I don't want to start the annual "put Christ back in Christmas" debate. Separation of Church and State blah blah blah. I get it.
But does this campaign really start to go too far the other way? Is asking "Why believe in a god?" any different than saying "Believe in god!"
Edwords said the purpose isn't to argue that God doesn't exist or change minds about a deity, although "we are trying to plant a seed of rational thought and critical thinking and questioning in people's minds."
Ok, I don't really have a problem with that and I think that should apply across the board. And that is why I have zero problems with the word "Christmas", manger scenes, Jesus, wisemen, frankincense, and myrrh.
Why can 'Christmas' be offensive, but anti-Christmas isn't? I thought the compromise was that we just leave religion out of the public forum. Shouldn't anti-religion also be kept out then?
If we can ask "Why believe in a god?" I damn well hope we are all comfortable enough in our beliefs to hear the answer.
I'm with you on this. If it needs to be part of public discourse, people need to be comfortable hearing all sides, or no sides at all. Me, I lean towards "no sides at all." I think it's something one best comes to terms with on their own, in the privacy of their own mind.
ReplyDeleteBut what I find particularly curious is the AFA dude's quote in that article:
"It's a stupid ad," he said. "How do we define 'good' if we don't believe in God? God in his word, the Bible, tells us what's good and bad and right and wrong. If we are each ourselves defining what's good, it's going to be a crazy world."
Is each person being left to his own devices to determine what is "good" (read: moral and ethical) behavior really that bad an idea? Is the world NOT a crazy enough place as it is with countless organized religions each preaching their own proprietary version of what constitutes "good"? All the war, strife and death caused directly or indirectly by religion over the millenia... I don't know - I think I'd be willing to give atheists a chance to call the shots for a while. The implication that an atheist, agnostic, secular humanist or whatever can't know "good" is the most offensive thing about all this.
Belief in god or the lack thereof is a fine debate for philosophy or theology classes, or for one to have with themselves, but to make it a punching bag for public debate is just a waste of time. It's like the ultimate wedge issue where there's no convincing to be done, just yelling at each other from your own little mountaintop. Ultimately, you're professing a belief one way or the other that is (thus far) unknowable and unprovable.
Everyone chooses which moral code they wish to follow. If the Bible is your guide then good for you. There are numerous other viable moral codes that would probably produce a sane world... if we all chose to subscribe to one of the good ones (correction if we all chose to subscribe to and not misinterpret the good ones).
ReplyDeleteThe implication that an atheist, agnostic, secular humanist or whatever can't know "good" is the most offensive thing about all this
That went both ways in this article. Both sides clearly think the other sides moral code is insufficient. Hence the debate.
Good topic for next post: 'Offensive'- Have we overplayed this word?
To criticize myself: How can you know what a 'good' moral code is?
ReplyDeleteTechnically, you can't. Though I have a major problem with moral relativism. I truly believe some versions of morality are bad and some are good. But that is my right to feel that way and public discussion of that should be allowed while not being dictated. aka My version of separation of church and state. I am also comfortable hearing all sides. Just because something is unknowable and unprovable doesn't me the absence of it is proven.
I'm not saying whose moral code is sufficient and whose isn't. Note that i have not offered up my personal feelings on the existence of god. I guess what I'm saying is that organized religion can't pretend its shit don't stink.
ReplyDeleteI heard for Ramadan Muslims hang AK47s and IEDs on their Allah tree.
ReplyDeleteMy wife's school isn't allowed to have any Christmas decorations because there is a large population of Mormons. They don't celebrate shit. They believe presents are evil. Christmas is more about presents in the US than it is about Christ. We should just rename it Capitalismas.
I saw Christmas Trees and decorations in Home Depot last week. WTF?
ReplyDeleteI'm camping out for Black Friday this year to get a TV and Best Buy... Wait a sec, is Black Friday offensive? How about Racially Non-Offensive Friday?
No, Black Friday is just stupid, not offensive. Camping out for a tv? Really? Is your time and comfort worth it? For goods that have had precipitously falling prices?
ReplyDeleteWomen love that shit. Making a big event out of shopping. And you can find some kick ass deals on Afro-Friday.
ReplyDeleteThat went both ways in this article. Both sides clearly think the other sides moral code is insufficient. Hence the debate.
ReplyDeleteNo, it didn't. The secular group is saying one can be good and moral without religion. The religious guy said "how can one know "good" without "god." Very different.
Good topic for next post: 'Offensive'- Have we overplayed this word?
Don't get all PC police on me. If you can't distinguish between what both sides were saying in that article, then you've clearly been spending too much time around fundamentalist christians.
"Last month, the British Humanist Association caused a ruckus announcing a similar campaign on London buses with the message: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
ReplyDelete"the new atheism" - a more in-your-face argument against God's existence.
Sounded both ways to me. And the point of the post was to acknowledge both points and accept them, not to debate one vs. the other... because that is futile.
>> then you've clearly been spending too much time around fundamentalist christians.
Why do you take every post so damn personally?
How can you make a statement like that if you think books that are an "in your face argument against God" are any less extreme than a guy saying you have to believe in God to define good.
Seriously? Really?
Personally? WTF are you talking about? You said yourself this thing was for sarcasm and that I shouldn't be so sensitive.
ReplyDeleteShow me what in that article implied Christians are without morals.
Referencing books containing "in your face arguments against god" =/= implying Christians lack the ability to define "good."
We're clearly taking different things away from this article. Let's just agree to disagree. Bitch. (Sorry, that was personal.)
My guess here is that a book containing "in your face arguments against god" would probably have some pretty unbalanced, unfair, unreasonable attacks on Christians... much like saying an athiest has no ability to define a moral code (which in the fair beginning I said was obviously not true)
ReplyDeleteAnd again, this wasn't a post about the article, the article was the basis for a different discussion. Also, as pointed out in the original post, not intended to start this debate.
Actually, you should read "God is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens... It's surprisingly balanced and reasonable. He makes some convincing arguments - more about religion on a macro level.
ReplyDeleteWow, I have a couple busy days at work and I missed a lot. I only have a story to add, if anyone will even be reading the comments on an old post as this.
ReplyDeleteI was eating breakfast with a group of volunteers on that Corporate Volunteer day, or whatever it's called. We were fixing up a home for disabled kids. So at breakfast this guy is talking about his trip to China. He's telling everyone about how immoral the whole country is, how they were selling pirated DVDs on his tour bus, and concluded with: "It's because they have no religion over there!" I wanted to punch his face in. There is, of course, arguably more religion in China than in the US, just not the "right" religion. To imply that morals are purely derived from a book is appalling to me. Of course, my immoral atheist self held my tongue and "turned the other cheek" despite my boiling blood. Not sure how I did that, since I have no religion to guide me.
Jimmy and Kojiro (and Matt when he gets on the blog),
ReplyDeleteI have heard all 3 of you guys have the same reaction when faced with religious people's views. I have heard: offended, appalled, bigot, ignorant (and many variations of those)
Honestly, the hypocrisy is staggering. Who cares if some believes these things? What about them talking is offensive or appalling? Are they infringing on your ears? How can someone talking to you about the spiritual beliefs "boil your blood"?
A reminder: 90% of Americans believe in God and 75% are Christian.
I'm not saying agree, adhere, believe... but Jesus Christ (pun intended) have some tolerance.
Stop putting words and ideas in my mouth, dude. Seriously.
ReplyDeleteA.) What that particular guy quoted in the article said, the way I interpreted it, is that atheists are incapable of being moralistic. I do not offend easily, but that is just a putrid thing to say. That's not "religious peoples' views." That's the views of a single asshole. If this were a venn diagram, I'm saying something the size of a dime, and you're putting me into a circle the size of Shea Stadium that encompasses a million dimes.
B.) Also, you are assuming I fall into a certain group when I have specifically NOT stated my personal views on whether there is or is not a god. Note above where I said religion is a deeply personal thing that people need to come to in the privacy of their own mind.
Please. Stop assuming things that aren't said.
I'm not saying agree, adhere, believe... but Jesus Christ (pun intended) have some tolerance.,
ReplyDeleteDude, I tolerate so much, I've got tolerance coming out of my ears. What that guy, quoted in the article, said is one of the most intolerant things I have ever heard.
I know atheists that are some of the most righteous, kind and selfless people I've ever met. And vice versa, I have met deeply religious people that are such steaming piles of hypocrisy I want to puke. And all points in between.
I am fully aware of your tolerance for allowing people to have this discourse in philosophy class, theology class or in the "privacy of their own mind".
ReplyDeleteBut is that really tolerant?
I understand what you are saying and I honestly believe you (you know I do), but your words haven't really backed that up.
That's like saying: I'm tolerant of you as long as you are kept away from my sight.
To be fair, your replies were more tolerant than Korijo's. My comments should have been more focused on the "blood boiling" "face punching" comments. To your point A, I agree, my bad, you had a valid point on that one.
OK... Let's talk about "tolerant."
ReplyDeleteI will "tolerate" until the day I die anyone's right to say anything assholish at all. Just as they need to "tolerate" my response. "Tolerate" doesn't mean "like." Wait, wasn't there a South Park episode on this very topic? I'm vaguely remembering something...
I'm not saying this guy shouldn't have said it. I'm saying it's a highly insulting thing to say about anyone. That if they don't belief in god, they can't know what "good" is. That's just ridonkulous.
How is what I said intolerant? He can believe in god all day long, and I don't care. But to say that anyone who doesn't follow his particular religion is immoral? That's just fucking dumb. I guess if I am intolerant, it's for stupidity.
ReplyDeleteI'm tolerant of many religions, but I think Islam is wrong. They have some backassward oppressive beliefs, and I think the world would be better off without them.
ReplyDeleteHonor killings, treating rape victims as outcasts, acid attacks, stonings, terrorism, etc. Islam blows.
I'm sure you hippies don't agree with me, but that's my stance on the whole sand nigger thing.
If that "boils your blood" and makes you want to "punch him in the face" then that is at most intolerant... and at the least it's an extreme reaction to freedom of religion expression.
ReplyDeleteThe other point here is that none of these religious people said anything to you personally. Maybe that is a fine line, but it's not like anyone went up to you and said "You are immoral because you don't believe in religion." That would be personally offensive and your anger would be justified (at least by me).
If you are feeling anger on behalf of the Chinese people and the offense that this guy perpetrated on them, then that is another story. I'm sure the millions of Falun Ding Dong Gong followers are very appreciative.
>>I'm sure you hippies don't agree with me, but that's my stance on the whole sand nigger thing.
ReplyDeleteI was going to try and justify this... but I'm just laughing. But I do want Kojiro to try and defend Islam after calling Christianity dumb. Perhaps it could be like Dumb and Dumberer.
Dude, stop putting words in my mouth. I never called Christianity dumb. I never even mentioned Christianity, he could have been Jewish or Muslim for all you know. I didn't call ANY religion dumb.
ReplyDeleteI was mad for several reasons. 1) The Chinese are very spiritual and follow multiple religions. Religion in China. 2) He was saying that if you weren't the right religion, then you don't have morals. This is the type of bullshit thinking that causes wars. 3) Yes, he was directly insulting me, being that I have no religion, much less the "right" religion.
I would say I tolerated his comments. Nowhere in the definition of "tolerate" does it include "be happy about" or "agree with." I can hate his guts, but tolerate him and work with him, which I did. If I was intolerant, I would have argued with him, insist he was wrong, insist he change his mind, and started an anti-holy war when he didn't convert to atheist, spilling blood in that god forsaken diner shouting "THIS... IS... ROCHESTER!!" as he falls into a pit.
As for Islam, I'm not going to try and defend it because I don't know enough about it. Besides, that's just Jay stirring the pot.