I put this post on carm to illicit atheist shaming of the tactic that I feel is totally unjust and dishonest. I had argued:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View PostMeta:
I argued that Occum could be a Christian (he ask if he was one) without accepting a religion because no creed of council says "you must accept a one true religion."
Mikey argues without even trying to answer the argument, I just be wrong because he thinks I'm a fundamentalist.
he says: (Mickey)
Give me a break. Sad, pathetic people who love to think they have the 'only truth' and everyone else is wrong. Spreading your fundamentalist views to the world makes life here on earth worse for everyone.
notice he's also imposing his own value system about my life of which he knows nothing. I may be a millionaire and live in a mansion in the south of France and have a noble prize for all he knows. He thinks using these labels makes me wrong and him right.
It's also really stupid to say I"m a fundie after just about every post I make I talk about liberal theology, I am a socialist politically. I am always disputing inerrancy. I always talk about how I went to one of the most liberal seminaries.
He apparently doesn't understand the distinction between fundamentalist and other forms of Christianity To him fundie is just a synonym for Christianity.
Rather than answer my argument he says "the label I put on you makes you seem pathetic so yo must be wrong."
If he did this to a black person what would we call him?
Ok Mr. black man (and how do you know i'm not black?) I don't have to think about what you say, I know you are wrong becuase you black." what do we say about that?
Mr Gay man I DO NOT have to listen to your ideas, you are automatically wrong because you are gay.
If it's wrong to judge people's intelligence and value as people (not pathetic) because labels we put on them imposing our values on their lives, why is it any more fair to do it for their religious belief just because we don't believe in the same things?
I argue this is even more acute if we understand their religious beliefs so badly that we call them fundies when they are liberals. No atheists agreed that this was wrong, in fact one actually seems to whole heatedly support persecuting people for their beliefs.
This is one issue I take with "new atheism." I get where people like Sam Harris is coming from- liberal forms of religion tend to lend credence to religious belief. When intellectuals provide a seemingly reasonable face for belief in gods, it gives god-belief of all sorts an undeserved air of respectability. But this is a flawed view, IMO. The fact that irrational, mean people benefit from an idea doesn't invalidate the idea. It's the same error, it seems, as trying to discredit evolution because eugenicists benefit on a superficial level from Darwin's theory. The only thing I'd say is that it is important for a liberal to distance him/herself from the mean, irrational theists- just as evolutionists have unfortunately had to spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with the flaws of eugenics.let's break it down:
So, while I do think it's a noble goal to try to stamp out religious belief, I do NOT think one is justified in doing so "by any means necessary." The fundies should be mocked and ridiculed- not as a tactic to try to brow-beat them into submission, but because their beliefs are ridiculous and dangerous. This is not the case with liberals. Liberals have beliefs which resemble, in certain ways, the ridiculous, irrational beliefs of fundies. But there are important and fundamental differences in the way that liberals think that sets them apart from the fundies. And it is the way in which one comes to a belief that is important, not the belief itself.
Now, some beliefs are simply too ridiculous to plausibly allow for the possibility that they were rationally derived. That's where the fundies come in- if someone believes that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that the Genesis flood actually occurred sometime within the last 6,000 years, I needn't examine how they arrived at the conclusion. They are being irrational- that's the end of it. But it's a mistake to equate belief in some kind of deity with these types of beliefs.
of course the things he says about religion being bad and irrational is stupid but it has it's points. Then he says:
So, while I do think it's a noble goal to try to stamp out religious belief, I do NOT think one is justified in doing so "by any means necessary."The first distributing thing here is he says he actually does believe in stamping out religion. Now he's going to say further down that liberal religious views aren't so bad, but would he still stamp them out? They aren't so bad but hey have to go anyway. Besides what he's saying is that he dose want to persecute people for their beliefs but just not go too far. How far is too far?
The fundies should be mocked and ridiculed- not as a tactic to try to brow-beat them into submission, but because their beliefs are ridiculous and dangerous.He's going to take on the privilege of paying God and deciding who get's to believe what and who gets messed up but he just wants to do it for the right reason. I'm not sure that's any better than doing it for the wrong reason. He has also stated stamping out religion is his goal. Who the hell do these little 3% think they are?
Now, some beliefs are simply too ridiculous to plausibly allow for the possibility that they were rationally derived. That's where the fundies come in- if someone believes that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that the Genesis flood actually occurred sometime within the last 6,000 years, I needn't examine how they arrived at the conclusion. They are being irrational- that's the end of it. But it's a mistake to equate belief in some kind of deity with these types of beliefs.In other words he's such important guy that he get's to decide what's right and not and he's not subject to having to even conciser that he might be wrong. What if illiterate people deiced that reading books is stupid and readers have to mocked and ridiculed or even shot because they can't be allowed to spread such stupid ideas? Then they said "no that's just stupid that's the end of it."
What if someone's belief is stupid? what if someone thinks that his childhood dog is contacting him through shooting stars. this guy dedicates this is so stupid we can't allow this guy to live. Do we have the right to put him to death for believing something stupid? why? what gives us us the right to decide that we are so right we can hurt others to make them shape up and bleieve "the right thing?"
Does anyone esle find this chilling that this little 3% minority what proves to be rather dense and badly educated about religion thinks they are so right they can persecute believers for their beliefs? what ever happened to the idea that I disagree with your view but I'll defend to the death your right to say it?
this seems to me to be opposed to everything our society stands for. this is a clear and present danger.