antitheismnews.net

“If you think about that, somehow saying that, well, anything goes, we shouldn’t offend religious beliefs by requiring kids to know – to understand reality; that’s child abuse. ”
-Lawrence Krauss
http://bigthink.com/ideas/49178

I dunno about his wording here, though I can sort of agree that childhood religious indoctrination (specifically) may constitute an unrecognized form of child abuse (because it can stunt their learning and development for the rest of their lives. What I disagree with is parents telling their children their faith based beliefs are “true,” as if they were fact, because young minds are impressionable when told things by authority figures).

On the other hand, what Krauss is saying here is not so much about indoctrination as it is about keeping children ignorant of reality, because it’s a threat to blind faith. And that’s dangerous, too, and it keeps Americans falling behind educationally because you can’t expect to do well in science if your religion keeps you from learning the fundamental aspects of biology.

If you want to teach kids nonsense written by ancient goatherders, the law can’t prevent you from doing it on your own time. But I don’t think it should be done in a secular school. “Teaching the controversy” regarding evolution is one of the stupidest, most anti-intellectual things I’ve ever heard. There is no controversy about evolution among thinking people. The evidence speaks for itself.

This nonsense about tolerance (even for intolerance!) and “respect” for “religious feelings” could be the ultimate downfall of the country if allowed to persist. If you want your beliefs to be respected, you should get some respectable beliefs. As time goes by, religious folks have started to get nuttier and more dangerous again, perhaps because they’re afraid their religions are dying and being replaced by reality.

Anyway, what he’s talking about here is one of the reasons I am an antitheist. Because religion is not just harmless silly nonsense that makes people feel good and you should “respect” their delusions; it is dangerous and actively causes harm in the world.

What I found amazing about this is that WLC may as well have said, at the end, that his stance was basically an argument from ignorance. Because he can’t personally conceive of a basis for morality
that does not stem from god, then morality must stem from god. No.

Also annoying: the girl at the end who asks him that, since more things in the past were explained using supernatural explanations and then replaced by science, wouldn’t it be possible that a scientific explanation for morality could be discovered in the future, and WLC said she misinterpreted his analogy (which wasn’t even important when it came to her question). Circular reasoning also: God is good because he’s god and god is good. He’s a slimy one, WLC.

Sam Harris had some problems here and there, and he’s not as lively a debater as WLC, but at least he had reason on his side. I disagree with some things Harris says about morality, but in general, I think he’s onto something. WLC seems very myopic in his worldview that good comes from the christian god, when people of other religions and with no religion also have morality. I won’t say more about Sam Harris’ views on morality because I’m only halfway through his book on the topic, though. I agree with WLC when he says Harris reinterprets the word “morality,” but only because I think the theistic view of the term is useless, especially when there are many atrocities and immoral things in the Christian bible. It doesn’t make sense to get your morality from an immoral being. So if SH redefines “moral” as “decreasing suffering/increasing thriving of living things” I think it’s a useful advancement. This is also why I disagree with WLC when he says SH is changing the topic too much and speaking about irrelevant things.

WLC’s who point is that he thinks morality can only come from god, and that god is morally perfect so only he could be the basis for an objective morality. Sam Harris refutes this by saying god is not morally perfect, so he’d be a bad basis for morality, so morality must come from somewhere else.

Sam Harris’ TED talk on the same subject matter:

Here is Paul Zak’s TEDtalk on trust, morality, and oxytocin, which I haven’t watched yet so I’m not commenting on it.

I had some database issue for this and a few other sites, and since this site was so new, I hadn’t even bothered to back it up yet. =0\ So I’m having some site issues and I will be adding more content to the site when I can. Thanks for your patience.

Here is an interesting article showing religious views on abortion only a few decades ago.

But the title pretty much sums up my issues with abortion. Women are people, not wombs. And yes, I think a living, breathing, feeling human should be afforded more rights than a bunch of cells. And that the person carrying the fetus should make decisions regarding it, not politicians. And above all I don’t think the fate of anyone’s unborn child should be decided by other people who don’t even know the person or the situation, or that a woman (and oftentimes, NOT the man in question) should be punished by people’s outdated, irrational views on “personhood.” I support quality of life, not quantity of life.

There are also those who say adoption is a better choice. For whom? Talk about an uncertain future for a child! I think it would be better if the parents waited. The idea that it’s a “potential person” is totally irrational. A sperm is alive and has the potential to create life, but you don’t jail men for nocturnal ejaculations. It pains me to see people making important decisions affecting themselves and children based on irrational, emotional reasons rather than thinking it through and deciding if having a child is the best decision for everyone. [/rant]

Christians just love to feel persecuted. Now parents are trying to sue because kids are going to do yoga for 30 minutes, a couple times a week. I saw this on the news and they called it “anti-Christian.” This is such bullshit.

They claim it’s because the poses are used by Hindus and they have religious meaning for them. They consider it proselytizing. However, nobody is telling the kids to become Hindus. I doubt Hindus even have a strong presence in any of this, if any presence at all.

If anyone has a right to bitch, it’d be the Hindus. I could cope with it if they felt teaching it in schools was cultural appropriation. I still see it being used here as exercise, but if anyone should have a beef, it’s the people whose religion it was appropriated from.

And I say this as someone who used to be very interested in yoga. I got all sorts of books on it from the library in middle school and high school, and I could bend in all sorts of weird ways. And I also studied what the Hindus believed, because it interested me. And here I am, still not a Hindu. The only difference between me and somebody who didn’t do yoga since childhood is that I can still bend in weird ways.

It’s no secret that yoga has been used by non-Hindus for a damned long time now. And it’s also no secret that, usually, there really isn’t any mysticism involved. Westerners tend to do it because it increases flexibility and it’s low-impact. That’s all. Nothing anti-Christian about it, and certainly no hidden agenda to convert these people’s children to Hinduism.

What Christians don’t seem to realize is that, even if those kids learned more about the Hindu religion,it doesn’t mean they’ll going to make a mass exodus from Christianity. Being exposed to another religion doesn’t mean joining it or believing it. And that’s why I think they’re paranoid. And the kids ARE NOT being exposed to any religious beliefs or proselytizing, anyway; they are sitting on mats on the floor stretching.

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

I’ve heard this so many times. We need to “respect their beliefs” and not “hurt religious feelings.” If we act like dicks, we’re “no better than them.”

If you’re a Chicago Cubs fan, and I’m a White Sox fan, these ideas might work. We’d be basically on equal ground, just fans of a different team. But it’s not like that. We’re not on equal ground. Religious people trample human rights by passing legislation based on their religion. Religious people believe in miracles and talking snakes.

If they want their beliefs to be respected, I’d suggest they get some respectable beliefs.

This sort of PC bullshit is not new. “Just leave them alone, respect their beliefs, they’re not harming anyone….” The above quote is in no way unique, it’s just one I saw today on Facebook, so that’s why I’m responding to it specifically.

Atheists are characterized as rude not because they all are (some are, sure), but because people tend to take it personally when you tell them you don’t believe in their imaginary friends. It’s true that some atheists make fun of religion. However, people get butthurt about that in ways they do not if you make fun of their favorite band or a politician they like. People often do not have a sense of humor about religion if they follow one, it seems.

Regarding the above comment: “…no one should have what they believe forced upon them.” “You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.”

Who in the hell is forcing atheism upon anyone? It’s religious people who do that, usually by indoctrinating their own children, at least. Stating that you have a difference of opinion does not mean you’re forcing atheism on people. If it’s ok for Christians (etc.) to speak freely about being a Christian, why is it oppressive if atheists mention their lack of belief?

“We are no better than those we have escapes if we turn around and commit the same crimes as they did.”
What? The Inquisition? The Salem Witch Trials? Sending gays to camps to get “cured?” Keeping children from learning science? I don’t think there is much danger of atheists committing those same crimes…. Oh wait, he was talking about the crime of assholism. Well, some beliefs are so irrational that they deserve to be mocked. Especially if they start using them to take away human rights.

As for “catching more flies,” we are not talking about baseball here, folks. We are talking about believing in talking snakes, the holy spirit, the afterlife, heaven: which is apparently a great big playground on a cloud where you get to hang with all your friends and Jesus after you’re dead. That’s the Christian point of view. The atheist point of view is simply withholding belief in unproven nonsense until/unless sufficient evidence is provided. Again, we are not the ones making outrageous claims full of magic and woo. I don’t give a good goddamn if I ever “convert” anyone, but I won’t just keep my mouth shut if I see corruption and hate being carried on in the name of religion. Atheists, so far as I know, do not proselytize. They may debate, but I have yet to see any going door to door to un-convert people. I think most atheists know that most religious folk are so indoctrinated that it’s unlikely they would be willing to consider a viewpoint other than their own. I, for one, have never bothered trying to convert people. I have debated with people and I have explained my position on things. That’s not the same thing as trying to win converts.

Also, people who “feel they need religion.” Keyword is “feel.” I doubt anyone actually needs it. Here is a relevant quote:

It is morally as bad not to care about whether a thing is true or not,so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it.
-Edmund Way Teale

It’s the old argument: “If there is no God, I’ll be sad. I don’t want to be sad. Therefore, God exists.” Obviously, this is nonsense. I think that intellectual dishonesty is bad, even if it makes you feel good (I’m tempted to write about religious experience, but I will save that for another day). I’d rather search for truth than hold on to pleasant fantasies. Since there has never been any compelling evidence for deities, I have to assume they are fantasies. This is the only rational standpoint, since it’s the most likely to be true. I think people don’t give themselves enough credit when it comes to resilience. Thinking you can’t cope without gods. I think these people would find that they adapt and cope to many situations, but they hold onto things that are comforting to them.

And as I said before, you can’t force someone to believe or not believe in deities, which is another reason I think it’s unlikely that atheists are really and truly trying to convert people. I think people perceive any difference of opinion as an attack on their religion, when it may just be the atheist telling how they feel on the topic or explaining why they are atheists.

Saying “I am an atheist” or explaining why is not an attack on anyone’s religious freedom. Likewise, if you are protesting against gay marriage and I tell you you’re an asshole, I’m neither attacking your freedom of religion nor your right to free speech. What I am doing is telling you you’re an asshole for trying to limit the rights of others who are doing nothing wrong, and doing nothing that impacts you personally. I’m not saying you can’t say stupid shit; but I do wish sometimes people would think before they say stupid, hateful shit.

And I do stand by the idea that some beliefs do not deserve respect. Just because it’s religious nonsense doesn’t mean it’s not nonsense. I will mock any nonsense, religious or not, especially if that nonsense harms other people.