their particular fairy tale and they're the ones that have the power and are trying to make sure everyone else is limited in what they can learn, then I'm going to stand against them. It's what I would be doing if I were still religious, too.<br /><br />Freedom for all takes precedence over the comfortable ignorance of the few.<br /><br />I'm probably going to put together another post to follow up on this, by the by...Gedshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15047239425466517786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-27585762321869940012009-07-11T22:01:44.771-05:002009-07-11T22:01:44.771-05:00Fair enough- I don't find anything objectionab...Fair enough- I don't find anything objectionable there. I just mean, if someone who was against religion but not especially fond of thinking, your original post sounded like license to make all the same mistakes the Evangelical side is making.<br /><br />But hell, if it wasn't for those mistakes, neither side would have any reason to talk about the other. Which is the way I think it should be- I've been gifted with an apparently unique ability to ignore faith, and I wish more people had it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-14782036002473884332009-07-11T15:43:06.730-05:002009-07-11T15:43:06.730-05:00Sniffnoy:
I dunno. I like Dennett. But he's...Sniffnoy:<br /><br />I dunno. I like Dennett. But he's one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, probably because he has made the horrible, sinful decision to appreciate "science" and "reason." And those are bad.<br /><br />PF:<br /><br />More or less. There are points when <i>tu quoque</i> arguments aren't actually logical fallacies. I think this is a good example.<br /><br />big a:<br /><br />'Xactly...<br /><br />I'd tend to get a bit more specific than "Christian," on the "shit happens" thing, since there are those out there who don't think god is directing their every breath, but yes, that's been my experience.<br /><br />jessa:<br /><br />Isn't that the trouble, though? There's a wide gap between being able to understand a mindset and being able to appreciate it.<br /><br />I just finished AJ Jacobs <i>The Year of Living Biblically</i> and that subject kept coming up. There were times when he would be writing about not knowing how to raise his son and I just wanted to strangle him. Overall it was a great book, but that subtopic annoyed me to no end.<br /><br />Anon:<br /><br />But the problem isn't believers' self-esteem. The problem is that for certain types of believers everyone <i>has</i> to agree with them. That's one of the main reasons why I'm so frightening to some of the people I used to go to church with. Simply by once being a highly-regarded believer who is now happy and successful as a non-believer I put the lie to a lot of the stories that they tell themselves.<br /><br />And the fundamental argument from the New Atheists is, "Keep your religion out of the classroom and the political sphere." That's the spirit upon which this country was founded. The people who want a religious litmus test for political office and the teaching of insular religious doctrine as fact are the ones that are going to far.<br /><br />So what if they're offended? I'm offended by the attitudes of Ken Ham, Don McLeroy, and Cynthia Dunbar. But I'm not trying to take away their rights, since there is no right to tell anyone else what they're allowed to believe.<br /><br />If holding the line is too offensive, well, too bad. So sad.Gedshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15047239425466517786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-91243344255063690442009-07-10T22:45:39.425-05:002009-07-10T22:45:39.425-05:00big a- I learned a lot from that, thanks. It's...big a- I learned a lot from that, thanks. It's never touched me personally, but I understand better now what deconversion is.<br /><br />As for the main post... I'm iffy on it. Like, yes, evangelicals go too far because of the basis on which their self esteem is built. If they don't do what they do, then they don't go to heaven. But as non-believers, if we don't do all we can to further our cause, that might just make us non-assholes. Just my thought.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-69395731446803026882009-07-10T21:09:17.090-05:002009-07-10T21:09:17.090-05:00"my decision to leave religion behind is auto..."my decision to leave religion behind is automatically assumed to be based on some single, horrible moment that I need to find healing for, and if I don’t moderate my own position or make sure to include some positive, fluffy things about my religious days then I’m apparently doing it all wrong."<br /><br />This was precisely my experience. In early March of 2007, while en route to a job interview in my car, I was struck head-on by another vehicle with both us traveling about 50mph. I had three broken bones, spent 8 days in the hospital, and couldn't walk for three months. This, by any definition, would constitute a "horrible event" in my life. <br /><br />It was almost a year later when I finally walked away from Christianity. <br /><br />My former fellow Christians declared on numerous occaisons that my faith had been shaken/destroyed by the wreck, neglecting to notice or recognize that I was still trying to make my faith "work" well after the incident. One, in particular, lamented the event as the cause of her losing one of her "mentors" (which was in and of itself foolish because I had never tried to be her mentor, and the only regard in which she could perceive me so was in the realm of biblical knowledge).<br />At the time, I was staggered by the self-centrism of the remark. Not only did she project a role onto me that I never once attempted to play or accepted, and not only did she assign an insultingly simplistic reason to the cause of my theological evolution, but she immediately transformed it into something about HER.<br /><br />The fatal flaw in the absolute moral and intellectual superiority that Christians derive from their precious Bible is that they subsequently define their own self-worth by how many people in their social circle "have come to know Jesus". When one departs for any reason, they automatically search for human (and often personal) explanations for why their circle has contracted. "If only I had done or not done this or that", they say to themselves, "he would still be a Christian" - if God is all powerful and all loving, then any failure between him and another must rest with people.<br /><br />It is this unwaivering position that generates the greatest abuse of Christianity, the inflated sense of power, and the subsequent guilt and responsibility that accompanies it when something goes awry.<br /><br />A Christian cannot concede that "shit happens", because that means something that exists outside of God's control. A Christian cannot concede that God's power is limited or non-existent, because that threatens the efficacy of prayer. A Christian cannot concede that God may be morally ambiguous (like man, supposedly created in God's image) because that would be threatening and depressing. And so a Christian cannot concede that they are powerless to control the faith of other people, and when someone leaves the faith, they deem it to be a direct reflection on them.<br /><br />This makes Christians some of the most agenda-driven people of all, as their very existence and happiness is, to their perception, dependent on you and how in line you are with THEIR perspective.big anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-70186448047366519662009-07-10T15:56:39.300-05:002009-07-10T15:56:39.300-05:00yeah, you can ignore "you're going too fa...yeah, you can ignore "you're going too far!" when said by the person who condemns us all to eternal torment. (tu quoque blahblahblah)PersonalFailurehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03034292023591747601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-60415763600811707662009-07-10T15:40:55.316-05:002009-07-10T15:40:55.316-05:00But what reasonable person would say that Daniel D...But what reasonable person would say that Daniel Dennett is a problem? :-/Sniffnoynoreply@blogger.com