In his recent post “Open Season on Fresh Meat,” PZ Myers said,
I want my commenters to be uncivil. There is no virtue in politeness when confronted with ignorance, dishonesty, and delusion. I want them to charge in to the heart of the issue and shred the frauds, without hesitation and without faltering over manners. These demands for a false front of civility are one of the strategies used by charlatans who want to mask their lack of substance — oh, yes, it would be so goddamned rude to point out that a huckster is lying to you. I am quite happy that we have a culture of being rude to frauds here.
While I sympathize with his feelings, I want to encourage the exact opposite on this blog.
I want comments to be civil and polite on both sides. People don’t change their minds when they’re treated unkindly or like they’re stupid. They ignore what you’re saying and leave.
Most Christians are not “frauds” and “charlatans.” They are sincere in their beliefs and are trying to help others by spreading them. Yes, I think they’re deluded and have no evidence for belief. But that doesn’t mean they should be treated unkindly. We don’t like it when they are rude and uncivil to us. So let’s treat others like we want to be treated.
Also, let’s keep in mind that we all have believed wrong things — and still do. The goal isn’t to push our ideologies on other people. The goal is to pursue truth and get there faster through conversation.
So if you want to be rude and uncivil, comment on PZ’s blog, where he welcomes it. But on this blog, let’s be civil and kind.
Thanks everyone!
Hi Daniel. I think you run a great blog because of the exchanges it encourages.
I think I can manage civil but being kind can be a little hazy. Are there any rules?
Hmm, I do believe I have been a bit sharp on occasion here in my comments. I apologize for that. I agree that a PZ-like verbal slugfest won’t add to the quality of this blog.
I should know better than to blindly slag believers actually, as I work for a company founded by, and employing many, devout Christians. They’re all very intelligent, caring and friendly people, and their belief is never a factor on the workfloor (just as my disbelief isn’t).
I frequently have interesting and inspiring debates with one colleague in particular. He’s a fierce believer and I’m a militant atheist, but it turns out many of our views on society as a whole as well as on specific issues are much closer than you’d think. We just approach it from different angles.
I think it’s important to make declarative statements that may be hurtful and not back down from them, since a lot of cranks take the “act offended” route to try and defend themselves. When your stance is that vaccinations are vital to maintaining herd immunity and protecting people (especially children) from deadly diseases that are easily preventable via vaccination, then acquiescing to their stance of “How dare you say that I’m hurting my children” is counterproductive, since the entire argument is that not vaccinating IS hurting the children.
I’m leaving you for Pharyngula.
..
Not serious. Diversity of approaches is a good thing, though personally I have to agree that civility should in general be aimed for. It is a little silly though to tip-toe around insanity when it’s too obvious to ignore, and at least half the believers that have posted don’t do anything but proselytise and make passive-aggressive remarks. Thumbs up to those that don’t however. It is relaxing to not have to dig through veiled insults and judgements.
Hah, I was just discussing this exact thing (probably brought on by your Tweet yesterday) with a friend that led to a blog post of my own :D
I agree that civility should be striven for in any debate, not just as a nod to the fact that your opponent is just as human as yourself, but also because it encourages intelligent arguments rather than self-defense flare ups brought on through anger. Being told you are ignorant and effectively a lesser human being is never going to result in anyone changing their viewpoints; rather in any debate one should not only attempt to remain civil towards opponents but also actively review your own belief and argument. Self-criticism in debate can do nothing but strengthen your own wisdom ;)
Also @whuiskas: being kind is far from hazy. Just imagine you are on the receiving end of your own comment and gauge how you would personally react. If it does not feel unkind personally then chances are anyone acting as though they are hurt will merely be smokescreening a failing argument on their own behalf or taking terms out of context. Here’s a great quote that could help:
As one who frequents a local message forum and sees daily examples of one-shot, snipe ‘n’ run exchanges, I am in agreement with Daniel. The very act of crafting a detailed, reasoned response has a mysterious way of dissipating the emotional froth, making more room in the glass for the important substance. Anyone can express a “mindset” with what passes for “wit” in the form of put-downs and ad hominem attacks, but in the final analysis, it is the detailed response that proves the victor in such a battle.
After all, it’s toddlers who screech and throw things. It’s up to us grownups to teach them better by example.
/v
In my experience, individuals who become angry, rude, and make disparaging remarks during conversation or debate are usually the ones who have not thought out their opinions very well or are resorting to emtotional reasoning. Usually when someone gets upset, they stop thinking rationally, stop thinking about what I’m saying and become self-protective and defensive. That is no way to have an “open” dialogue or help open someones mind to a different way of thinking about things.
I love civil discorse because it is the only way both sides will feel comfortable enough to share how they really feel. Just because you can run someone over intellectually does not mean you have done them a service…usually the opposite is true. That kind of experience usually only makes someone more steadfast in their beliefs.
Good post. When I was a Christin, I actually believed, and was not in the fraid or charlatan category.
If only I could spell Christian. ;-)
Well put Volly…
and Matt
I had never experienced well thought out debate until I started my blog, and I quickly realized that my dissenters would predictably resort to attacking me personally at the point where they felt they could no longer win the argument. Sometimes it was right from the start.
Time after time I would surprise them with a response that was level headed and not attacking back, and they usually thank me for it and apologize once they realize their tone was unwarranted.
This topic reminds me of Sam Harris, in that he usually has to correct his interviewers and say that he does not wish to punish the faithful, or wish any ill to them at all, but he merely wants to change the rules of conversation in which we are able to discuss such topics as the validity of religion without worrying about hurting each others feelings or always “respecting” their beliefs. Calling a spade a spade is something he strives for when talking about the ultimate worldview toward religious dogma, but I don’t think he advocates telling people they are stupid within a dialog.
I think, however, within certain conversations, that it is admissible to consider certain beliefs stupid, and call a spade a spade in that respect.
I agree. I trained for years in Aikido which teaches that in many instances, it is better to attain balance then to try to defeat an opponent. If we consider those who we find credulous to be out of balance, we must balance them.
If we don’t find middle ground, we’ll end up in a philosophical Western Front.
I’m pushing metaphors here, so I’ll stop. This lack of writing prowess is the reason I don’t have a blog like this:)
nice post
There is difference in being honest and straightforward, in this case your not responsible for how someone takes the information. But when you attack character or use sarcasm to deflect an argument without engaging, you’ve already lost not matter who’s side your on.
I’m sure Myers doesn’t appreciate it when believers who think he is delusional and blasphemous rant and scream and dismiss him. You don’t have to be P.C. to or super-angry, there is middle ground.
I used to read the “deconversion” blog. A couple of the participants were full-of-themselves young Calvinists who claimed to prize “civility” among all other virtues. I couldn’t stand them. Every time I took a swipe at Christianity, they chided me for my lack of “civility”. The blog owner is a milquetoast who refused to say anything to them about it. One day, I let them have it; I told them I found them appalling. They believe that God has predestined most of us for eternal torment, but it doesn’t make God a bad guy. Their attitude is, “Why yes, you’re going to hell – but there’s no reason we can’t be polite to one another in the meantime.” I didn’t stick around to read their replies.
Daniel, this is your blog, and you have the right to establish any rules you like; however, I don’t think that people who accept the notion that billions of their human siblings will be tortured unimaginably for all of eternity, and aren’t troubled by it (indeed, many of them anticipate it eagerly), so long as they can have the ontological security blanket for a few brief decades, deserve any sort of consideration. They should be condemned, loudly, at every opportunity, and sent scurrying back to the margins of society where they festered for decades after the Scopes trial, until their leaders, men like Falwell and Robertson, got them all riled up in the seventies and eighties.
A moron may deserve to be coddled; a hateful moron doesn’t. These are hateful morons; the moment they accepted the doctrine of salvific exclusivism, they sacrificed their right to be dealt with kindly.
My two cents.
Thanks for this. I think it should be common sense to be civil and respectful when commenting on any blog (unless, I suppose, the author encourages the kind of comments PZ has encouraged). I also think that straightforwardness and honesty – not mincing words or tip-toeing around issues – are important as well and the two ideals aren’t mutually exclusive.
I don’t really get anything out of reading comments like the ones at PZ’s – I only get irritated or worked up or bored (because they all start to blend together after the first ten or so). If I want to actually think about an issue, I read the comments here and at Friendly Atheist, etc. I think that atheist activism has to move beyond simply pointing and laughing – we need to engage in dialogue and understand the theists in our lives as complex, fallible humans – just like us. Only by understanding one another will we be able to move forward with civility and the hope of tolerance and justice.
The thoughtfulness and civility is the very reason I treasure reading this blog.
I am often hesitant to call myself an athiest because so many who do are so hostile, righteous and intent on insulting those who don’t believe — or not believe — exactly as they do.
Whether you’re screaming because prayer in schools would solve all of our problems or screaming because the very mention of the word “God” might curdle your brain…your credibility goes out the window, I think.
I follow PZ mostly for the science. And the cephalopods.
I agree that we should be decent and civil to each other. There should be no room for rudeness or offensive behaviour.
Anyone who disagrees deserves to be beaten senseless with large sticks with rusty nails sticking out.
Good point. I’ve used both approaches and the nice way always works better.
I prefer the civil discourse, if for no other reason than my own purposes. I get tired of reading dozens of angry posts myself no matter what the topic is. But I also think there is a place for angry as well noted by Jeff Eyges above. So I glad Myers is taking it upon himself to deal with all that. :-)
I think the civil discourse has gone quite well as far as I’ve seen.
It seems more than anything that sometimes theists feel mocked by some people here, but that actually becomes quite a good measure for whether or not the debate will proceed honestly.
What I mean is, if a religious commenter doesn’t realize that they are making extraordinary claims, then it’s doubtfull that any sort of civil discussion is possible with that person because they will most likely feel that any opposing viewpoint is an attack on their person, which is intrenched in faith in the unprovable.
On another note, I think the civility is especially good here, considering us atheists have no morals, have no underlying feeling that there are repercussions for our actions, and we drink baby’s blood.
Good points. Civil debate is probably better in the long run. Both for the enjoyment of those who like debating and for the effectiveness of arguments.
Still, it’s easy to get pushed in to uncivilized argument when you see the ignorance and lack of logic spouted by some believers here.
Love the blog Dan.
I’m not entirely clear on all the nuances of PZ’s position, ie. exactly how nasty he would get in response to what level of provocation (and having met him in person a few times, I might be expected to know him better than anyone else here ;-).
But my position is that, while there are very few occasions where it is out of line to say “You are wrong, for the following reasons….”, it is not always necessary to add “…and you’re stupid, too”. There are no doubt cases where the latter is appropriate, but given how damned enjoyable it can be, they are probably rarer than we would like to think.
Also, it is worth distinguishing between the rank-and-file (which probably includes the person you’re talking with) and the leaders of the movement(s). Something like: “Look, you’re a nice guy, but Ray Comfort/Denyse O’Leary/whomever is an ignorant buffoon, and you shouldn’t accept their word on anything”.
Another important distinction to be made here is that there is a difference between attacking a persons arguement rationally and attacking a person. Many people, when their auguement is attacked, then automatically feel that they are being personally attacked.
This blog seems to be all about discussing things skeptically…which may in turn make certain people feel that they are being attacked…which is not the case. Identifying this distinction for people seems to be part of the learning curve that many individuals steeped in a certain way of thinking (or dogma) oftentimes have to go through in order to truly understand their point of view….or end up changing it.
Jeff Eyges: “A moron may deserve to be coddled; a hateful moron doesn’t. These are hateful morons; the moment they accepted the doctrine of salvific exclusivism, they sacrificed their right to be dealt with kindly.”
I concur. Also, we are talking about proponents of a religious doctrine that, either right now, or in the not-to-distant past(take your pick), condones/condoned the KILLING of non-christians.{ref: Deut}
Um, that’d it be you and me, folks.
The language is clear; it is unequivocal, and frankly, I find it highly offensive. For those “Christians” who defend it by saying “it was only applicable to the times it was written”, yada, yada, or some other superficial “context”defense, either way—if they believe killing us is “wrong”, then they must accept the fact that the philosophy that they call the “Word of God” is clearly not the “UNchanging Truth” it is claimed to be, and thus, they have no business cherry-picking it and representing it as such.
The civil and nice “cultural Christians” are refreshing, but in the end, they enable the prick, self-righteous fanatics.
My two cents.
Correction: “not-too-distant past”
And then there are the “concern trolls” or the “feeling trolls” (to me, the feeling trolls are even worse than the concern trolls. A feeling troll is one who claims that they’re being abused and will always pick the posts that may be ad hominem and then generalize to the whole, all the while ignoring the plethora of reasoned posts that challenge their godbot dogma). As with the abortion posts, all sorts of crazy came out of the woodwork–normally, I see about 30-50 posts, many I agree with, some which infuriate me; nevertheless, I sometimes feel able to jump right in. However, with any post about abortion, before you know it, you’ve got dozens of whackjobs screaming drivel, nonsense, pseudo-science and the like and civility flies out of the window fast.
I can be reasonable with reasonable people, but I see no reason to coddle irrational people who will insist on all manner of sophistry in order to make their “points.”
Awesome post. Thank you very much for the reminder.
You mentioned on Twitter how polite the ranters get after they are responded to by the object of their criticism. I’ve been at the wrong end of that before, and I’ve tried to learn my lesson.
Most people are nice and reasonable. Let’s treat them that way.
I’m the kind that tends to use any method that I feel is suited to the individual issue, or the person I am working over at the time. Often being civil is enough to get the job done, but once people begin to squirm and use deception I feel that I have to bring the hammer down. Those who outright lie should be called liars, because not calling them on their lies encourages them to lie again in the future. When a dog pees on your carpet, you can hope he won’t do it again or you can rub his nose in it. Rubbing a dog’s nose in pee isn’t polite or civil, but for damn sure it will work where other methods simply won’t. When people quickly show themselves to be unable to reason, reasoning with them becomes pointless. Yet if they show shame in their words or actions then perhaps their shame can be used to teach them what reason cannot.
“but once people begin to squirm and use deception I feel that I have to bring the hammer down. Those who outright lie should be called liars, because not calling them on their lies encourages them to lie again in the future. ”
aaaack. I just had a flashback to being in church again. Not trying to be rude here Aor, but look objectively at what you are writing. Its one thing to point out illogical reasoning or point out that someone is contradicting themselves…but “to bring the hammer down” or call people names only reduces you to their level. In my humble opinion, the more we take the even keeled and logical attempt at pointing out problems with others reasoning, the more able they are to hear us. Also, others reading what we write may also be more willing to listen.
Matt, I don’t care about their level. I care about changing their minds. No matter how polite it is, shame is one of the most effective teaching techniques known to man. Logic does nothing to those who are unwilling to listen to it. Shame on the other hand works on those who have absolutely no understanding of logic. If reason worked on theists, they wouldn’t be theists.
@Aor
Fair enough…we will just be working on it from different angles then. :)
I’m just thinking about my life where my religious family tries to “shame” me into believing what they do, or even go back to church. Nothing gets me more defensive and ready to defend myself than when they pull that stuff. I just think when emotions get evoked…reasoning goes way down.
Exactly, Matt. Shame strikes to the core. It is so effective that theists have been using it as one of their primary methods of enforcing their beliefs for thousands of years. If we refuse to use shame then we are operating under a handicap. Reason gives us the ultimate advantage, but those who are immune to it must be dealt with somehow.
Many times I have found myself discussing religion with a believer only to find that the person makes openly racist or bigotted remarks. To let that slip past would be to tolerate bigotry and racism. So I call the person on their words and actions, I ask them to justify their bigotry and put pressure on them to admit it. Rare is the believer who is willing to concede any points at all that might cast doubt on their religion. They do not do so willingly, usually going quickly to fallacies falsehoods and outright lies. Often they must be pushed, prodded, poked, taunted and ridiculed in order to see that their beliefs are worthy of such ridicule.
Aor…wonderful having this discussion with you.
Since I now understand that I don’t have to believe the guilty and shame that a childhood of religion tried to impose upon me…I feel it my duty to try and not do the same to others. I don’t feel this gives me a handicap, but instead a firm ground to point out that while shame may work for their religion, I don’t need to to justify my positions.
As for calling out bigotry, racism, or any other intolerance…I’m all for it. I don’t beat around the bush either…but I havn’t found that trying to make people feel bad works very well in the moment of a discussion….it only fuels the fire. I would rather people contemplate the content of my argument and make informed decisions based on that instead.
My sentence should read: I don’t need *it* to justify my position.
I need to start proof reading. :)
I respect you as an individual and as a member of our society, it’s your ideas that I will deep fry, put through the grinder and feed to the cat.
not talking about YOU in particular, you know!
Aor
I would definitely give you a medal for being the #1 bullshit detector here.
I agree with your perspecive on the issue, but I think jumping the gun on calling people deceitful in a negative way is not constructive. I think they usually don’t even know they are doing it because either their ideas have never been challenged, or they don’t know how to react in an honest manner when the beliefs that have guided their lives are questioned. Don’t assume that they have had much practice standing up for their beliefs. I usually like to give the benefit of the doubt that any avoidance of a topic is because they don’t know how to react, or they don’t want to question themselves, and I don’t necessarily think that makes them a liar. I would take more satisfaction with knowing that you have at least planted the question in their mind, whether they answered it or not, rather than noticing they didn’t answer your question and then resort to name calling. Once that happens, that query you placed in their mind is pushed into the trash, and labeled “questions asked by douchebags that I don’t care to answer”.
You mention shame being a helpful tool, like with dogs. I would submit that a large dose of respect along with only a small dose of shame is more helpful. After all, do you want your dog to obey you out of fear and shame, or out of respect? Imagine which dog would be more happy and more likely to obey.
In the case of debate, I think my opponent would be more likely to understand my point if there is always a level of respect. Your opponent loses respect for you when you start with the accusations, especially if they don’t know or believe they are doing it. Once that happens, it doesn’t matter how much potential your points have to change their mind, they will not because of the tone that has been set. In such an impersonal medium such as this, we can’t assume that our opponents will keep calm and level headed, and answer all questions with absolute honesty. After all, as atheists, you and I both think that theists are simply not answering a lot of questions honestly to themselves, so why would we expect them to do so 100% of the time when defending their beliefs to people they don’t even know?
Every blog makes its own rules. For a long time on my blog I insisted on cordiality.
Then on November 4th, my blog got thousands of hits from Christians who were foaming at the mouth about why gay people should not allowed to be married. I gave word to my more frequent readers that the gloves were off, and the debate became very heated. All the Christians were accusing us of “hate” for the harsh language we used–while they were at the same time supporting legislation that would oppress a minority of people different from them. The memory of it still makes me want to vomit.
I see both sides of this argument, but I lean toward PZ’s approach. I think it depends on if a blog wants to talk TO Christians (and hopefully woo them from their sillines) or talk AT them–which is a social mechanism to cause a group shame (and suffer mockery) for believing in utter nonsense and harming society for it.
As the economy continues to fail, religion will rise. If it rises to a place where it further insinuates its morals on the rest of us, our response should not be polite.
But for now, both methods are good because we’re spreading the good news! :)
McBlogg…well stated.
I would also offer that not all who disagree with us are ‘opponents’. Since a person only knows what they know (or what they have been taught)…some individuals are only aspousing a belief system that has not yet been examined. If these individuals are treated harshly, it may only serve to isolate them from rational discussion.
On the other hand…those who have heard both sides of the argument have made a decision and then the discussion does at times have a more adversarial (but hopefully not punitive) nature at times.
I lurk (mostly) at Pharyngula as well as here. While my own preference is definitely for civility (since, IMO, once you’ve called someone an *ss hat, you’ve thrown away any right to expect them to rationally consider your words), I can easily understand the heated, and over-heated responses at Dr. Myers’ place. It gets so frustrating, having to debunk and refute the same old crap over, and over, and over again. I’m not surprised that some are inclined to be a little…trigger-happy, when yet another under-informed theist trots out the openers on the same old drek yet again, and let fly with the derision with both barrels. I don’t say that it’s helpful. But it is understandable and, I would argue, predictable.
And, for what it’s worth, it works the same way on the other side of the fence, too, with some theists turning up the vitriol and yanking off the knob when they spot an atheist’s intro-to-science-and-reason. Both sides are equally convinced, and equally passionate in defence and offense.
Human nature strikes again, I’m afraid.
Indeed–the goal is to find truth.
And here we are, calmly and civilly discussing the pros and cons of being calm and civil. I love it.
Plus, by avoiding personal insults, we avoid those personal insults that our society uses against individuals with the added bonus of attacking an oppressed people (e.g. gender slurs, ablist slurs). Nothing takes the wind out of someone’s argument against, for instance, misogyny, when they call another commenter a bitch.
I lurk mostly at Pharyngula and occasionally I post there.
I think the atmosphere at Unreasonable Faith is a lot better than at Pharyngula: it’s a huge improvement.
There are so many people posting so quickly that it’s very easy to lose track of what one is trying to say at Pharyngula. That makes it difficult to be civil when the goalposts are shifting constantly. Here at UF, we can take our time, relax, and respond in an intelligent and deliberate manner, without such a high concern for timeliness. There’s so much traffic at Pharyngula that immediacy is thrust into your mind at all times. Fifteen minutes after you post, what you said is more or less completely irrelevant. I like having the time to digest what people are saying, and I like to think that people are taking their time reading my words and responding carefully to what I have said.
Also, there is a better sense of community here at UF, though we’ve only been here for a fraction of the time that Pharyngula has existed. A lot of the people at Pharyngula are freaking insane, including many, many of the atheists. I wouldn’t hang out with most of the people at Pharyngula if I had the choice. There are some people that seem really intelligent and polite, but others are just wingnuts. I’ve also gotten into a couple flame wars already: the Pharyngulites aren’t always very accepting.
I can’t stand how people at always at each other’s throats: it’s probably the most annoying thing about posting at Pharyngula. The people at UF are much more patient and accepting, and less critical and less condescending. I love PZ’s blog, but sometimes I don’t like some of the commenters or the atmosphere which exists.
That’s great to hear, Teleprompter. I also agree with you and have had a similar experience.
It’s funny that you mention this. I equated PZ with a shock-jock recently (http://doubtingeventhomas.blogspot.com/2009/01/wanted-atheist-shock-jock.html ) but he’s actually a pretty calm guy when you talk to him (so I’ve heard).
@Daniel
The high road…is the only one worth traveling.
Thanks for insisting on a measure of civility and community regardless of the viewpoints.
JC
I have noticed that guy, he’s a bit much for my taste, but effective even if bordering on the cultish. He’s a little bit bordering on the well, borderline…, if you no what I mean.
“I want comments to be civil and polite on both sides. People don’t change their minds when they’re treated unkindly or like they’re stupid. They ignore what you’re saying and leave.”
My reaction to this is “if there is no God, why bother to be nice?”
If the purpose of your being nice to me is to encourage me to stay and listen to you tell me that I’m deluded, then your acting like a salesman–you’re being nice because you want to make your pitch.
All this “niceness” and the ideas of fairness, justice, morality, etc. seems to me without basis when one is living a purely materialistic existence. How atheists could demand “niceness” and morality in the face of the futility of existence is very puzzling.
As one Christian apologist once asked (this is a paraphrase), “If the boat is sinking, why bother fixing the curtains?
That’s not to be taken literally, of course. I’m not talking about being noble and heroic (or refusing to be) in the midst of a sea disaster.
I’m just saying that if human life is an accident, if the human life is an accident, if human consciousness is an accident, then nothing makes a difference.
You could be Hitler or you could be Gandhi, but in the end both these men are now so much worm turd.
Demanding morality and niceness in the face of such futility is hypocritical and absurd.
If the reason for one’s desire for civility among human beings is to prevent war, conflict and embarrassing revelations spread through the Internet, well, it still does not seem reasonable: you are being nice out of fear.
In the extreme case of preventing war, atheism also has no leg to stand on when it comes to preserving a nation or even the entire human race: the universe was and is indifferent to our existence, and, considering the harm our species has been doing to the rest of the inhabitants of this planet, we likely deserve to be written off, anyway.
“Yes, I think they’re deluded and have no evidence for belief. But that doesn’t mean they should be treated unkindly. We don’t like it when they are rude and uncivil to us. So let’s treat others like we want to be treated.”
Well, then in that case you’ve just validated Jesus’ advice to “do as you would be done by”. Jesus’ basis for giving that advice is that He wanted His followers to take on the loving nature of God.
I don’t know what your basis for giving the same advice is.
“The goal is to pursue truth and get there faster through conversation.”
It would also be easier to get to the Truth if atheists practiced some intellectual honesty in matters of morality. I have not encountered any reasonable basis for atheists’ call for humans to be a moral race with laws and other niceties.
The way I see it, atheists want the morals of religion but without the basis for religion–a Supreme and Moral Creator.
Sorry, the sentence should read:
“…if human life is an accident, if the human MIND is an accident, if human consciousness is an accident, then nothing makes a difference.
@duendeplay:
“Demanding morality and niceness in the face of such futility is hypocritical and absurd. ”
Wrong. Purely and simply wrong.
Atheists (probably more so than most Christians) are very aware of what measure of fairness and justice we want from our society. And we’re willing to extend it to everyone, pretty much.
“The way I see it, atheists want the morals of religion but without the basis for religion–a Supreme and Moral Creator.”
Um, wrong again. We want morality, sure. But not the morals of religion. We’ve seen what that gets you. We’d probably settle for the application of the Golden Rule. Or if you prefer “Love thy neighbour as thyself.”
And your creator god is the last thing from moral. He once wiped out most of the population of the world, if you believe His press agents. Even Hitler didn’t manage that.
He’s an absentee father. He commits murder at will for crimes that are petty in comparison. He keeps a private torture chamber called Hell and will send you there for sins that aren’t even sinful in nature.
Of course, that’s only if you believe in Him.
“Well, then in that case you’ve just validated Jesus’ advice to “do as you would be done by”. Jesus’ basis for giving that advice is that He wanted His followers to take on the loving nature of God.
I don’t know what your basis for giving the same advice is. ”
Well, seeing as Jesus didn’t invent the ethic of reciprocity, I’m pretty sure anyone can use it.
Christians always act like the Bible is the source or morality and yet, if you look at Christian’s moral standards over the centuries they have changed again and again, right along with the rest of the world.
@duendeplay
Morality existed before Christianity. Before Judaism. Before the religion that spawned Judaism (until after they returned from Babylon they weren’t Jews). We actually have records of earlier cultures, and those cultures have laws and those laws enforce a moral code.
To put it simply and clearly, you are wrong about morality. Proven wrong. By words carved in stone, before your religion existed, before the religion that spawned your religion existed.
So stop claiming morality is the sole property of your religion. That has been proven false. You can actually go up and touch the proof in a museum. Its made of stone. Well, the version you could touch is probably a copy made of concrete, but you get my point.
So in the future, if you take this position again you will know in your heart that you are lying. The point is proved, and if you are intellectually honest you will return and clarify your position on morality. Your claim vs my stone tablet. An honest person, if you truly are, will come back and say “oops you are correct, sorry, you have proven morals existed before my religion therefore my religion is not the source of morality.”
I challenge you to do this, Duendeplay. Show us what you are made of.
Amen
“Atheists (probably more so than most Christians) are very aware of what measure of fairness and justice we want from our society. And we’re willing to extend it to everyone, pretty much.”
I did not say atheists are immoral people. I’m saying it’s absurd to be moral in the face of the futility of existence in a world without God. I’m saying if you’re an atheist, your moral code is based on… what?
Reason? Could we derive our moral code from purely reasonable thinking? Of course. But that morality would easily fall into the “might is right” territory.
Atheists want to be good. But why? People who believe in God (Christians, Muslims and Jews–let’s just limit our God to the common ideas shared by these three monotheistic faiths) believe their capacity for good and the urge to do good come from God, who is Goodness Himself.
That’s why Jews and Christians believe the moral code was handed down from Mt. Sinai. Let’s not go into whether the story of Moses and the 10 commandments is true. But the idea here is clear: morality came from God. Do this. Don’t do that.
Moslems have their own version of the Divine origins of the moral code.
Atheists don’t have that. For example take the edict, “Thou shalt not kill.”
Various kingdoms, empires, nations have made exceptions to that rule.
The United States allows killing in self-defense and in war.
Nazi Germany allowed the killing of Jews and other people deemed too weak and unfit for helping create a strong society.
Relying on reason alone, Nazi Germany had it right. What could be a more reasonable way to better society that weeding out those individuals with undesirable genetic traits? We do the same thing to our crops and our pets. Why not to each other?
Unfortunately, the same can’t be done in the U.S. because of this little thing called the Constitution, which confers equal dignity on all men “under God.” Sadly, the Founding Fathers were in a delusional state of believing in the existence of God when they made the Constitution.
Then the atheists will say, “But we would never agree to Eugenics!”
Atheists who say that are not being reasonable. They’ve abandoned reason. Reasonable thought would make them agree with the Nazis.
Instead, they’re subscribing to a notion of human dignity and equality that, amazingly, is Christian. Or Judeo-Christian. And Islamic as well, if you study the Koran.
The ideas of ‘fairness and justice” that many atheists expect from themselves and others are also based on ethics that Jews, Christians and Moslems have subscribed to for thousands of years. And those ethical ideas come from the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jesus and Mohammed. Not the product of human rational thinking at all.
“So stop claiming morality is the sole property of your religion. That has been proven false. You can actually go up and touch the proof in a museum. Its made of stone. Well, the version you could touch is probably a copy made of concrete, but you get my point.”
You want laws carved on ancient stone?
Here’s the Code of Hammurabi:
” 1. If any one ensnares another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.
” 2. If any one brings an accusation against a man, and the accused goes to the river and leaps into the river, if he sinks in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river proves that the accused is not guilty, and he escapes unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.
“3. If any one brings an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if a capital offense is charged, be put to death.”
To a Christian, ancient codes like that are proof that human laws based on God’s laws are better.
Of course, morality is not exclusive to monotheistic faiths. I did not say it was. But, looking at Nazi Germany and all the jumping into rivers by followers of Hammurabi’s code, I think laws based on God’s law are better for our health.
Outside the 10 Commandments, the ancient Jews made their own excesses, too. They wanted capital punishment for gays and everyone who cursed their parents.
My original point was, it’s hypocritical for atheists to say they base their morality purely on reasonable thinking.
If you live in a thriving democracy, with a prosperous economy and free speech and human rights, you owe your way of life not to Reason but to God’s ideas on love, morality, human dignity, fairness and justice.
It’s hypocritical–and ungrateful, as well–to enjoy the fruits of God’s Laws while denying the existence of the Lawgiver.
“To a Christian, ancient codes like that are proof that human laws based on God’s laws are better.”
That’s interesting. I’m assuming you consider those laws barbaric? Might want to read the Old Testament and see the equally barbaric laws.
@duendeplay
So you are apparently unaware that god’s laws are completely tolerant of slavery and recommend the death penalty for silly things. In fact if you pay attention to your bible you will find a rule about no boiling a goat in its own mother’s milk. Hows that for a rule to live your life by? Is that part of your moral code?
Your point is that you don’t know where atheists get their morality from, and because you don’t know you want to claim they don’t have any basis for having morals at all. I’ve seen that plenty of times, can you imagine how arrogant that sounds? That you get to claim that without belief we are less than you, less moral, less capable of humanity. It is simply bigotry. You need to pull back from that idea, pull back hard, and think things through.
Morals existed, moral codes existed, before your religion existed. Proven. Countless times, proven. Furthermore, the moral code you live by today does not come from the bible. Equal rights are not in the ten commandments. Slavery is. Do you own slaves and subjugate your women? No. The reason? Its not the bible. Its not the ten commandments. Its culture. Its society. Our culture has a moral code, our society has a moral code. Our morals have advanced and improved in the thousands of years since the ten commandments were written down.
You speak of hypocrisy. Just which one of god’s laws says that people should be able to live freely? Name the commandment. I’ll wait. Which commandment tells people not to lie? Which one says not to make war? Yet, I’m sure once you read those words you can have no doubt that those are issues of morality. Nothing in the ten commandments tells people not to lie, but yet you know it is immoral. You see, once you think about it there is not the slightest room for doubt: your morals are not based on the bible. You do not stone people to death for covetting their neighbors female slaves, do you? Remember, when the bible mentioned maidservants and manservants that means female and male slaves. Do you own any slaves? Or do you think slavery is immoral?
duendeplay,
I am an atheist. I try to behave kindly to others (despite my angry rhetoric above concerning evangelicals). I do it because this is the kind of world in which I want to live. I prefer to think in terms of a collective, that we’re all in this together – on this side of the grave, and on the other side, if one exists. I refuse to think in terms of “As long as I get to go to heaven when I die, that’s all that matters. The eternal fate of others is of secondary importance”.
(I think this is part of the reason so many military and sports figures become evangelicals. They’re perfectly comfortable with he concept of winners and losers.)
Moreover, the Dalai Lama (not to compare myself with him) adheres to a moral code, and advocates compassion above all other qualities, yet he doesn’t believe in a creator, and has said repeatedly he believes one can have a secularly-based system of ethics.
“Unfortunately, the same can’t be done in the U.S. because of this little thing called the Constitution, which confers equal dignity on all men “under God.” Sadly, the Founding Fathers were in a delusional state of believing in the existence of God when they made the Constitution.”
Does the Constitution actually mention the phrase “under God?” Maybe all the sources that I’ve read were biased, but my impression was that our founding fathers deliberately kept religious references out? If you mean “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, the phrase was added there in the fifties, if I remember correctly. There was no mention of such thing originally.
Hi Yesol,
Thank you for pointing out my error. I’m actually surprised that you were the only one who pointed it out. I was thinking of the Founding Fathers, yes. But I was also thinking of the Gettysburg address and the Declaration of Independence which both do bring God into the picture.
You’re right, the phrase “one nation under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s during the Red Scare. I thinks it’s telling that when Americans were heavily into the Cold War, their leaders thought of countering the “Communist menace” by adding “under God” to the Pledge.
Of course, you realize that Communists in Russia were then viewed as atheists.
However, my error does not in any way take away from the common knowledge that the Founding Fathers were all God-fearing men.
The Founding Fathers’ efforts to rid the U.S. Constitution of religious references is actually admirable–it also proves that at least some enlightened Christian believers could respect others who may not have the same beliefs, in the name of freedom and equality.
However, my error does not in any way take away from the common knowledge that the Founding Fathers were all God-fearing men.
I wouldn’t describe a Deist as a “God-fearing” man.
@duendeplay
“The Founding Fathers’ efforts to rid the U.S. Constitution of religious references is actually admirable–it also proves that at least some enlightened Christian believers could respect others who may not have the same beliefs, in the name of freedom and equality.”
Why do you think it was admirable that The Founding Fathers weren’t religious bigots who failed to recognise that there’s a lot more to moral behaviour than the Bible? Maybe you could describe it as “admirable” that they recognised this fact many hundreds of years ago in less enlightened times but you still don’t accept this today. Following on from this you have failed to address any of the issues — why morality existed long before Christianity was a main stream religion; why non-Christian societies may display moral behaviour which is above that which exists in Christian societies; why you think that what is defined as moral behaviour by the Christian religion has not changed when it’s obvious that it has.
In conclusion you have made a bigoted statement and then failed to address the points that have been raised.
“You’re right, the phrase “one nation under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s during the Red Scare. I thinks it’s telling that when Americans were heavily into the Cold War, their leaders thought of countering the “Communist menace” by adding “under God” to the Pledge.”
If you think that’s telling can you post why you think so as your statement “Of course, you realize that Communists in Russia were then viewed as atheists.” does not explain your thinking.
“However, my error does not in any way take away from the common knowledge that the Founding Fathers were all God-fearing men.”
I’m assuming you didn’t say they were Christians on purpose. Yes, it would seem that some of them believed in some sort of higher power, but to say that they were all God fearing Christians would be a flat out lie.
I’m sure Thomas Jefferson was quaking in his boots when he cut out all the miracles in the New Testament and said “Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man.”
John Adams doesn’t sound like he was fearing God when he said, “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.” Or, “The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”
Etc.
The “common knowledge” is actually a “common error.” While some of the “founding fathers” were Christians, most of them were deists. Evolution wasn’t around then, so agnosticism/atheism wasn’t too popular.
Duendeplay, are you going to admit that morals existed before your religion? It seems a simple and easily proved point, so when you decline the chance to respond it makes me question why.
Few believers concede points. It would be a good sign of your honesty if you were to start conceding things that are proven.