Religion in the Canadian Forces & in Canadian Society

[cupper]

I'm more worried about the other 3 to 4%. They know something we don't. ;D

 

[McG]

... I suppose most religious people are a bit skeptical about atheist's morals in the first place.  They have no reason to have any. 

I'd suggest that every member of a society has reason to abide by the rules that allow the society to function and exist.  Morals are a vital part of that, regardless of religion (or lack there of).

... as soon as you attack others with general language, unfounded sweeping assumptions and ...

He hasn't.  He has said everyone (atheists and individual religious groups) all have skeletons in the closet of history.  Each of the many groups has produced its villains who's behaviour has been a terrible abomination upon society.  Each of the many groups has produced its destroyers who sought to obliterate one to all of the other groups.  Therefore, identification with any of these groups should not warrant anyone being relegated to the status level of rapists.

He said ...

• No one is going to win in a measuring contest, and that would be missing the point anyway.

• Again, I think any kind of measuring of goods and bad is completely missing the point. I knew this was coming, but I don't want to get into a debate about religions, my only point in posting is to point out the hypocrisy and intolerance of all these religions towards atheism.

Going back to an earlier question:

Can you point out any official documents that are in current use by major religions to actively preach, or organize their followers, against atheism in western culture?

He has pointed to a few.  More importantly, he has pointed to documented empirical evidence that shows the members of major religions do discriminate against atheism.  This does not mean every person who identifies as a member of a religion passively persecutes atheists.  It does prove that as a collective across the continent this is happening.

 

[ballz]

Yeah I don't know how many times I have to repeat that part about "not every..."

And you asked for

any official documents that are in current use

and that's what you got. The Bible and the Qu'ran are most certainly official and they are currently in use, probably used more so than any other documents you can show me.

Not every person takes it literally, but it doesn't take all of them to be destructive. And apparently it's a lot more people that I previously thought, and that's what bothers me.

He said "entire religions."

I'm sorry I'm not sure what you're referring to there?

 

[Michael OLeary]

He has been trying to argue biblical literalism and has not produced a single document written by a modern theologian in current use by a major modern church to support his view.  He has only served to generalize the ignorance of some athiests towards religion overall.

I have been asking for the argument of biblical literalism to be proven. It hasn't been.

I do not consider myself a religious man. My wife is working on a Masters in Divinity, so over the past few years I have read quite a few sermons and M Div study papers. I am also in the company of other ministers and student ministers quite often. When I feel like going I attend church with her and meet with her congregations. I have yet to hear, read or see any document or spoken presentation decrying the fact that some people choose not to have a personal faith system. Neither do I ever feel uncomfortable for not being religious myself. As some do with military ceremonies, I follow services closely and ensure my actions are appropriate to the time and place. I fully understand how some people find inner strength from their faith - and I understand how, as in all human endeavours, others can go further - but their choosing to do so is not necessarily the same as persecuting others. That some may does not make an argument against the wider group. Generalizing against "religion" because "some" choose an extreme path is the flawed argument.

How often have we seen the point made here that not all Muslims are terrorists. Why should any of us who believe that stand aside and watch self-proclaimed "enlightened atheists" slag anyone who follows a religion without comment. That would only be hypocrisy.

He is welcome to make his argument, I'm only asking to see a credible one.

 

[Michael OLeary]

and that's what you got. The Bible and the Qu'ran are most certainly official and they are currently in use, probably used more so than any other documents you can show me.

Are you aware that there have been theological writings since the Bible? Including many written in the modern era that are used in the education of ministers? Are you aware that placing the Bible's teachings into a modern context for today's society (including setting aside those parts with no modern context or applicability) is actually part of the education of ministers?

I'm sorry I'm not sure what you're referring to there?

I won't pull out the quotes that say so if you don't want me to. I'm not sure using some of the very blatant, hateful quotes from the holy books that these entire religions are based off is somehow an invalid argument, but I'm not going to since it takes away from my original point. I didn't post this to hate on anybody else's beliefs, I posted it to point out there is a problem with them hating on others beliefs.

 

[McG]

Generalizing against "religion" because "some" choose an extreme path is the flawed argument.

He has not done such generalizing.  He pointed to a few religious individuals who did choose an extreme path as a counter to another poster who pointed to a few atheists who did the same - the purpose of that reference was to illustrate the generalizations are a distraction from the argument.

Why should any of us who believe that stand aside and watch self-proclaimed "enlightened atheists" slag anyone who follows a religion without comment.

He has not slagged anyone [everyone] who follows a religion. 

He is welcome to make his argument, I'm only asking to see a credible one.

Here it is, documented and measurable evidence of what he is saying at an aggregate level:  http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~will/Gervais%20et%20al-%20Atheist%20Distrust.pdf

Again, this does not mean every member of a religion is discriminating against or passively persecuting atheists.  Nor does it mean that any/most religions are officially or actively anti-atheist in the North American context.  But there is something measurable across all the individuals at an aggregate level.  That study is a credible argument.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Again, this does not mean every member of a religion is discriminating against or passively persecuting atheists.  Nor does it mean that any/most religions are officially or actively anti-atheist in the North American context.  But there is something measurable across all the individuals at an aggregate level.  That study is a credible argument.

Apparently I missed the unwritten qualifiers to this:

Again, I think any kind of measuring of goods and bad is completely missing the point. I knew this was coming, but I don't want to get into a debate about religions, my only point in posting is to point out the hypocrisy and intolerance of all these religions towards atheism.

 

[vonGarvin]

That study is a credible argument.

But that's not his argument. 

This is what he said:

Again, I think any kind of measuring of goods and bad is completely missing the point. I knew this was coming, but I don't want to get into a debate about religions, my only point in posting is to point out the hypocrisy and intolerance of all these religions towards atheism.

(My emphasis on the word "all")


Then it spiralled. 

 

[ballz]

He has been trying to argue biblical literalism

No I haven't. What discussion have you been reading? I have been trying to argue that atheists don't deserve to be "relegated to the status level of rapists." (thank you MCG for articulating it that way).

That some may does not make an argument against the wider group. Generalizing against "religion" because "some" choose an extreme path is the flawed argument.

I am not arguing against religion, this was never the intent and I made that very clear. Believe whatever the hell you want, just don't tell me that it's okay to put atheists on par with rapists.

Why should any of us who believe that stand aside and watch self-proclaimed "enlightened atheists" slag anyone who follows a religion without comment.

I didn't proclaim myself to be enlightened, and I pointed out first and foremost that I'm not an atheist. I am claiming that atheist are being scorned as second-class citizens, and I've provided evidence of that. You can bury your head in the sand if you wish.

 

[McG]

(My emphasis on the word "all")

The study does state at the aggregate level the membership of all the surveyed religions (which are identified in the rpt) had greater intolerance of atheists than rapists.  This was empirically measurable. 

Again, not labeling all individuals nor suggesting it is an official/active aim of the religions.  But, the intolerance exists and is measurable at the aggregate level of the individual membership.

 

[ballz]

But that's not his argument. 

This is what he said:
(My emphasis on the word "all")


Then it spiralled.

Is that seriously the big bad in this whole thing? :facepalm:

If that's the part that's got me so far off from where I was goign, let me clarify. When I said "all these religions" I did not mean "every person who follows any religions." I meant "religions that are not atheist." That is the group that people who are answering these studies and generating the results are from, "all these religions other than atheism."

Who else is giving atheist this level of mistrust if not the various religious groups? It's surely not themselves.

EDIT: If I'm not being clear, just go with what MCG said, he seems to be able to articulate my own thoughts better than I can, anyway.

 

[Michael OLeary]

No I haven't. What discussion have you been reading?

This one apparently:

The Bible and the Qu'ran are most certainly official and they are currently in use, probably used more so than any other documents you can show me.

Not every person takes it literally, but it doesn't take all of them to be destructive. And apparently it's a lot more people that I previously thought, and that's what bothers me.

I don't see why I can't invoke the Bible though.

As any theological student would explain to you, before you can invoke the Bible, first you'd have to establish what version you are going to use.

I have been trying to argue that atheists don't deserve to be "relegated to the status level of rapists."

And who here is arguing that they should be?

Believe whatever the hell you want, just don't tell me that it's okay to put atheists on par with rapists.

Where have I, or anyone in the thread, supported that view?

I didn't proclaim myself to be enlightened, and I pointed out first and foremost that I'm not an atheist. I am claiming that atheist are being scorned as second-class citizens, and I've provided evidence of that. You can bury your head in the sand if you wish.

Seeking clarification and requesting the use of supporting documents that have been written in the modern era is hardly burying my head in the sand.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I see the whole problem as organisation of religion. Today's religions, as they have been since they started, are about money, power and control.

All a person need is a belief carried in their heart and head. There is no need for doctrine, books or tabernacles.

Their strength, solace and morals are between them and whatever diety they choose to converse with in private.

Anything else goes back to the money, power and control triade.

Just look at this thread for the closest example. :argument:

 

[McG]

He has been trying to argue biblical literalism

I am not convinced that he has been trying.  I believe you were the first to take the discussion down that path here:

Can you point out any official documents that are in current use by major religions to actively preach, or organize their followers, against atheism in western culture?

Where you have quoted to demonstrate his attempts to argue biblical literalism, you have quoted his replies to your conversations.

Very early in this thread, there were some broad-brush statements made of atheists.  ballz countered (some what sloppily) with a few broad-brushes against religion, not for the purpose of attacking religion but for the purpose of demonstrating the irrelevance/inaccuracy of broad-brush arguments.  I think that is where the thread soured.

His concern, when you cut through the mess of this thread, is over the measurable intolerance toward atheists within North America.

 

[ballz]

This one apparently:

Key words there, "not every person takes it literally, but..."

Where have I, or anyone in the thread, supported that view?

Where have I accused you or any specific person of supporting that view? A scientific study was conducted of 770 people and proves it, so it doesn't matter if one of the people who relegates them to that status is here posting in this thread or not. The point is they exist in a larger number than they ought to, and that's a damn shame.

I'm not entertaining this any longer.

 

[cupper]

I see the whole problem as organisation of religion. Today's religions, as they have been since they started, are about money, power and control.

All a person need is a belief carried in their heart and head. There is no need for doctrine, books or tabernacles.

Their strength, solace and morals are between them and whatever diety they choose to converse with in private.

Anything else goes back to the money, power and control triade.

Just look at this thread for the closest example. :argument:

:goodpost:

A quote I heard from a very pious but open minded individual who was being challenged on his beliefs

"I don't care about your religious beliefs, so please do me the honour of not caring about mine."

(this was the cleaned up PG-13 version)

 

[vonGarvin]

George Strombolopolous asked Christopher Hitchens, "I guess if it gets you through the night, why not right?" and he said "As long as you don't try and teach it to my children, absolutely. As long as you keep it to yourself I don't mind if you believe in virgin births or resurrections or this kind of thing. But the implication always is that you've got to believe it to or you're going to hell."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zrrk0CU4QlE&feature=relmfu @ 2:25 and he says something similar at 3:30 about "going and telling it on the mountain."

So here's the loud mouth moron himself saying that... doesn't sound very intolerant to me, sounds like he just wants to be left alone and not have religion imposed on him.

It sounds very intolerant to me.  It's not that he doesn't want religion imposed on him.  He wants it banished from his sight.  Imagine if someone were to say that they wanted something they didn't like banished from public view.  Something that is the cause du jour, such as homosexuality.  "As long as you don't try and teach it to my children, absolutely. As long as you keep it to yourself I don't mind..."

 

[Fishbone Jones]

 

[OldSolduer]

Agreed.

 

[vonGarvin]

Yes.  Very tolerant and open-minded.  Now reread it, but replace the word "religion" with homosexuality. 

Not tolerant at all.