South Park writers targeted for attacks

[Wings of Fire]

That's the ideal and it's been made possible due to the free society we live in, but you're challenging centuries old cultures and beliefs here. Is it any wonder they see it as an attack?

[OANST]

They should cry more.

[Bullet Magnet]

I actually think both tactics are necessary, but not at the expense of the totally free exchange and critique of ideas.

Incidentally, Jesus and Mo, the webcomic.

[enchilado]

What the fuck's with you and your necessary tactics?

Do you seriously think what people believe is mad because it's not the same as what you believe?

[OANST]

It's mad because they have absolutely no reason to believe it other than having someone tell them that it's true. It makes no logical sense. It makes no historical sense. And it's vastly morally bankrupt.

[enchilado]

It makes sense to them, and they're the ones it matters to, not you.


Unless of course they're maniacal religious people. Then we're screwed.

[OANST]

But it only makes sense to them because they haven't really looked at it objectively. And if that's all it was I'd be fine with it. If it was only people believing in a beautiful afterlife for themselves then I could care less if it makes any sense or not. But that's not all it is. Their beliefs affect my life. They affect the lives of millions of children all around the world. And they do so in a negative way.

I know that this is mostly a bullshit argument on my part, but most of you people can't really know what it's like to live through actual religious persecution. I lived it. I was beaten, literally and figuratively, by my mother, my classmates, and other adults at the church for years. I used to contemplate suicide as a child, and I don't mean the "mopey douchebag" kind of suicide contemplation. I mean the "how the fuck do I get out of this" type of contemplation. Religion is the greatest evil that this planet has ever seen because it gives the people who adhere to it the idea that they are just. The only way to combat it is to educate people.

[enchilado]

The only way to combat it is to educate people.

Though I disagree with the use of the word 'combat' here, I think I agree with what you're saying.

But you don't educate people by making fun of who they believe in.

[OANST]

Sometimes you do. The Daily Show, for instance, has proven to be a powerful tool for educating those on the cusp of becoming right wing assholes.

As for my usage of the word "combat", well it's a war. It's an ideological war that the religious cannot possibly win. They don't have the means to win it (cogent argument) and their numbers dwindle with each generation. They still have quite a bit of manpower, that's true. But studies show that every generation has a steady increase in the number of atheist/agnostic people. That's reassuring.

Now, the object of my saying these things isn't to offend. With some people it is. But for my part, I say these things with the sincerest hope that just one person will say "Huh, I guess that doesn't make sense", and then pass that desire to learn more on to others and their own children.

[Bullet Magnet]

What the fuck's with you and your necessary tactics?

Do you seriously think what people believe is mad because it's not the same as what you believe?

There are a million genuine reasons that their beliefs are mad. Why would I need to resort to arrogance?

[enchilado]

The reasons are genuine to you, but not to them.

[Bullet Magnet]

Oh, bollocks to that. They're either true or they're not. Reality continues as such regardless of who notices.

[enchilado]

So who gets to decide whether their religious beliefs are true or not?

[Bullet Magnet]

It's not about who, it's about evidence. That's what would emerge from the free exchange of ideas unhindered by meaningless concerns. For example, Catholic dogma (and individual Catholics will choose whether or not to accept it, not all behave as automata on this stuff) demands that Eucharists actually change into the actual flesh of Christ. This is patently untrue, we can observe this. There is also the wonderful opportunity for ridicule in the implication that baked wheat goods are, upon the chanting of some magic words, a manifestation of their god. No one gets to tell me that that isn't hilarious.

[Wings of Fire]

Oh, bollocks to that. They're either true or they're not. Reality continues as such regardless of who notices.

The philosopher in me is telling me I should write a long drawn out essay on the veil of perception and unempirical data lacking any such quality of truthfulness or falsehood.

The student is telling me to get some ice cream and have an early night.

[enchilado]

EDIT: WoF posted. Read this as a reply to BM.

Exactly, individual people choose what to believe. And that's what I'm talking about. If it doesn't affect you, why should you care what they choose?

And what about people who firmly believe, and would swear on the Bible, that God has talked to them?

[Bullet Magnet]

Exactly, individual people choose what to believe. And that's what I'm talking about. If it doesn't affect you, why should you care what they choose?

If it didn't affect me, I would never have become aware of it. Besides, that's not the point. The point is I should be able to say so and not get a hard time because I'm talking about someone's "beliefs". I invite them to challenge what I say. They may prove me wrong, and I would never have grown if I just sat down and shut up like a good little faitheist. And that goes for the rest of you as well. The discourse I propose goes both ways, but when it's just me it generates the illusion of arrogance, which is most unfair.

And what about people who firmly believe, and would swear on the Bible, that God has talked to them?

Mad or mistaken. Quite simpley. Voices in your head are not something to take joy in, and those examples where it is not voices are wishful thinking. Painfully obviously so. Francis Collins, a geneticist, physician, head of the NIH and a brilliant man, believed god was speaking to him through the sight of a frozen waterfall that reminded him of the trinity. Seriously! That thought process is utterly foreign to me, and I am only glad (and hopeful) that it doesn't manifest itself in his work.

[enchilado]

So you think it's mad because it's foreign to you? Ah well, I guess most people are like that.

[Nate]

I'm not shoving any ideas down anyone's throats. Here I'm discussing them, and that is what I would like it to be like with all ideas. The parties involved discuss them willingly. One can always leave, or not pick up a book, or whatever. And if you feel the need to object, to stay and argue, then you bloody well had better have a clue or you won't be able to defend your ideas, and that's hardly my fault.

If it didn't affect me, I would never have become aware of it. Besides, that's not the point. The point is I should be able to say so and not get a hard time because I'm talking about someone's "beliefs". I invite them to challenge what I say. They may prove me wrong, and I would never have grown if I just sat down and shut up like a good little faitheist. And that goes for the rest of you as well. The discourse I propose goes both ways, but when it's just me it generates the illusion of arrogance, which is most unfair.

You're claiming that everyone's ideas must be subjected to your discussion and/or criticism. And that's fine, I suppose, because you're willing to have your ideas subjected to the same process. But I'm saying that most people just want to be left alone and will, in turn, leave you alone.

Sure, criticise militant religionists all you like. But don't tar all of them with the same brush.

I agree with Bullet Magnet. Completely. I will afford your religious nonsense no special considerations. None at all. If you wish to discuss it in my presence, I will let you know what I think of it just as if you were claiming that 2 and 2 is 5. Religious tolerance is just that. I tolerate you. That doesn't mean that I can't say that you're wrong.

Note the phrase "If you wish..."

enabling those who would (for example) rather pray than acquire medical care for desperately sick children

For the record, anyone who does that isn't a moderate. I know plenty of fundamentalists who would say that's goddamn stupid.




In overall summary to both OANST and BM: You forcing your views on religious people is just as bad as them forcing their views on you. Sure, you think that you're in the right because your opinions can be backed up by logic and rational arguments. But they think the same thing too.

[Bullet Magnet]

The dialogue I propose, or rather, the environment I propose in which such dialogue is permitted to occur without a load of useless interfering chaff (such as "why are you doing this?") would see to who actually has the logic and rational arguments. I don't want to force anything, I just want to remove this ridiculous special protection afforded to religious idea just because they are religious. I still can't believe you guys buy into that!

Sure, criticise militant religionists all you like. But don't tar all of them with the same brush.

For the record, anyone who does that isn't a moderate. I know plenty of fundamentalists who would say that's goddamn stupid.

I have to say something that is heartfelt, and is also meant to offend. I do not absolve you mealy-mouthed moderates, I do not regard your beliefs as harmless. If Colleen Hauser or Leilani Neumann were in your church, you'd tell them to get medical care, but you'd also validate their belief in prayers. You would provide the soothing background muzak that says prayer is good, prayer is virtuous, prayer will connect you to the great lord who can do anything, prayer will give you solace in your time of worry. You would not raise your voice to say that prayer is useless, prayer is self-defeating, that while prayer might make you feel better while your child is suffering, that is no virtue. You pray yourselves. You think it is a noble and generous act for your representatives to prowl the corridors of hospitals, preying on the desperation of the sick. You abase yourselves before false hopes, and sacrifice human dignity on an altar built from the bones of the dead. You would spread the poison, piously excusing yourselves because you only want to administer sub-lethal doses.

You are Abraham's enablers. I hope you all feel a small tremor of guilt when you sit your own children down at bedtime to beg a nonexistent being for aid, when you plant the seed of futile supplication and surrender to delusions in their trusting minds. Damn you all.

[Wings of Fire]

I still can't believe you guys buy into that!

It's called respect. Every person has the right to believe and practice what they want unless those beliefs or practices hurt others. It doesn't matter how true or right you think they are.

[Bullet Magnet]

Yes! I'm not saying otherwise. I said right at the beginning (or meant to) that I respect people, and I respect their rights, including the right to believe whatever. That is distinct from respecting ideas. It is not my goal to harass anybody, but anyone should be able to publicly criticise any idea without a deafening chorus of "you big meanie!" or being marked out for death. Those criticisms may be wrong or otherwise objectionable. Fine. Respond in kind! It's a two way street.


And I'm not so sure that most beliefs are genuinely harmless.

[Wings of Fire]

Oh yeah, I know most practises associated with religions are harmful and I never claimed that we should just let those lie in the interest of tolerence.

[OANST]

Note the phrase "If you wish..."

Well, yes. Note the phrase "If you wish". That's what we're talking about. I mean, it's not like we're going to walk up to someone on the street, ask them if they're religious, and then say "Buckle up, then. 'Cause I've got some news for you".

But if I have a television show, or an article, or a book, I can damn well say whatever I want in it. It's my venue. If you think that what I say is disrespectful, or that it's wrong then maybe you shouldn't watch, listen, or read it. Or do. Watch, listen, or read, and then call, or write to explain to me why I'm wrong. That's okay, too. But you don't get to tell me what I can or can't say in my own venue. I won't come into your church and start screeching about you being wrong. Hell, I won't even go on the 700 Club, and do that. I am being respectful.

[Nate]

He doesn't know what he's talking about. All the religious people I know acknowledge that prayer is like throwing letters in bottles in to the ocean; there's never any guarantee God will respond in the way you want.

Yes! I'm not saying otherwise. I said right at the beginning (or meant to) that I respect people, and I respect their rights, including the right to believe whatever. That is distinct from respecting ideas. It is not my goal to harass anybody, but anyone should be able to publicly criticise any idea without a deafening chorus of "you big meanie!" or being marked out for death. Those criticisms may be wrong or otherwise objectionable. Fine. Respond in kind! It's a two way street.

Whilst I agree with this point in principle, it's a very fine line to tread and I think most people do not have the ability to discuss ideas without criticising the person.

[STM]

I agree with Nate's first point. It is my belief that not everyone's prayers are answered, perhaps God is busy fending off African starvation? Maybe he's preparing for the apocalypse =) but when I pray, I shit you not when I say they sometimes get answered in some shape or form.

[enchilado]

Yesterday I prayed that I would be alive today.

ZOMFG, GUYS

[Nate]

I agree with Nate's first point. It is my belief that not everyone's prayers are answered, perhaps God is busy fending off African starvation? Maybe he's preparing for the apocalypse =) but when I pray, I shit you not when I say they sometimes get answered in some shape or form.

Note the word 'sometimes'.

[Bullet Magnet]

Yes, I'm sure the grand creator of the universe puts his plans on hold at our whims, and that our telepathic hotline to said creator is required to inform him of our desires.

And I'm sure those "answers" would not have happened anyway. I remember when I was young and superstitious I wished for things all the time. And some of those wishes came true, many years later. Irrefutable proof of a (lazy) guardian genie, or probability over time? None of my demands for the laws of physics to be suspended in my favour where met.

He doesn't know what he's talking about. All the religious people I know acknowledge that prayer is like throwing letters in bottles in to the ocean; there's never any guarantee God will respond in the way you want.

You're missing the point. They make it okay to pray and provide the foundation for those who take it seriously. They enable the extremists.

[MeechMunchie]

I dislike religion, the main reason being it provokes people to have loads of really boring arguments.