Rude W*nkers I have met - Atheism & Religion in the Social Context 2

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

SerG, Raidne,

Yeah, hindsight is 20/20. How do you know he wouldn't simply have spent more time on alchemy or some other field you determine to be useless? He focused where his intellect drove him and where he saw value.

[Jaimeisnotazombie]

any atheist who brings up atheism, in a social setting on his or her own, is an asshole.

any member of any religion who brings up their religion on there own in a social setting is an asshole.

example

person - oh well i am a (insert religion) and i cant agree with that, is an asshole statement, if religion was not the subject of the talk.

very simple way to look at it, but it works.

[Guest Raidne]

SerG, Raidne,

Yeah, hindsight is 20/20. How do you know he wouldn't simply have spent more time on alchemy or some other field you determine to be useless? He focused where his intellect drove him and where he saw value.

I, for one, was talking about alchemy. There are arguments to be made that some of his scientific accomplishments came out of his work with alchemy but ultimately he probably ended up with a hefty dose of mercury poisoning that significantly impacted the work he was doing in later life.

Not that I support the idea that faith and scientific accomplishment are in opposition to each other. I mean, how much out there has been accomplished by people who aren't religious? Newton was just a bad example, IMO, and I'm nitpicking at you. ;)

[Ser Greguh]

any atheist who brings up atheism, in a social setting on his or her own, is an asshole.

any member of any religion who brings up their religion on there own in a social setting is an asshole.

example

person - oh well i am a (insert religion) and i cant agree with that, is an asshole statement, if religion was not the subject of the talk.

very simple way to look at it, but it works.

So no discussion of religion can possibly take place without the person starting it being labeled as an asshole?

[Castel]

any atheist who brings up atheism, in a social setting on his or her own, is an asshole.

any member of any religion who brings up their religion on there own in a social setting is an asshole.

example

person - oh well i am a (insert religion) and i cant agree with that, is an asshole statement, if religion was not the subject of the talk.

very simple way to look at it, but it works.

This always baffles me. Religion doesn't seem like a topic that sticks to one field, it's a way of life. I get that it can be annoying and for my own benefit I'll advance the notion that people shouldn't do it but logically I see no reason why religious people wouldn't apply the teachings they consider the answer to the universe's problems in discussions. Especially if said discussions are about how they feel about things.

As for religion and science, isn't it true that scientific discoveries were made in monasteries or universities with religion early on? Well, if they were the ones with the money it would make sense right? The main way I could see religion being an impediment is when it actively tries to suppress things it doesn't like.

[Baitac]

This is tough - I would love to say that people screw up for a lot of reasons and some people attribute their screwing up to Christianity, but with Christianity one person who screwed up is the apostle Paul and he wrote all of that stuff right into the holy text of the religion and - as far as I know and please feel free to correct me - no Christian has disclaimed the books attributed to Paul.

I'm not sure what you object about Paul. I'm sure there's objectionable stuff everywhere. I focus on the fact that he reformed Christianity so that non-Jews would be accepted as Christians, that he was continuously in and out of jail for speaking out in support of Christianity in an era where slavery amongst non-Romans was the modus operandi, that he didn't fear the powers that be in Rome, and for his literate letters to Christian communities everywhere, in particular the eastern parts of the Roman empire. I went to Ephesus last summer. It meant a lot to me and a big part was because of Paul. That's just my thoughts. I am sure that you have lots of evidence to convict him. You are not the first nor the last to do that to him. This faith based issues are iffy. I am not going to get into them. You can challenge this and that, but I will not get into matters of faith. Faith is faith. Faith isn't fact.

[Jaimeisnotazombie]

So no discussion of religion can possibly take place without the person starting it being labeled as an asshole?

yes that exactly what i mean, if someone brings up religion out of the blue i walk away from them, mid conversation.

just dont do it mid conversation, start the conversation about religion, dont toss it in someones face like they give a fuck.

funny how u ingore the part where i say atheist are assholes to if they bring up there beliefs

[Ser Greguh]

yes that exactly what i mean, if someone brings up religion out of the blue i walk away from them, mid conversation.

just dont do it mid conversation, start the conversation about religion, dont toss it in someones face like they give a fuck.

funny how u ingore the part where i say atheist are assholes to if they bring up there beliefs

So what you're saying is, you're great fun at parties.

[ZombieWife]

1. Either atheists or the religious can be rude wankers.

Yes. I'm not sure which are the worst to be honest. There's nothing like being told you're going to hell, and there's nothing like being told you're an idiot because you believe in that higher power. Lots of wanker contests going on. Like fencing, only using schlongs. And it's not all all homoerotic.

2. Is labelling someone likely to contribute to rude wankery?

I guess it depends on how you do it. An atheist is an atheist. It's sad that it's such a four-letter-word for some, and disheartening that people feel like they must "stay in the atheist closet" because they fear family/friend reaction. I know a few closeted atheists and they really feel the suck sometimes.

3. Is it OK to be intolerant of intolerance (and does that lead to people being considered rude wankers)?

I dunno. I find intolerance comes from a lack of conviction in your own beliefs. If you're truly down with your beliefs (or lack thereof) then you shouldn't be getting a giant woody over belittling another's path here.

4. Does indoctrination contribute to whether or not a person becomes a rude wanker?

On the internet? Yes. People can find their clubs/groups/hangouts and spew freely. People get "accountability amnesia" all the time on the net. Adding in something as personal as a belief/non-belief in a higher power will only super-fly TNT that stuff.

[Jaimeisnotazombie]

So what you're saying is, you're great fun at parties.

if some one bring up religion at a party, its a bad party, i wana talk about sports and women and alcohol at parties not fucking god.

what parites did u go to the saturday school box social

[Eponine]

any atheist who brings up atheism, in a social setting on his or her own, is an asshole.

any member of any religion who brings up their religion on there own in a social setting is an asshole.

example

person - oh well i am a (insert religion) and i cant agree with that, is an asshole statement, if religion was not the subject of the talk.

very simple way to look at it, but it works.

I'm glad I'm an asshole then. And I'm glad that other people are assholes. If someone doesn't agree with something and the main reason is because of their religion, why wouldn't I want to know their reason in that instance when I'd expect them to explain if they had any other reason? If someone asks me something and atheism/religion is relevant to the answer, I'm not going to couch it in a bunch of bullshit euphemisms and niceties. Of course it depends on whether someone really wants to hear an answer or how specific their question is.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Ep

It's not like you and he are likely to want to go to the same parties, anyways:

if some one bring up religion at a party, its a bad party, i wana talk about sports and women and alcohol at parties not fucking god.

[Jaimeisnotazombie]

I'm glad I'm an asshole then. And I'm glad that other people are assholes. If someone doesn't agree with something and the main reason is because of their religion, why wouldn't I want to know their reason in that instance when I'd expect them to explain if they had any other reason? If someone asks me something and atheism/religion is relevant to the answer, I'm not going to couch it in a bunch of bullshit euphemisms and niceties. Of course it depends on whether someone really wants to hear an answer or how specific their question is.

ok so your talking about the colrado shootings, and the person your talking to throws relgion into with out provoking, that helps the converstation. im just supposed sit there and listen to somthing make no sense to me, or do i politely leave the conversation and move on to some one who isnt going to interject the least interesting part of the person into every last fucking conversation they have.

or i could respond with bitch ur crazy get the fuck away, but i would never do that.

they could just say i dont agree with that, and then when asked why bring up religion, thats a fine segway, not i disagree because of my religion and im sure u will want to hear all about it.

[Erik of Hazelfield]

Erik,

If I'm providing Pro Bono legal work for a friend while simultaniously praying for their well being, is that problematic?

Ser Greguh already wrote what is also my opinions on this, but for the sake of clarity, yes, that is problematic. If it were me I would thank you for your work but only forgive you for your praying and ask that you stop.

I think rationality, self-reflection, empirism, skepticism and curiosity are among the highest of virtues. They are the forces that lift us from the bog of superstition, witchcraft and nonsense that has and still does plague most of the world. Prayer belongs firmly in the second category. It's proven to do nothing for medical patients, there is zero evidence it has ever worked, and if it was a scientific theory it would have been tossed out long ago.

That is also why I hold so negative views of all religious activities and not only the obviously bad ones (WTC attacks, crusades etc). I think the latter is simply an extension of the former. Most people stress the difference between ordinary, proper religion and the fringe lunatics, but I think they're all part of the same mindset: have faith, don't question, don't require evidence for believing. That's exactly the kind of thinking the world doesn't need. Prayer is more than just a waste of time - it's a silent approval of superstition and magic.

[Guest Raidne]

I am sure that you have lots of evidence to convict him. You are not the first nor the last to do that to him. This faith based issues are iffy. I am not going to get into them. You can challenge this and that, but I will not get into matters of faith. Faith is faith. Faith isn't fact.

Convict him? I can't answer that because I'm not sure what you mean. My issues with Paul started when reading his letters in Church.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

As in all the assemblies of the saints, let your wives keep silent in the assemblies, for it has not been permitted for them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as the law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman to chatter in the assembly.

And 1 Timothy 2:11-15

Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I don’t permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. Adam wasn’t deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience; but she will be saved through her childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and sanctification with sobriety.

I certainly don't think I'm putting forth any original thought here - there is a boatload of scholarly and religious work on these two passages. Anyway, after I left the church when I was about 17-18, I took several academic courses in Christianity to get a different perspective on the stuff I'd been reading my entire life up to that point. From there, I learned how the New Testament as a body of text came to be and first really got an understanding of the break in tradition from Jesus to Paul, although it's certainly possible that some things were transmitted from Jesus to Luke to Paul. Paul claims to have met Jesus after his death on the Road to Damscus, of course, and while that can be accepted as a matter of faith it's not something you can use to say that Paul was a student of Jesus like Aristotle was a student of Plato. And there are philosophical differences in their teachings and positions, particularly with regard to women. Jesus seems to have been something of a radical on gender roles. Women are present around Jesus, and not treated any differently from men. Paul is a traditionalist - he took the core beliefs on gender roles of his time and incorporated them into the Church. And that was a necessary condition for the role that women have had in the Church and in Christian societies ever since.

This is such a commonplace perspective in Christian scholarship that it's nearly cliche, I suppose, but that's my critical assessment of gender, Christianity, and the etiology of what I think is the objectionable position it takes on the status of women. I have no issues with what seems to have been Jesus' position on the same. I don't think this position is the product of emotional animosity or particularly divisive.

Of course, nearly male philosopher that I have ever read has objectionable views on women also, but there is the advantage that their published writings are not claimed by anyone to be the revealed word of God - which is what makes Paul's comments on women in the Bible problematic for Christianity as a religion, instead of just for Paul.

[Seli]

...

Of course not. What kind of dumb question is this? It's not a binary question. Think of it as a strong headwind. Some people can run fast enough to overcome it, but there can be no argument as to its impedance of overall forward progress. Look at the rate of technological development in any environment where Big Religion is in charge. They were called the "Dark Ages" for a reason.

It is actually way more complicated than that, and I believe the names 'middle ages' and 'dark ages' were thought up by some wankers who thought they were so much better than their immediate ancestors. And looked back at the ruthless people that lived a bit longer ago.

Another slight problem is that the traditional 'dark/middle' narrative is actually only valid for a relatively tiny part of what is now europe, end even then it is a gross misrepresentation.

[IheartTesla]

Not that I support the idea that faith and scientific accomplishment are in opposition to each other. I mean, how much out there has been accomplished by people who aren't religious? Newton was just a bad example, IMO, and I'm nitpicking at you. ;)

Most of the current scientists in the physical sciences tend to be overwhelmingly secular and non-religious. In the 20th century, if you are talking of the big guns, then I'd say most of the quantum mechanics cowboys would also fall in that category. I'd say very few of them would believe in a personal god (the term Einstein used to describe what most of the religious believed in).

This has to do with the cultural context scientist have grown up in over the ages. When Newton was alive, being an atheist would have been dangerous even. By the time of Laplace, well, we have Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse (although Lagrange had a good rejoinder: Ah! c'est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses). By the time of Darwin, he too was comfortable rejecting organized religion but believing in a creator. In this somewhat natural progression of events, by the time of Einstein more and more scientists were comfortable rejecting organized religion, but maybe having a philosophical outlook that could sometimes include a grand creator (or Prime Mover or what have you).

That is primarily because the laws of physics can allow for that in any physical model of the universe, and at that time the origins of the universe were also more shrouded in mystery. I see this outlook is somewhat biased towards physicists and mathematicians, with Darwin making a cameo, so I cant speak to biologists.

The thing is, most of organized religion is anathema to physicists. You'd have to either compartmentalize or do some serious mental gymnastics to reconcile many aspects of organized religion with physics.

[IheartTesla]

Of course, I forgot Tesla. Pretty sure he wasnt much into conventional Christianity and probably had some new-agey thoughts about religion.

[The Ghost of Winter]

This. Most atheists don't talk about their atheism at all, except in certain circles. The wankitude of those you see is a selection bias.

So a minority of atheists talk about it with anyone, and a minority of those are wankers.

Exactly. I mean yes I live in the USA and people can get really obnoxious with their beliefs, luckily I live in an area that isn't the bible belt. If people were more aggressive about conversion I would probably react a little differently. But still I wouldn't be that atheist, the one who waves around their beliefs.

So basically what I'm saying is that its probably best to keep it to yourself, but circumstances can make things different for individuals.

[Baitac]

Convict him? I can't answer that because I'm not sure what you mean. My issues with Paul started when reading his letters in Church.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

And 1 Timothy 2:11-15

I certainly don't think I'm putting forth any original thought here - there is a boatload of scholarly and religious work on these two passages. Anyway, after I left the church when I was about 17-18, I took several academic courses in Christianity to get a different perspective on the stuff I'd been reading my entire life up to that point. From there, I learned how the New Testament as a body of text came to be and first really got an understanding of the break in tradition from Jesus to Paul, although it's certainly possible that some things were transmitted from Jesus to Luke to Paul. Paul claims to have met Jesus after his death on the Road to Damscus, of course, and while that can be accepted as a matter of faith it's not something you can use to say that Paul was a student of Jesus like Aristotle was a student of Plato. And there are philosophical differences in their teachings and positions, particularly with regard to women. Jesus seems to have been something of a radical on gender roles. Women are present around Jesus, and not treated any differently from men. Paul is a traditionalist - he took the core beliefs on gender roles of his time and incorporated them into the Church. And that was a necessary condition for the role that women have had in the Church and in Christian societies ever since.

This is such a commonplace perspective in Christian scholarship that it's nearly cliche, I suppose, but that's my critical assessment of gender, Christianity, and the etiology of what I think is the objectionable position it takes on the status of women. I have no issues with what seems to have been Jesus' position on the same. I don't think this position is the product of emotional animosity or particularly divisive.

Of course, nearly male philosopher that I have ever read has objectionable views on women also, but there is the advantage that their published writings are not claimed by anyone to be the revealed word of God - which is what makes Paul's comments on women in the Bible problematic for Christianity as a religion, instead of just for Paul.

Ok. Paul was a man. If you are hung up on language from a thousand years ago, written in Aramaic, translated to Greek, then to Latin, transcribed into English five hundred years ago, then no problem. I have problems with people who pick one passage of the Bible or other text and focus on that exclusively. That literal use of small parts of religious text is not my philosophy and I find it dangerous in some instances. I would say that mainstream Christians (again, not fundamentalists) do not ascribe to the only speak to me at home, woman version of things. Sadly, we will find misogynistic practices in all fundamentalist religions today.