The Forbidden Conclusion

[Mongo]

Current social convention seems to propose that to demonstrate religious tolerence another person's personal view must be respected by not saying that they are wrong.

 

Essentially, if Joe believes in a 17 headded god, that all those who believe something different ought to respect that person's belief since, as should be obvious to all people who desire to live in respect and kindness, we have no proof to disprove Joe's views.

 

This line of thinking goes further to suggest that the only alternative to believing in one of the milliions of god views on this planet is agnosticism. Respectful people are permitted to conclude that they "don't know".

 

So it doesn't matter if you believe in:

Allah,

Jehovah,

Bumba,

A 17 headed god

A Sun god,

25 gods

30000 gods

17 trillion gods

or can't figure out which god is the real god.

 

You can believe all of these things and many more and you are allowed to propound your point of view without being labelled as intolerant.

 

BUT... if you conclude that there is no god, you are **automatically** branded as intolerant. You are told that your view is unreasonable. We are expected to prove other's claims despite that they come with no evidence and no logic.

 

Concluding that there is no god... is the forbidden conclusion. The one point of view that is considered intolerant.

 

Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris suffer this kind of prejudice. They are depicted as raving lunitics that salivate at the opportunity to kick religion in the proverbial balls.

 

What a sad state of affairs.

 

I am aghast at the latest propoganda war against those who decide there is no god. This is religious bullying at its most subtle.

 

What is worse... this cluster of anti-atheists have garnered the support of many agnostics who have bought into the argument that only unreasonable people arrive at the "forbidden conclusion". For that version of agnostic, indecision is a sign of their superior intellegence.

 

As for me, I won't put up with this shit without a fight.

 

There is nothing wrong with someone making the decision that there is no god.

 

There is nothing wrong with someone arguing their atheist (non-theist) point of view just like all the god believers.

 

You don't like it? Deal with it!

 

I am Mongo! I'm Atheist, I'm anti-theist and I'm NOT going away!

 

Mongo

[Dave]

....BUT... if you conclude that there is no god, you are **automatically** branded as intolerant. You are told that your view is unreasonable. We are expected to prove other's claims despite that they come with no evidence and no logic.

That is the new intolerance brought up in another thread. christians especially feel this grandiose need to be suppressed. They go so far to make being suppressed a good thing for their religion. They believe it just confirms they're right. It's such a good thing to them that they invent it as often as they can.... even when it's not true.

Concluding that there is no god... is the forbidden conclusion. The one point of view that is considered intolerant.

Isn't it black and white, closed minded, thinking to claim there is a god?

[Legion]

I would be interested in knowing what being tolerant entails.

 

I believe that it must not entail agreement with, respect for, or encouragement of the beliefs of another. Maybe the only thing being tolerant entails is respecting the right of another to believe differently.

 

If anyone has better suggestions then I'm all ears.

[Dave]

I would be interested in knowing what being tolerant entails.

If it includes not openly disagreeing with religion, then I am not interested in being "tolerant".

I believe that it must not entail agreement with, respect for, or encouragement of the beliefs of another. Maybe the only thing being tolerant entails is respecting the right of another to believe differently.

I can respect the right of someone to believe differently and depending on the belief, I may even respect the person. For those that hold some beliefs, such as the KKK or Phelps, I have no respect for the person. I won't stop them from their right to believe, but that does not mean I have to respect the person either.

 

Several have made the argument to me that to disagree with them is to take away their right to believe. They claim that if I say there is no god then I am taking away their right to believe there is one. They cannot understand that that is taking away my right to disagree with them.

[Vigile]

I believe that it must not entail agreement with, respect for, or encouragement of the beliefs of another. Maybe the only thing being tolerant entails is respecting the right of another to believe differently.

 

That's how I take it LR

[Legion]

I would be interested in knowing what being tolerant entails.

If it includes not openly disagreeing with religion, then I am not interested in being "tolerant".

I agree. However I can't believe that open disagreement with religion implies that someone is intolerant. That is not enough in my book to qualify as intolerance.

[Legion]

I believe that it must not entail agreement with, respect for, or encouragement of the beliefs of another. Maybe the only thing being tolerant entails is respecting the right of another to believe differently.

That's how I take it LR

Cool Vigile. I like it when you and I can agree on something.

[Dave]

I agree. However I can't believe that open disagreement with religion implies that someone is intolerant. That is not enough in my book to qualify as intolerance.

In their belief, it does.

[Vigile]

Ha ha. We probably agree on most things. We both just tend to end up focusing on those few areas where we see things differently.

[Lycorth]

Tolerance usually means doing whatever is socially acceptable. Daring to question certain things always makes one "intolerant" according to some.

 

Careful what you question

[Dave]

Tolerance usually means doing whatever is socially acceptable. Daring to question certain things always makes one "intolerant" according to some.

Then I wear the label proudly.

Careful what you question

Can I question that?

[Ouroboros]

Okay, here comes my little rant for this month (or week maybe?),

 

I do think Atheists can be intolerant, because I can be intolerant and I'm a atheist/non-theist/agnostic..., and I don't have a problem with it. Everyone got a limit to what they can take and tolerate and accept. If a person was completely tolerant to everything, they would be a jelly-blob in a corner never speaking or moving at all. We should be and have to be intolerant to things that are very wrong in society. I accept intolerance, but of course there's a limit to that too. Nothing is black-and-white, it's a scale, and our tolerance should be somewhere in the middle of it, accepting much, but not accepting all. For instance, I can (personally) accept religious people in society, but I can't accept that they get any influence in politics and law. I don't want to live my life according to some weird religions holy book. On the other hand, they probably don't want to live their life according to laws that contradicts or condemns their religion. So all-in-all we have to meet somewhere in the middle, we always, in every situation, have to find the win-win agreement. The conflicts occur when one party (on either side) won't accept to give an inch to their demands, and that's when huge problems can arise. But if both understand they can't have everything, but they can get what's necessary, they both can leave the table fairly happy and life can move on.

 

I do believe atheists can become radicals too. It has nothing to do with religion, but with ideology and view of life. Atheism in itself isn't an ideology or a world-view, but the Atheist, as a person, will find an ideology based on the concept of atheism and he can, as a human being, become hard-core-radical and demand everyone else to obey his demands. I'm not saying we have anyone like this right now, but I do think it is possible it could happen.

 

The last couple of days I have seen emotions run high and words have been written in steaming hot temperament, and yet the people doing it call themselves rational and non-emotional. Hmmm... I can only say that emotions can drive all people and atheists alike to say and do things they really don’t mean, because I've just observed it. I'm a hot-headed person too, but I’m aware of it and work on my temper and know that I can explode when insulted, but it doesn't make me less of atheist/agnostic/non-theists or whatever I am.

 

So I wonder if anyone really learned anything from what happened last couple of days or if emotions still are quite high and feelings still are hurt, and no one really can see the truth of reality and human nature beyond these petty arguments? We are humans according to evolution, and we do have emotions and we are intolerant and racists, but we have to accept it and deal with it.

[Vigile]

So I wonder if anyone really learned anything from what happened last couple of days or if emotions still are quite high and feelings still are hurt, and no one really can see the truth of reality and human nature beyond these petty arguments? We are humans according to evolution, and we do have emotions and we are intolerant and racists, but we have to accept it and deal with it.

 

Well, I must be totally obtuse, but I thought there was only one poster who got overly emotional the last couple of days. I don't see anything wrong with heated debate though, I usually learn a lot during them.

 

You make a good point on tolerance. It is acceptable to be intolerant. I guess the question is, where should the line be drawn.

 

As for me, if we are debating religion on a religious forum, then I'm going to say what I think about another's beliefs if they offer them up for me. On the other hand, if my mother tells me she's praying for me, I'll just smile and nod. If others I meet in RT mention their religion to me in a well-meaning, but unobtrusive way, I'll just smile and nod. If someone tries to evangelize me, I'll have a few questions for them that may be difficult for them to answer.

[Ouroboros]

To me it looked like many had an emotional reaction to what PV said, but I agree, only one person (PV that is) went really all the way. And it didn't work in his favor. But I still think other members did get rallied up. And there's no wrong in it, we do, and we ought to, but we also have to think about what we're saying and doing and keep the rational thought behind it. Or we become what we despise.

 

-edit-

 

And today I think religion got way to much leeway to control government and law, and the only way to take it back is people that have a strong mind to force it into the middle way again. So to me, it's okay with extremist and radical atheists today, because we need them to get balance back.

[Vigile]

You're right Hans, I to think in the public relm we have a right and we should fight to keep religion from influencing what we are taught, how we are governed, scientific research, et al. I should have mentioned that. Christians should have a right to hold office, but decisions must be based on law and rationality, not on their religious views. That may be hard to seperate sometimes, but I would have a hard time with a law that denied people work in the public sector based on their relgious beliefs. I'm guessing you would agree.

 

Also, I guess a lot went on yesterday in a thread that was deleted. Perhaps it got more heated than I saw. When I woke up this morning it was gone.

 

The interesting thing for me about heated, and even emotional debate is that this is what exemplified my experiences in Italy. My father always hated controversy and when I was growing up, if I would state an opinion about anything that others, including himself might disagree with he would shut me down. He is an extreme of what I think exists to some degree in N American and British society. It is not polite to disagree or at least to make disagreements known in any measure that comes close to being forceful.

 

Not in Italy though. They get emotional, shout, argue, debate, gesture and it's great IMO. They don't get angry with each other (in general) even though they get loud. I used to have daily debates with my best friend Anna. If she argued Black, I would argue White and visa versa.

 

Two interesting things came of this. First, we had a much deeper friendship than any I had previously experienced. Even though we took opposite sides on almost everything, our debating bonded us. Second, after a day or so of thinking about her points, I generally moved closer to her opinion and she likewise with me. We both found it fascinating and would remark about it often.

 

I don't expect American culture to change, and it probably shouldn't. You have to have the right temperment to get away with the type of debating that Italians do. Some Americans might take it wrong and end up shooting one another. It's ok though I think to get loud and forceful. You just have to make sure that you understand that it's just the debate. IOW, don't take it too personally.

[The Sage Nabooru]

BUT... if you conclude that there is no god, you are **automatically** branded as intolerant. You are told that your view is unreasonable. We are expected to prove other's claims despite that they come with no evidence and no logic.

No, not automatically. Like any other fundamentalism, it is only intolerant when you fail to understand how others can't agree with you.

 

You got your reasons, I got mine. It's the same with everybody. If a Christian goes into how nobody can enter heaven without Jesus Christ, I honestly don't care. It's when they try to tear down every reason I have for not converting to their faith, when they get pushy, and when they act like I'm a total dumbass for not turning over, that I draw the line.

 

Fundamentalism is not about believing in gods or saying that none exist, it is about additude.

 

So to me, it's okay with extremist and radical atheists today, because we need them to get balance back.

 

Seriously? An extremist viewpoint, IMO, only serves to create a culture of hate within those who adhere to it.

 

Extremist Christianity in the US wasn't always in power; in fact for the longest time the South was considered Democrat, and the vast majority of religious leaders staunchly supported seperation of church and state because it allowed them to BE fundamentalists, without government interference or regulation in their extremist doctrines. After the cultural revolutions of the 60's, many Christians were left saying that their poor religion had been battered into a hated and disregarded minority. They gathered around the Christian extremists because they called for respect and adherence to the Old Time Religion. If Christianity was going to regain its status as the primary religion it needed hard-lining, big-mouthed leaders who weren't going to put up with some feminist hippy tree-hugging crap, and that's how the modern religious right got into power. That's also why the most fundamentalist of churches often have the biggest congregations and the arena buildings.

 

If we supported a viewpoint of extremism among atheists, I don't think it would neccessarily bring about a moderation of religion: in fact, personally I don't think anything but a general stress on moderation itself will bring that about. Right now, the atheists are in the minority and it is true, not well-treated under the current administration. But if they gained the same social and thereby political power, who is to say that they would not start an Agency of Anti-Faith Initiatives, which would funnel federal tax dollars into anti-religious programs? That they would not forge an alliance with North Korea because it's important to them that they have friends in officially atheist states?

 

Personally I don't agree that supporting ANY kind of extremism would push any other extremism, into moderation; rather I think that it would only serve to push both farther into radicalism.

[Ouroboros]

Well said Vigile,

 

People used to call me the little Italian when I was kid, because I was hot-tempered ("short fused", nah, more like "no fuse"), and I was talking "with my hands". I loved (and still do somewhat) controversy and heated dialogue, but unfortunately extremely few people know how the handle the game. They get easily offended because they have been raised to talk with a low voice and never get upset. So I had to re-learn just to fit in and get people to understand my view points. Well, well, that's life.