Theology of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And I think there's more than a smattering of contempt for the vast majority of believers here as well. At least as an atheist, I think they're wrong, but sort of thoughtlessly buying into what they've been taught since childhood.

The "real believers" seem to have an even greater contempt for them--refusing to even admit they're "real" Christian.

You can think someone is wrong without feeling contempt. Different people look at things differently and come to different conclusions. As long as someone's belief structure doesn't impose on you, and it helps them deal with life, why should that belief structure be contemptible? I think that's part of the problem with Dawkins and the new atheist movement - there's so much hostility and argument that believers MUST be wrong that it's almost as obnoxious as religious proselytizers attempting to convert others. (And at least the proselytizers have the argument that they believe they're saving the non-believers from an eternity of damnation. Atheists attempting to "convert" believers are, at best, just trying to allow people to sleep in on Sundays.)

I can't say with certainty that I'm correct that there's no God. I just don't have any faith that there is one - I don't believe, and for me to believe would require proof that, so far, God or whomever hasn't deigned to provide. To say with certainty that there isn't one, you have to be able to prove the negative. All we can say is that we've done a pretty good job explaining things without resorting to supernatural causes so far.

To view someone who sees things differently with contempt is probably a sin we should try to leave to the hard core believers.

(Note, I left out those who attempt to force their beliefs onto others via legislation or intimidation. Those people deserve contempt.)

[Anonymous]

I think rebel rousers like Dawkins are helpful in getting any social movement off the ground. Think about the "flaming" gays early on in the gay rights movement. They aren't typical of gay people, but they sure attraced a lot of notice. Same with Gloria steinem in the women's movement, and the freedom riders for civil rights.

A lot of people now benefiting from those movements were against the early activists, calling them bra burners, uppity, strident and worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think rebel rousers like Dawkins are helpful in getting any social movement off the ground. Think about the "flaming" gays early on in the gay rights movement. They aren't typical of gay people, but they sure attraced a lot of notice. Same with Gloria steinem in the women's movement, and the freedom riders for civil rights.

A lot of people now benefiting from those movements were against the early activists, calling them bra burners, uppity, strident and worse.

Fair point, and a good one. But having started the conversation, and gained public recognition for the concept that atheism is a valid (lack of) belief structure, we should still recognize that showing contempt to anyone simply because they believe in a deity is just rude and is exactly how we, as atheists, don't want to be treated.

We ask how believers can be so certain they are correct, and how they can claim a monopoly on "TRUTH!" and we ask them to respect our lack of belief. If we want that level of respect for our position, we should grant it for theirs.

(Then we can all get together, believers and atheists, and make fun of the Scientologists. )

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think rebel rousers like Dawkins are helpful in getting any social movement off the ground. Think about the "flaming" gays early on in the gay rights movement. They aren't typical of gay people, but they sure attraced a lot of notice. Same with Gloria steinem in the women's movement, and the freedom riders for civil rights.

A lot of people now benefiting from those movements were against the early activists, calling them bra burners, uppity, strident and worse.

Nice play on "rabble rousers" -- they rouse the rebel in us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think rebel rousers like Dawkins are helpful in getting any social movement off the ground. Think about the "flaming" gays early on in the gay rights movement. They aren't typical of gay people, but they sure attraced a lot of notice. Same with Gloria steinem in the women's movement, and the freedom riders for civil rights.

A lot of people now benefiting from those movements were against the early activists, calling them bra burners, uppity, strident and worse.

Fair point, and a good one. But having started the conversation, and gained public recognition for the concept that atheism is a valid (lack of) belief structure, we should still recognize that showing contempt to anyone simply because they believe in a deity is just rude and is exactly how we, as atheists, don't want to be treated.

We ask how believers can be so certain they are correct, and how they can claim a monopoly on "TRUTH!" and we ask them to respect our lack of belief. If we want that level of respect for our position, we should grant it for theirs.

(Then we can all get together, believers and atheists, and make fun of the Scientologists. )

I'm sorry, I don't buy the claim that high-profile atheists "show contempt" for believers in general. If you have evidence (say a link to an article or youtube video, then I'm willing to reevaluate). I think that the claim that folks like Dawkins are somehow raving evangelicals and contemptuous of believers is an assumption for which there's little evidence. That is, unless you define "contempt" as "unwilling to agree with me." It's not as though Dawkins is grabbing people by the lapels on the subway and calling them idiots. "The God Delusion" is a respectful and well-reasoned book. Sorry, but saying someone is wrong is not contemptuous. In fact, engaging people in a debate as equals is quite respectful.

So...enough of this "Oh, the New Atheists are so contemptuous" as though this is something everyone agrees about. If you've got something to back it up, link it. Otherwise, we'll assume this is just poisoning the well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Fair point, and a good one. But having started the conversation, and gained public recognition for the concept that atheism is a valid (lack of) belief structure, we should still recognize that showing contempt to anyone simply because they believe in a deity is just rude and is exactly how we, as atheists, don't want to be treated.

We ask how believers can be so certain they are correct, and how they can claim a monopoly on "TRUTH!" and we ask them to respect our lack of belief. If we want that level of respect for our position, we should grant it for theirs.

(Then we can all get together, believers and atheists, and make fun of the Scientologists. )

I'm sorry, I don't buy the claim that high-profile atheists "show contempt" for believers in general. If you have evidence (say a link to an article or youtube video, then I'm willing to reevaluate). I think that the claim that folks like Dawkins are somehow raving evangelicals and contemptuous of believers is an assumption for which there's little evidence. That is, unless you define "contempt" as "unwilling to agree with me." It's not as though Dawkins is grabbing people by the lapels on the subway and calling them idiots. "The God Delusion" is a respectful and well-reasoned book. Sorry, but saying someone is wrong is not contemptuous. In fact, engaging people in a debate as equals is quite respectful.

So...enough of this "Oh, the New Atheists are so contemptuous" as though this is something everyone agrees about. If you've got something to back it up, link it. Otherwise, we'll assume this is just poisoning the well.

Sorry, but

-1,000,000

Talk about self-delusion, you must have your blinkers on really, really tight. That, or you're engaging in the sort of propaganda that right-wingers use, that if you assert something then people will/must believe it (sorry, you're not fooling anyone). Bonus points for the old canard about "not agreeing with me is disrespect" because I presume you're intelligent enough to know that the contempt shown by Dawkins and his ilk really is, you know, contempt.

I admire the first PP's democratic, respectful spirit. You, on the other hand, with your disingenuous BS about what a nice guy Dawkins is, are the reason it's so hard to have rational discussions here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think rebel rousers like Dawkins are helpful in getting any social movement off the ground. Think about the "flaming" gays early on in the gay rights movement. They aren't typical of gay people, but they sure attraced a lot of notice. Same with Gloria steinem in the women's movement, and the freedom riders for civil rights.

A lot of people now benefiting from those movements were against the early activists, calling them bra burners, uppity, strident and worse.

Fair point, and a good one. But having started the conversation, and gained public recognition for the concept that atheism is a valid (lack of) belief structure, we should still recognize that showing contempt to anyone simply because they believe in a deity is just rude and is exactly how we, as atheists, don't want to be treated.

We ask how believers can be so certain they are correct, and how they can claim a monopoly on "TRUTH!" and we ask them to respect our lack of belief. If we want that level of respect for our position, we should grant it for theirs.

(Then we can all get together, believers and atheists, and make fun of the Scientologists. )

I'm sorry, I don't buy the claim that high-profile atheists "show contempt" for believers in general. If you have evidence (say a link to an article or youtube video, then I'm willing to reevaluate). I think that the claim that folks like Dawkins are somehow raving evangelicals and contemptuous of believers is an assumption for which there's little evidence. That is, unless you define "contempt" as "unwilling to agree with me." It's not as though Dawkins is grabbing people by the lapels on the subway and calling them idiots. "The God Delusion" is a respectful and well-reasoned book. Sorry, but saying someone is wrong is not contemptuous. In fact, engaging people in a debate as equals is quite respectful.

So...enough of this "Oh, the New Atheists are so contemptuous" as though this is something everyone agrees about. If you've got something to back it up, link it. Otherwise, we'll assume this is just poisoning the well.

Hey, reposting with formatting because I want to make sure you read this:

Sorry, but

-1,000,000

Talk about self-delusion, you must have your blinkers on really, really tight. That, or you're engaging in the sort of propaganda that right-wingers use, that if you assert something then people will/must believe it (sorry, you're not fooling anyone). Bonus points for the old canard about "not agreeing with me is disrespect" because I presume you're intelligent enough to know that the contempt shown by Dawkins and his ilk really is, you know, contempt.

I admire the first PP's democratic, respectful spirit. You, on the other hand, with your disingenuous BS about what a nice guy Dawkins is, are the reason it's so hard to have rational discussions here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think rebel rousers like Dawkins are helpful in getting any social movement off the ground. Think about the "flaming" gays early on in the gay rights movement. They aren't typical of gay people, but they sure attraced a lot of notice. Same with Gloria steinem in the women's movement, and the freedom riders for civil rights.

A lot of people now benefiting from those movements were against the early activists, calling them bra burners, uppity, strident and worse.

Fair point, and a good one. But having started the conversation, and gained public recognition for the concept that atheism is a valid (lack of) belief structure, we should still recognize that showing contempt to anyone simply because they believe in a deity is just rude and is exactly how we, as atheists, don't want to be treated.

We ask how believers can be so certain they are correct, and how they can claim a monopoly on "TRUTH!" and we ask them to respect our lack of belief. If we want that level of respect for our position, we should grant it for theirs.

(Then we can all get together, believers and atheists, and make fun of the Scientologists. )

I'm sorry, I don't buy the claim that high-profile atheists "show contempt" for believers in general. If you have evidence (say a link to an article or youtube video, then I'm willing to reevaluate). I think that the claim that folks like Dawkins are somehow raving evangelicals and contemptuous of believers is an assumption for which there's little evidence. That is, unless you define "contempt" as "unwilling to agree with me." It's not as though Dawkins is grabbing people by the lapels on the subway and calling them idiots. "The God Delusion" is a respectful and well-reasoned book. Sorry, but saying someone is wrong is not contemptuous. In fact, engaging people in a debate as equals is quite respectful.

So...enough of this "Oh, the New Atheists are so contemptuous" as though this is something everyone agrees about. If you've got something to back it up, link it. Otherwise, we'll assume this is just poisoning the well.

Hey, reposting with formatting because I want to make sure you read this:

Sorry, but

-1,000,000

Talk about self-delusion, you must have your blinkers on really, really tight. That, or you're engaging in the sort of propaganda that right-wingers use, that if you assert something then people will/must believe it (sorry, you're not fooling anyone). Bonus points for the old canard about "not agreeing with me is disrespect" because I presume you're intelligent enough to know that the contempt shown by Dawkins and his ilk really is, you know, contempt.

I admire the first PP's democratic, respectful spirit. You, on the other hand, with your disingenuous BS about what a nice guy Dawkins is, are the reason it's so hard to have rational discussions here.

Lot of hot air--not much in the way of linkage, tho.

[Anonymous]

Dawkins "and his ilk" have made this dialogue possible.

I am glad of that.

A few years ago iit would be unlikely for an atheist to speak up or for a believer to take notice of an atheist as anything but an immoral loser.

times have changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Lot of hot air--not much in the way of linkage, tho.

Nobody is busting their butt for you, honey. You know perfectly well how often Dawkins is spiteful and contemptuous. (Whether or not you are a troll, this is a troll gambit: let's see if I can get anybody to waste their time digging me out some links for something I already know.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Lot of hot air--not much in the way of linkage, tho.

Nobody is busting their butt for you, honey. You know perfectly well how often Dawkins is spiteful and contemptuous. (Whether or not you are a troll, this is a troll gambit: let's see if I can get anybody to waste their time digging me out some links for something I already know.)

Talk about troll gambits!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Lot of hot air--not much in the way of linkage, tho.

Nobody is busting their butt for you, honey. You know perfectly well how often Dawkins is spiteful and contemptuous. (Whether or not you are a troll, this is a troll gambit: let's see if I can get anybody to waste their time digging me out some links for something I already know.)

So in other words, since you're unable to provide any evidence, we should take it on faith?



It's looking more and more like "he upsets me" is getting rounded up to "he's contemptuous". Part of being a rational adult in the marketplace of ideas is that not everyone is going to patronize your unsubstantiated notions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Lot of hot air--not much in the way of linkage, tho.

Nobody is busting their butt for you, honey. You know perfectly well how often Dawkins is spiteful and contemptuous. (Whether or not you are a troll, this is a troll gambit: let's see if I can get anybody to waste their time digging me out some links for something I already know.)

So in other words, since you're unable to provide any evidence, we should take it on faith?



It's looking more and more like "he upsets me" is getting rounded up to "he's contemptuous". Part of being a rational adult in the marketplace of ideas is that not everyone is going to patronize your unsubstantiated notions.

BS, and you know it. But you're not going to make anybody run around for you. Loser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Lot of hot air--not much in the way of linkage, tho.

Nobody is busting their butt for you, honey. You know perfectly well how often Dawkins is spiteful and contemptuous. (Whether or not you are a troll, this is a troll gambit: let's see if I can get anybody to waste their time digging me out some links for something I already know.)

So in other words, since you're unable to provide any evidence, we should take it on faith?



It's looking more and more like "he upsets me" is getting rounded up to "he's contemptuous". Part of being a rational adult in the marketplace of ideas is that not everyone is going to patronize your unsubstantiated notions.

BS, and you know it. But you're not going to make anybody run around for you. Loser.

If you can't pound the facts, pound the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Lot of hot air--not much in the way of linkage, tho.

Nobody is busting their butt for you, honey. You know perfectly well how often Dawkins is spiteful and contemptuous. (Whether or not you are a troll, this is a troll gambit: let's see if I can get anybody to waste their time digging me out some links for something I already know.)

So in other words, since you're unable to provide any evidence, we should take it on faith?



It's looking more and more like "he upsets me" is getting rounded up to "he's contemptuous". Part of being a rational adult in the marketplace of ideas is that not everyone is going to patronize your unsubstantiated notions.

BS, and you know it. But you're not going to make anybody run around for you. Loser.

NP here: you made the claim that Dawkins is spiteful and contemptuous. The burden is on you to provide evidence.