For Grammar RWA

Because comments seem to be closed on that thread, and I did my usual thing and spaced out before replying (and then the election happened and other concerns came up). Here I can bloviate for as long as I like, so it's better suited than Pandagon comments (not that Pandagon doesn't have a ton of space in their comments anyway).

I try to keep it that way, but I am unnecessarily rude sometimes. I really appreciate you saying this; thank you. I think you bring a helpful perspective to the conversations here and I wouldn’t want to drive you away, so I’m sorry that I’ve been a jerk to you.

It's okay; I have a similar tendency to get hackles up and start using the "F" word a great deal when it seems to be appropriate. Usually I'm right, if it's ever right, but occasionally it's otherwise. I was sitting there during our initial exchange going, "What the hell?"

But I pull the same thing, so it's okay. I prefer compromises to be met, but tempers are a natural human trait.

Ever read George Lakoff? “Fundamentalist” evokes a particular frame. Fundamentalists have “fundamentals,” dogmas that are held to be true without evidence, without even the need for evidence. Fundamentalists’ dogmas are not up for debate. There is no possibility of discussion. A fundamentalist is someone you cannot reason with, cannot profitably talk to. This is the salient point. Fundamentalists are not worth talking to, and thus they are not worth listening to. This is why “you’re a fundamentalist” means “shut up.” It means the fundamentalist is not even a part of civil society. Rather, they are self-imposed separatists.

"Fundamentalist," by dictionary definition, is a poor word choice for that, and so I definitely cede that point here.

PZ, Dawkins, Hitchens, the atheists here, even the angry ones with shitty attitudes, are not like that. We desperately want fruitful engagement with the wider society; that was Dawkins’s whole reason for writing The God Delusion.

The thing is, though - and here I admit without reservation that I have never read the referenced book - that writing things like that is arguably similar to proselytizing, and I definitely wouldn't claim that most people I know who actively seek out others to evangelize want fruitful engagement with the wider society. They want everyone to be like them, for whatever reason, and cannot tolerate that there are others who are different from them. I can understand the point of saying, "Stop using your God as a crutch and an excuse to be an asshole," but it's murkier for me to say, "You need to abandon your God to stop being an asshole." I'm going off of what most of the Dawkins-reading atheists I know tend to sound like. I don't derive my personal morality from my religion; I actually derive my religion from my personal morality, and I do not follow either perfectly. I know a lot of atheists who say that they think it is stupid that people think that, without a God, there would be no morality, and, while I agree with that to a degree, at the same time, whenever they think that all theists are moral (whether by their own definition or others') simply because they are theists, that seems counterintuitive to me. I do not think atheists are moral because there is a God forcing them to be, and I don't think I try to be moral because I believe in a guiding force behind things.

If reading the book would change that particular idea on my part then please let me know.

Yes, we want more of you to become more of us, but not necessarily all of you,

The problem is that, if you really think that religion, or theism, is a threat to humanity on the whole, then why is it that you say that you don't necessarily want all of us to become atheists? It seems like it would be optimal to me. I freely admit that if I could trade in fundamentalist right-wingers for atheists I would, unless they were the Randian atheists, in which case I would really rather do without the whole thing altogether - not without the people themselves, but without their asshattery, as I have friends in both categories who are otherwise wonderful people.

Either way, I think that people would continue to find reasons to treat each other like ass whether or not there was an overriding theist majority. People just suck that way.

and the reason is not simply for partisanship, but because religion is dangerous inasmuch as it allows morality to be divorced from mortal consequences, and the current ratio of religious to atheists is not conducive to herd immunity should there be a movement toward theocracy.

This statement is problematic because you're assuming that all theists would be okay with theocracy here. If you start a theocracy here, all the other religions are going to be pissed off, and there will be a lot of people within the religion of choice who are pissed off as well. I have Christian friends who would revolt along with me and with my atheist friends if push came to shove on a theocracy. I know you're not doing it intentionally, but you are discrediting a very important segment of the theist population - namely, your allies. I would die (literally) for your right to be an atheist without fear of reprisal. That is why I joined the Marines as an idiot teenager - it seemed to me that it would be a good way to try and protect freedoms like that (and this is when I was a Christian who leaned right). (Unfortunately, it turns out that really my government just wanted me to die for oil and a psychotic crusade against Islam. This is a classic example of why religion+government=stupid.)

And if we’re going to reach a safer level of atheism like Western Europe has, it’s going to mean a lot of public dissection of everyone’s beliefs.

See, something that seems to be misunderstood here is, frankly, that theism is a choice. On some level it might be, but for most people it's as natural as breathing. It's not like most people are going to say, "Oh, you dissected my beliefs and they're illogical, so I will be an atheist." They're more likely to do what I did and say, "Oh, my beliefs are illogical, so it makes more sense to have a more universal viewpoint of things," or, "My beliefs are illogical, so I'll find some that better fit my altered view of reality," or, for many, "Why the fuck are you dissecting my beliefs, asshole?" (I am not in the latter group until they start insulting me, and this is a problem other people have, not so much you.) I think that atheism is a perfectly logical way to view the universe. However, I also lean much more towards the everything-is-divine-and-it-really-doesn't-matter viewpoint. I think it's irrelevant whether or not there is a deity, since it's not provable, so that probably colors the way that I address this. To me, though, whether or not it is logical to believe in something beyond us, it's something that is simply ingrained into me. I wonder if there is a genetic component to it, frankly, and would be very interested in studies on that.

If you cannot expose your beliefs to scrutiny then they are all the more in need of scrutiny - however, you have to remember that what you are working with here, at its barest point, is faith, and there really isn't arguing against faith. You can argue logically all day long, but that isn't going to disprove something that isn't inherently provable.

Funny enough, atheists just talking about why we believe what we believe means talking about why we don’t believe what you believe, and this is inevitably interpreted as preaching, attacking, disrespect and hatred, even when the atheist is trying to be respectful, even when the atheist isn’t one like me who believes that there’s nothing about religion that inherently warrants respect.

I don't think religion inherently warrants respect. I think that other people's personal viewpoints, however, inherently warrant respect, regardless of what they are addressing. I think that's part of the miscommunication here - you seem to think that I'm saying that religion deserves respect. I don't think it deserves any more respect than other people's right to parent their children however they wish so long as they are not negligent or abusive (and that raised a rather...heated...debate on the transportation thread on Pandagon, but that's a whole other barrel of monkeys). I may disagree with people, and I disagree with people on religion all the damn time (trust me), but I don't disrespect them, or their right to believe what they will (at least, not until they start being assholes about it - and that happens much more frequently with Evangelicals than with atheists). It's one thing to enjoy dialogue, and it's another thing to attack someone else for being different, you know? And this applies to many topics, not just religion. I apologize if it seemed that I only afforded religion this kind of respect. In reality, I have very little reverence for much of anything, and the things that I do have reverence for are rather unusual.

Liberal theists talk about what they believe all the time, and why the conservatives’ beliefs are misunderstandings of deity, or wrong, or ridiculous, or stupid. The same kind of criticism from atheists toward liberal theists is not allowed.

See, here's the thing - the difference is that the liberal theists you're discussing here are addressing ideological enemies who are using their personal belief system to attack them. It is definitely the norm for conservative theists (and, let's be honest, we're talking about Christians with this group) to attack liberal theists (especially Christians) for being traitors to their "beliefs." These talks that you are referring to are a defense against people who mischaracterize them as less sincere or less correct in their faith. Conversely, liberal atheists criticizing liberal theists is dissecting ideological allies for no reason other than to cause them to have the same reasoning as you when they already have come to the same conclusions. (That's a gross oversimplification, but it works in this instance.) Conservative theists think liberal theists should be conservative on the grounds of their theism. Liberal atheists (at least, the ones being discussed here) think that liberal theists should be atheists on the grounds of their liberalism. The latter is equally annoying, in my opinion, because it is an unnecessary dichotomy to draw. We're not your enemies (in terms of politics). Conservatives (including the Rand-reading atheists) are. So why devote energy to trying to change people who already agree with you? Let's haggle that kind of thing out once we've actually achieved something - and, even though we've made steps, make no mistake about it, we have a lot of work to do before we can justify spending energy on infighting like this.

I don’t think you’re waiting to turn on other progressives, like you have some kind of malevolent plan. What I worry about is 1) how supernatural beliefs can change,

However, if we're operating from the assumption that personal morality does not derive from supernatural beliefs, then this should not be a problem. I was a conservative. I then became a pagan and stayed a conservative. I then read Ayn Rand and made a valiant effort at Objectivism (sans the necessary atheism) before realizing that it's a completely sociopathic philosophy. I then became a flaming liberal. All of those happened within the framework of my belief system. It's not that my belief system changed at all, so much as I change things, whether it's my political or spiritual beliefs, to encompass the information I take in over time. It's not that I think one shouldn't have convictions, so much as that I think you should be open to different interpretations of life and to life experience.

and 2) how widespread respect for supernatural beliefs affects moral discourse.

This is something that is definitely relevant in the public sphere, in that "God says so" is far too widely considered a legitimate reason for whatever change people want to make to the government. However, I covered my personal thoughts on respect for religion and for other personal viewpoints above.

Just in case that wasn't clarified, it pretty much goes as follows - you have the right to believe whatever you like, and I won't challenge that right until you start trying to infringe on mine. Mind you, I'm talking in the wholly abstract, ideological sense, whether it's spiritual or political. I have respect for other people's rights, but, if they feel it is necessary to start being a bastard, I'll call them on it, or, if they feel like proselytizing, I'll start dissecting their beliefs to their face. This does not extend to the concrete, economic sense, where I believe that all people are responsible for ensuring that we all have our minimum needs met. I'm a bona fide socialist.

If Bob can believe, upon insufficient evidence, that God wants him to feed the poor, then he can believe upon insufficient evidence that God wants him to kill people. This can change because of a new, more convincing theological argument.

This still comes from the "morality is derived from spirituality" framework, rather than the reverse. This is applicable to many people, but not to everyone.

Or a brain tumor, or a hormonal imbalance.

However, something like that could just as easily happen to an atheist and cause them to think they're hearing voices, too.

Now, there are similar dangers to the atheist, but there’s an extra step, a firewall of skepticism. The atheist who hears voices in his head is more likely to assume he needs medical help.

This is also an assumption. If I heard a voice in my head saying, say, to kill my child, I would seek serious medical attention. I felt the same way whenever I had belief in a much more personal form of deity. If I heard a voice in my head saying to feed the poor, I would probably assume that something was busted and, again, seek medical attention. All this and I'm a theist. Most of the theists that I know, even the ones who are monotheists, do not believe that God necessarily speaks to you in words. They might believe that a particular feeling that they have is from God, yes, but that does not equate to hearing a voice in their heads.

The atheist who encounters a bad argument is going to need some basis besides “God wills it” to start hurting people;

So are most of the theists I know.

there are other bad bases, but this is one less. One less danger. This is not a danger limited to monotheists. In one of the recent threads about PeTA, someone excused their meat-eating by saying that they “gave thanks” to the spirits of the slaughtered animals. Meaningless blather! It’s religion once again causing and excusing suffering, and pagans are susceptible to this kind of thinking. The death industry is an atrocity in and of itself, but how much more tragic when a well-meaning person contributes to killing when he might have done otherwise had he not believed in spirits!

I think that the point wasn't so much that the practice of eating meat was acceptable because of the thanks they gave to the spirits of the animals. I think the point was that they engaged in a behaviour that they do not personally find immoral (as meat-eating is practiced throughout the animal kingdom and humans are, scientifically, another animal); however, because that behaviour involved the harm of another creature, they gave thanks.

Mind you, this isn't to discuss the morality of meat-eating or otherwise; it's more to discuss the rationale behind the action. I've known pagans who do this, but they would continue eating meat even if they didn't do it.

And I see a shift in this culture toward default respect, learning that we all must respect each others beliefs because they are beliefs. It used to be that people would try to come up with some bullshit reasoning for their ill behavior. At least the excuse “well, that’s tradition, that’s the way we’ve always done things” was susceptible to the retort, “well, maybe you don’t have to stick to tradition; other people are changing, see?” Just the awareness that other ways existed was destructive to hurtful traditions. Now, more and more, I hear people saying “well, that’s just what I believe.” Like “gay people shouldn’t adopt children, and that’s just what I believe.”

Sure, believe what you want, and I'll respect that you believe it, until you try and force it on me and other people and remove rights. I respect that other people believe differently than me. However, I do not try to force my morality on them, and I think that, if they could say that something, while a belief of theirs, was not adequate reason to remove rights from other people, it wouldn't be a problem.

That isn’t a reason! It isn’t even an attempt at a reason! It’s circular at a single step: I believe because I believe because I believe.

I've known plenty of theists who reject this reasoning. Attacking someone's beliefs simply because they believe them is one thing - I disagree with that. Attacking someone's beliefs because they are willing to let their religion influence public policy is a whole other ballgame, in my opinion - if you're going to start using your sky fairy to justify your voting against human rights, you can fuck right off.

“Tradition” at least said “that’s the way we’ve always done it, and it’s been working okay for us so far.” That’s an attempt at a reason: it was “working.” Now people let themselves off the hook for anything and everything just by saying “but that’s what I believe. You have to respect my beliefs.”

I don't like when people play the "You have to respect my beliefs but I don't have to respect yours" game, and the people you're talking about here are the ones who play that game. I know plenty of theists who do not play that game. They are not rationalizing their mistreatment of other people using their beliefs, so, since their beliefs are not adversely affecting other people, I think they have a fair shot at saying, "You have to respect my beliefs."

Fuck that. We here recognize that’s bullshit in regard to denying gay people our rights, right? And yet go back to the PeTA thread and you’ll find progressives using the very same non-argument for meat eating.

I think you're misunderstanding the intent. The idea isn't of sin (killing an animal) and repentance (thanking its spirit). The idea is of gratitude for the sacrifice, the same as the earth would be thanked for giving us its bounty. It's not like this can subsequently be used as reasoning to kill a child and then thank its spirit. The idea is that there is a heirarchy and food chain in nature, and that, while acting within that heirarchy, one still should be grateful for the gift given. It doesn't justify the action, as it isn't supposed that the action requires justification.

I also know plenty of vegan pagans (on the grounds of their beliefs) and atheists who eat meat (on the grounds that this is the way nature works).

This is a poisonous meme. Belief is not inherently worthy of respect, and “that’s what I believe” is the ultimate immovable barrier to moral progress.

I still fail to see why it is an ultimate immovable barrier when it comes to people who don't feel as if it is morally correct to force their personal morality or beliefs on others. If this person isn't using their beliefs to justify harming anyone then those beliefs do not, to me, appear to be a threat to you.

But if we’re going to get conservatives to understand that this non-argument isn’t socially sufficient, and beliefs are subject to criticism, even harsh criticism, it’s going to mean that your (and my) beliefs are going to be harshly, even rudely criticized. This is the price of liberal democracy. I say it’s a small price for freedom.

I think people's personal business should be personal until it starts to touch other people. I don't feel as if I morally have the right to criticize the parents at my daycare for, say, not disciplining their kids. However, I would feel as if I had the right to criticize them for beating their kids. Conversely, I don't feel as if I morally have the right to criticize Scientologists for believing in what is blatantly a manufactured religion. However, I do feel as if I morally have the right to criticize the beliefs of a Christian who thinks that their interpretation of the Bible is sufficient reason to oppress others. Does that make sense?

Now, you can take issue with all that. I insist that you ought to! But note that I’m asking for dialogue, I’m asking for conversation and engagement, even if it’s not always pleasant or polite. That’s not what fundamentalists do. So like I said above, call us “asshole atheists” if that’s how we make you feel. It’s surely an accurate term at times. But don’t silence us and shut us out with “fundamentalist.”

I ceded that. I also don't generally think you're one of the assholes - you're willing to dialogue where, say, Notorious P.A.T. was just willing to call people intellectually inferior on the grounds of this difference.

I’m a strong-willed person and I speak about morality a lot. This exact same attitude and behavior is applauded by the exact same people when it’s applied to arguing for reproductive choice, or gay rights, or progressive taxation and universal health care. When I speak about atheism, a few get bothered. When I speak about veganism, it’s inevitable, half a dozen people here will call me a fundamentalist.

I don't think that of you, even on that topic. I think there is a great deal of reasoning on both sides of the aisle on that, and, having a few friends that are vegan, I understand the passion behind the viewpoint. However, that's on the same count that I understand the passion with which pro-lifers who actually believe it is murder argue as well, since I used to be one of those. Unfortunately, I have found very few people in that group - more of them just think that secks is bad and women should be punished for it with a baybee.

It’s the exact same attitude, the exact same approach! That’s how I know the progressive’s charge of “fundamentalism” has nothing to do with attitude. It’s all about silencing someone who holds a different point of view.

With some that's perhaps true. In every group there's going to be a tendency to want to silence dissent. That's not where I was coming from so much as, the same as I did in the transportation thread, saying, "Why is it that people disagreeing with you means that they are stupid?"

Did you notice how so many atheists here spoke up when Broce dropped the f-bomb? And how many said the same thing: it’s an attempt to shut us up. We know because we’re routinely silenced in so many ways. You’d recognize it too if you were in our shoes. Please, if what I’m saying doesn’t make sense, at least take our experiences as some evidence.

I understand why it appears that way - however, for the most part, in that thread, I was reading the same bewilderment that I expressed just now. It's anger at being considered less of something (and, believe me, as a theist in a much less common theist group, I've faced discrimination, too) simply because of a difference that doesn't even matter in the scheme of progressive politics. I also think it is largely two groups talking past each other in this case.

Let me also take this chance to say that Blogger has a very, very small vocabulary, judging by the spellcheck.