"Why are all you atheists so angry?"

[Moonwood the Hare]

I think her argument depends on questionable assumptions as I indicated above:
1. Religion is defined as belief in the supernatural - this is questionable because not all religions do involve supernatural beliefs. It is also ambivalent because a belief in the supernatural can mean a belief that nature is not all there is or a belief that there are events which the scientific method cannot explain or a belief that there are discreet gaps in the sequence of natural causality. There is also the problem that some atheists believe in the supernatural and hence on Greta Christina's own definition atheism and religion are not mutually exclusive.
2. Beliefs about the supernatural, unlike scientific beliefs, are unverifiable. - this seems to presupose both that scientific hypotheses are types of belief and that the scientific method is a verification process for these beliefs. Both these are questionable and several key atheist thinkers have questioned them.

3. Beliefs about the supernatural, unlike non-supernatural ideologies, are not open to correction by experience. This ignores just about the entire history of Christian spirituality which is all about reality checking and just about the entire history of atheist thought where there have been fashions and fads as well as arguments. So rather than advocating anti-superaturalism why not just advocate the ideal of an open society and piecemeal social engineering, Self knowledge through reflection, and openess to others especially those with whom we differ in our fundamental beliefs?

So the problem for me is that while she has listed a lot of social issues she has naively seen the cause of all these problems (the ones listed not all social problems whatsoever) as belief in the supernatural on the grounds that all the people responsible for these problems did believe in the supernatural and so were unquestioning in their social and political philosophy; she ends by giving examples of two supernaturalists who did question the social and political philosophies of their day and so undercuts her own argument that supernaturalists do not do this. Yet she places all her hopes for justice in belief in some form of naturalism. That is she thinks it would increase the possibility of justice if more people believed what she believes. But that raises the question can purely naturalistic beliefs give any basis for a belief in justice which after all cannot be objectively demonstrated to exist. This is not to deny that naturalists can aspire to justice but to ask where on a purely naturalistic worldview can we find a basis for a belief in justice.

Make a case why I should be civil in my reply to you. Look what you did -- you took the one section I suggested be tackled separately ignored everything else I argued, and focused on this one piece.

Which isn't even anything more than "Well, your naturalist position is every bit as weak as my religionist position".

When people do what you've done here, my response to them is this: Fuck you. You can't even take a few minutes to hear my position, you're so wrapped up in listening to the sound of your own voice and you're far too busy patting yourself on the back.

And then you link me to some high-minded talk about "civility" -- something you cannot aspire to long enough to hear what the other person is saying. Don't read this in an "angry voice" -- forget that for a moment, and listen to what's actually being said. If you can. I don't know if you can do it.

Just to say this was a response to your first post before I had read your second so my apologies. Let me read your second post and then respond to that in what I hope will be a civil manner!

[Keep The Reason]

Law determined by whom? Just because there are probably very few people (if none at all) wanting to get their eyes poked out doesn't automatically mean that poking peoples eyes out is wrong because it is wrong by some independent law, it simply means that a majority of people want to keep their eye balls.

I think we MUST get into an argument of its "right or wrongness"! A hundred years ago perhaps a person would have made a similar argument about the voting rights of women and how it should be clear that they shouldn't be allowed to vote, or we could go with slavery or homosexuality or anything that's changed from culture to culture time frame to time frame. You choose sexually abusing children because you think you'll be safe. You think that no one could ever disagree with you. Well if I understand correctly that hasn't always been the case in every culture at every point in human history. Its the same with the sanctity of human life (who determines when a person becomes too much of a burden on society, i.e. special needs unborn infants or even perfectly healthy unborn infants or what about old people?) or the purity of a families daughters (from what I understand daughters are sold into the sex industry in parts of our world even today).

And how does this change any differently by adopting the religious view? It doesn't. One can make exactly the same charges about religious claims as you have made against naturalistic ones. Now you're in the same boat as Moonwood:

Your argument for a god-ordered universe and morality is undemonstrable and "stinks"-- there is no argument that would establish the why of a god wanting people to do good; you just claim it so and think it's enough

Law determined by "whom" is exactly the same on either side of the equation-- it is, always, determined by people (it's not objective to not want to have one's eye's poked out, but it is common and subjective desire not to have it done)

You lose any authority about morality being somehow inviolate when you look to see there is no such a thing as absolute morality

Morality is just as deterministic and flexible on both sides of the debate.

And you have made your case of what is right and good many times and it stinks. Why should we ever think that the unconscionable path of natural selection would ever bring us something virtuous and good? Where would we ever get the funny idea that cooperation (which if your theory has any validity only propagates down to the next generation if it is profitable for survival, not because it is in fact good or right, as far as the process of natural selection is concerned so such thing exists and if it does there is no means within the process by which it can be intentionally and virtuously employed, its purely by accident that cooperating helps with survival) is the source of this sort of transcendental law of rightness?

Because the act of surviving is what life has evolved from and humans consider the surviving function to be desirable, and hence good. Surviving to pass itself on is intrinsic and inherent in life, and there are a vast number of means by which it can be accomplished. It's not "purely by accident" that cooperation assists in survival, but rather it's a natural law -- the Law of Economy. In order for a thing to be, it must cost somewhere else. I could have faster running legs, but they would have to be lighter and thinner, and hence more fragile. It's finding a balance between the competitive (speed) and the cooperative (durable) that propels an organism forward successfully.

Any creature wantonly eating all its competition and food supply would find itself starving, so built into the fabric of survival -- is the mechanism for cooperation. To think it's "purely an accident" is to deeply misunderstand what these basic concepts are.

What is right and good does change with time, but we are in the now, today, and the question is put to you: Is it valid to be angry over the injustices, or not? It doesn't matter to me if in 120 BCE 12 year old girls were married off to 40 year old men and it was the cultural norm; if it were the norm, then 12 year girls of the time didn't consider it wrong, and if they did, there's nothing any of us can do to change what impacted the dead even yesterday, let alone 2,000+ years ago.

And finally, if you take this path, then what is in place to stop yourselves form being victimized by it? Today the theists are the majority, and in power. Do you think that cannot change? Would you like to be treated to these injustices by secularists who then turn around to tell you that you haven't even defined right or wrong, and why should they listen to you?

By the way, the above paragraph is the naturalistic rationale for morality-- to be treated in a way that you would want yourself to be treated. The Golden Rule. It can even be seen across numerous higher animals. It is right because it affords the greatest amount of positive with a minimal amount of negative. And that's in everyone's favor (except I suppose, a masochist). If there is a "right" and a "wrong" -- it's based on human standards, and in this way, the standard is right.

[Keep The Reason]

If you need to be told why you should be civil I would suggest you have not understood civility.

I don't need to be told why. I said for you to make a CASE why I should bother given your response.

The section I took was central to her argument if that falls there is nothing left but a stack of rhetoric, a rant in other words.

What ARGUMENT? You're playing games. It's a speech -- and expressing of her opinions as to why she is angry-- and you know this. she isn't making any philosophical arguments-- she's venting her frustrations. You know this too. You certainly aren't stupid -- and it's clear what she's addressing-- but you decided to change it into something it's not so you can puff your chest and offer your "deep analysis on why she is wrong"

Clearly, you don't understand civility. The civil thing to do is to listen to someone's complaints, and let them know you've heard them, and then offer a way towards understanding.

If your significant other came to you and was angry and expressed her or his anger and resentment over perceived injuries, and you sat there and critiqued their "moral foundation and grounding to do so" would you not be the biggest douchebag in the room? Do you have any idea on how to communicate with people?

If she has tried to explain why she is angry and produced an argument that is incoherent then does that not even trouble you?

No-- for one, it's not "incoherent".

I'm angry at 9/11. At Christian intransigence and intolerance of gays. At the attempts to legislate morality. At the games played to marginalize people who believe differently. At the institutionalized sexual abuse of children and the subsequent coverups.

How are these "incoherent arguments"? They aren't arguments, they are emotional responses to events of injustice. Again I ask you-- and you refuse to answer I might add -- are you NOT outraged at any of these things? I get it you want to turn it all into a discussion of "valid moral grounding" but before we get there, are you not outraged by some of these things or not?

For another, people's emotional response to things aren't to be locked into little logic boxes. I get this crap: "Oh, the Reasonist who is ANGRY" as if one cannot have valid reason to be angry. Anger is an appropriate and reasonable response to things that are unjust, angering, and unfair. Reason is not just cold logic. It's the understanding of the balance of logic and emotion and the psyche of the human mind. Yet here you are, the sterile logician.

I mean we can start going into details about the examples she gives, for example we can look at what really happened in the case of Galileo or the Roman Catholic child abuse cases rather than just accepting the popularist versions but none of that will matter if her central argument is built on sand. The point is if two positions are both equally valid whether we call them weak or strong for these are after all relative terms then that gives us reasons for holding both in respect. I am a little weary of people who hope to solve the world's problems by getting everyone to think like them.

The idea that you can't see past anything but an "argument" is both pathetic and sad, and it is a core reason why there won't be civility. People who are upset about ills who get your type of response will say it clearly: Fuck you. Try applying this to your spouse when he or she is angry with you for some ill. Watch how magnificently will grow the resentment.

[Moonwood the Hare]

Hi KTR

No, I really am sorry. We have been posting over each other and I did not respond to your very civil and important longer post. Well I've now removed a lot of what people will be reading you responding to because I felt it was invalid in the total context of what had gone before; but it can stand in your post, perhaps as a kind of monument to misunderstanding. I am glad you appreciated the thing by Os. He gets hacked at about equally by both right and left. At least some of the stuff Greta Christina gets angry about gets me angry too. My response over the years has been to get involved in human rights activities. For example I spent most of last year running a human rights group which had a mixed membership of Christians, atheists and others. My proudest achievement with that was to arrange for two teenagers to visit Auschwitz and for them to speak alongside a survivor of the holocaust relating that to issues in the world today.

However with some issues I feel that people have grabbed the anti-religious aspect of something and run with it. It is horrendous that people in positions of trust such as priests abuse that trust but stories of a cover up seem to me to have been exaggerated (its difficult to say because some of the key documents relating to Cardinal Ratzinger as was are written in incomprehensible Vatican Latin). And of course child sexual abuse by members of the catholic clergy is significantly lower than it is amongst the general population; and I say that fully aware that there is a unique horror in it being a priest that does this but the fact remains that most child sexual abuse takes place within families.

I am not denying the reality of people's emotional response to situations but there are dangers if anger is misdirected. We have had cases in the UK where people have attacked people because they have heard they were paediatricians. And I feel much of Greta Christina's argument is misdirected, not in so crass a way as that of course but misdirected none the less. I feel there is at best a very tentative connection between believing in the supernatural and covering up or committing acts of paedophilia.

[Aaron]

Because the act of surviving is what life has evolved from and humans consider the surviving function to be desirable, and hence good. Surviving to pass itself on is intrinsic and inherent in life, and there are a vast number of means by which it can be accomplished. It's not "purely by accident" that cooperation assists in survival, but rather it's a natural law -- the Law of Economy. In order for a thing to be, it must cost somewhere else. I could have faster running legs, but they would have to be lighter and thinner, and hence more fragile. It's finding a balance between the competitive (speed) and the cooperative (durable) that propels an organism forward successfully.

The Law of Economy couldn't give a two pence how the equation balances only that it does. Good (doing what's right) on the other hand says to hell with the equation I only want to do what's right and if it means my demise or misfortune then so be it, it is the right thing to do. They may end up in the same place, but they are not the same thing. And we as humans have lots of things we find desirable, this never in no way ever means they are 'hence' good.

[Aaron]

Any creature wantonly eating all its competition and food supply would find itself starving, so built into the fabric of survival -- is the mechanism for cooperation. To think it's "purely an accident" is to deeply misunderstand what these basic concepts are.

So we've moved from a pea brained tyrannosaurus rex which wouldn't have the sense to not eat all of it's prey if given the chance (maybe they were smarter I'm just guessing) to a slightly smarter beast who in his craftiness chooses not to eat all of his prey if given the chance in order to ensure his survival?!? You've only described a creature with a slightly more advanced brain, not virtue itself, in fact in my opinion you've just described vice!

[Keep The Reason]

So we've moved from a pea brained tyrannosaurus rex which wouldn't have the sense to not eat all of it's prey if given the chance (maybe they were smarter I'm just guessing) to a slightly smarter beast who in his craftiness chooses not to eat all of his prey if given the chance in order to ensure his survival?!? You've only described a creature with a slightly more advanced brain, not virtue itself, in fact in my opinion you've just described vice!

No, I've described the inherent law. The T Rex didn't not eat everything in its sight because it was pea brained or greedy or not. It didn't eat everything in sight because it evolved to be full at a point and that precluded it from doing so or wanting to do so. It became "no longer hungry" -- just like it does with humans.

Maybe if you delved into the issue and understood the mechanisms, you'd be more in tune with the facts. That would, however, take some effort.

[Aaron]

No, I've described the inherent law.

You've described the amazing ability our universe has in seeking stability and not veering off exponentially like an unstable system would. I'm trying to describe the moral propensity that we feel that says even though I am way out of balance (my stomach isn't full for instance) I'm still going to do the right thing because its the right thing to do. I'm trying to suggest that even though your inherent law and the moral law may end up in the same place they are not the same thing. The ball rolls to the lowest point in the bowl but that doesn't mean the morality in letting it roll there was considered. Morality says even though I'm am naturally tending to such and such a desire it is not the right thing to do, I will resist the natural process and follow the high road.

[humanguy]

I want to point out that when a child is molested it hurts everyone, not just atheists. Atheists are not the only people who are aware of and angry about injustices done in the name of religion.

Atheists are not the only Americans whose lives changed on 9/11. Statistics would probably back me up when I say that on that day far more Christians than atheists were murdered.

Implying that Christians aren't just as outraged as atheists are over 9/11 or child molestation by priests or people who murder abortion doctors is to dehumanize Christians, making it easier for them to be perceived as an enemy to be angry at.

You won't agree with me on this, and there's no doubt about that, but I'm convinced that these and any and all other atrocities would be committed even if there was no such thing as religion. Blaming religion for these sorts of horrors can only be the result of looking at life through a filter. There's just simply more to it than that, there's much, much more to it than that.

[OzAnt]

You won't agree with me on this, and there's no doubt about that, but I'm convinced that these and any and all other atrocities would be committed even if there was no such thing as religion. Blaming religion for these sorts of horrors can only be the result of looking at life through a filter. There's just simply more to it than that, there's much, much more to it than that.

Matt & Trey would agree with you; Southpark season 10 episodes 12 & 13 (Go God Go & Go God Go XII) shows a world in the future where there is no longer any religion and in this world, not suprisingly given our history, atheists are at war with atheists. They're also amongst my favourite episodes 'cause Cartman gets shafted quite badly in them

Ant.

[mitchellmckain]

I have mostly ignored this topic because I thought the idea quite ludicrous, something like asking, "why are all you Christians so intolerant?" Well I don't think that even most atheists are angry any more than I think that most Christians are intolerant. Its just that the angry and intolerant of both of these make themselves so obnoxiously noticeable. I really am quite certain that there are a huge number of people who do not believe in God but that also don't go around make a big deal of it in other people's faces -- that is certainly my experience in the scientific community. They have no reason to consider it anybody's business but their own. It is when one of these intolerant "Christians" have made it their business and poked their nose so thoroughly into things which are not their business that many angry atheists are "born".

[Moonwood the Hare]

I want to point out that when a child is molested it hurts everyone, not just atheists. Atheists are not the only people who are aware of and angry about injustices done in the name of religion.

Atheists are not the only Americans whose lives changed on 9/11. Statistics would probably back me up when I say that on that day far more Christians than atheists were murdered.

Implying that Christians aren't just as outraged as atheists are over 9/11 or child molestation by priests or people who murder abortion doctors is to dehumanize Christians, making it easier for them to be perceived as an enemy to be angry at.

You won't agree with me on this, and there's no doubt about that, but I'm convinced that these and any and all other atrocities would be committed even if there was no such thing as religion. Blaming religion for these sorts of horrors can only be the result of looking at life through a filter. There's just simply more to it than that, there's much, much more to it than that.

To be fair on this humanguy Greta Christina did say she was not primarily concerned about injustices done to atheists but about injustices done in the name of religion in genera so the fact that Christians were killed in the 9/11 attacks would not in any way weaken her pointl. However she did list a load of stuff that would upset a lot of people whatever their belief systems. I agree though that there is more to it than trying to blame something called religion even for everything that has been done in the name of some religion or other. Ultimately Keep the Reason would say that these issues stem from a lack of critical thinking, and he sees religion in general as entailing an uncritical attitude. I am convinced that the things that lead to horriffic human behaviour do not stem from the rational part of us, and that the rational part is often helpless to apply the brakes. The various religious traditions have tried to work with the non-rational side of people and a lot of spiritual discipline is about bringing the rational and irrational aspects of a person into harmony with each other.

[Moonwood the Hare]

I want to point out that when a child is molested it hurts everyone, not just atheists. Atheists are not the only people who are aware of and angry about injustices done in the name of religion.

Atheists are not the only Americans whose lives changed on 9/11. Statistics would probably back me up when I say that on that day far more Christians than atheists were murdered.

Implying that Christians aren't just as outraged as atheists are over 9/11 or child molestation by priests or people who murder abortion doctors is to dehumanize Christians, making it easier for them to be perceived as an enemy to be angry at.

You won't agree with me on this, and there's no doubt about that, but I'm convinced that these and any and all other atrocities would be committed even if there was no such thing as religion. Blaming religion for these sorts of horrors can only be the result of looking at life through a filter. There's just simply more to it than that, there's much, much more to it than that.

To be fair on this humanguy Greta Christina did say she was not primarily concerned about injustices done to atheists but about injustices done in the name of religion in genera so the fact that Christians were killed in the 9/11 attacks would not in any way weaken her pointl. However she did list a load of stuff that would upset a lot of people whatever their belief systems. I agree though that there is more to it than trying to blame something called religion even for everything that has been done in the name of some religion or other. Ultimately Keep the Reason would say that these issues stem from a lack of critical thinking, and he sees religion in general as entailing an uncritical attitude. I am convinced that the things that lead to horriffic human behaviour do not stem from the rational part of us, and that the rational part is often helpless to apply the brakes. The various religious traditions have tried to work with the non-rational side of people and a lot of spiritual discipline is about bringing the rational and irrational aspects of a person into harmony with each other.

[Keep The Reason]

You've described the amazing ability our universe has in seeking stability and not veering off exponentially like an unstable system would. I'm trying to describe the moral propensity that we feel that says even though I am way out of balance (my stomach isn't full for instance) I'm still going to do the right thing because its the right thing to do. I'm trying to suggest that even though your inherent law and the moral law may end up in the same place they are not the same thing. The ball rolls to the lowest point in the bowl but that doesn't mean the morality in letting it roll there was considered. Morality says even though I'm am naturally tending to such and such a desire it is not the right thing to do, I will resist the natural process and follow the high road.

And I'm saying the natural outcome of the "amazing law of stability" is that we have the ability to weigh the consequences and choose to do the right thing even when inclinations dictate otherwise. Human beings certainly do change the game in this manner, but I'm talking about what the game itself is rooted in.

[Keep The Reason]

I have mostly ignored this topic because I thought the idea quite ludicrous, something like asking, "why are all you Christians so intolerant?" Well I don't think that even most atheists are angry any more than I think that most Christians are intolerant. Its just that the angry and intolerant of both of these make themselves so obnoxiously noticeable. I really am quite certain that there are a huge number of people who do not believe in God but that also don't go around make a big deal of it in other people's faces -- that is certainly my experience in the scientific community. They have no reason to consider it anybody's business but their own. It is when one of these intolerant "Christians" have made it their business and poked their nose so thoroughly into things which are not their business that many angry atheists are "born".

It's par for the course that you don't get the thrust of the topic, and instead reduce it to whatever 8mm movie plays in your head about social movements, anger, tolerance, and so on.

But what I do enjoy is the "higher road" you take to just barely manage-- and then fail miserably -- to stay out of topics I bring up. Just for the record, I get your dramatic quest for attention. You stay out nobly, ensuring all understands your point that KTR is beneath your involvement.... until your ego finally cannot manage it any longer and you just have to jump in with your moebius-loop sermon that reduces everything to your filter of "intolerance" and "bigotry" and "obnoxiousness". We get it-- you're on the "high road". The view must be lovely.

But before you toddle back off, let's apply your standards to... slavery. Child labor. Women's sufferage. Civil rights. Yes, I'm sure all those angry people were merely being intolerant and "obnoxious". Damn those obnoxious freedom fighters who were angry at the treatment of blacks in the 50s and 60s! How ludicrous to consider their anger and their repsonse to it!

In fact, doesn't the word "Obnoxious" appear under Rosa Park's name on her tombstone?