1451. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289480 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 7:07 pm

Comment #289476 by Bernstein

This is exactly what I suspected Steve's position on the matter may be.

It certainly is.

But, you are misrepresenting what I said. One could, for example, be an atheist, and stand for everything that you stand for, except that he may not openly support the full spectrum of gay rights. This does not necessarily make him irrational or a false atheist.

No, but it makes him a jerk.

1452. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289466 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 6:40 pm

Comment #289463 by Diacanu

You are a poet. You are supposed to be able to do that.

1453. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289459 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 6:36 pm

Comment #289454 by Bernstein

There's no paradox, Steve. You make it sound as if you have it all figured out... if only people would just listen.

Excellent.

When we try to spread the atheist meme, it now comes with the gay rights one too.

You can't spread an atheism meme. There isn't any such thing. Atheism does not have belief content.

The rationalist/secularist meme comes with rights for everyone. We don't need to do what you are doing and isolate groups that we do or don't support.

You are getting yourself in a state because you are trying to divide people into groups: atheists, religious people, homosexuals.

Just try thinking of people as individuals, and you will find things much easier.

1454. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289449 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Comment #289445 by mordacious1

I have just realised a parallel between Bernstein's views and the Zeno Paradox.

The Zeno Paradox is (If I remember right) that motion is impossible because to reach somewhere you have to go half the way there, then another quarter of the way, then another eighth and so on. It is an infinite sum.

The Bernstein Paradox is that campaigns are impossible because of an infinite number of groups who will want your support.

The solution to the Zeno Paradox is (partly) that some infinite sums add up to a finite value.

The solution to the Bernstein Paradox is that the sum of the infinite number of groups you have to support is finite: just say that you deny the rights of religions to oppress anyone.

There, problem solved.

1455. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289442 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 6:02 pm

You are the one who keeps bring up this shadowy homosexual agenda, not Steve.

I don't think it is appropriate for homosexual agendas to be shadowy. They should be flamboyant, perferably with sequins.

1456. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289438 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 5:57 pm

Comment #289425 by Bernstein

You are assuming there is a "rational" consensus on a wide variety of issues.

Did I use the word "rational" even once in my last post?

What I believe is that there is a general consensus that people don't want to be bullied by others.

That is the only thing I need to put my case. The argument for rationalism can come from nothing more than self-interest by religious groups in a mixed-faith society.

It goes like this: If one groups gets to proclaim what is right based on faith, then so do the others. Who wins depends on who shouts the loudest or has the most force. That is not acceptable in a fair society. Even many religious people see that. If you are having to deal with other religious groups, the only way to protect yourself is to have an agreed set of rules so that everyone gets a fair deal.

When you figure out what a good set of rules is for people to get along in this way, you end up with... rationalism! You end up with requests for testable, reliable evidence.

You don't actually need to promote the use of rationalism that hard - just show how useful it is in protecting yourself against the views of others.

Look at it this way. Suppose you had a court case. Suppose one side relied on faith and the bible, and the other on faith and the Koran. How exactly would things proceed? They could not. Most people in such situations expect more from the other side than proclamations of faith. They want to see hard reliable evidence, no matter what their own faith.

So we already have frameworks where people demand the use of reason to ensure fairness. All we need to do is extend that into general policy making, and not just legal situations.

1457. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289412 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 5:33 pm

I think I see it now.

Don't mess up the campaign against religion with any support for gay rights, as that is just baggage.

However, I think we should be consistent and extend this.

We should not mess up the campaign against religion with support for womens rights, as that is baggage too.

Same goes for the rights of children to have a decent scientific education not messed about with by creationism. That is clearly baggage.

Same goes for the issue of medical research. We don't want those pesky scientists hitching a ride on the atheist bandwagon do we?

Because we only want to get rid of religion to stop extremists flying planes into buildings.

Who cares about scientific research, the oppression of women, gay rights, the quality of education of children?

All that matters are the extremists.

But there is a bit of a problem with this. It won't help you to get rid of religion, if that is your aim. Because if you approach an ordinary Joe in the street and say that he should not be religious because some people fly planes into buildings, he will just say back to you that he isn't the kind of person to do that no matter what he believes. And he would be right. So you have no way to argue with him.

The way to show people that religion should be a private matter, and kept under control, is to show that it has a negative impact on the lives of millions, as shown by this article. Large numbers of religious people voted for oppressive legislation for religious reasons.

You aren't going to get such people to leave others alone by trying to convert them to atheism. That would probably take generations.

The way forward is to persuade such people that, for their own good, religion should be kept a personal matter. Tell them that this even protects them from the nasty atheists. We all have the right to believe what we like, but not to force it on others.

That is my nasty subversive "tactic" - I am not campaiging for gay rights using atheism. I am campaging for everyone's rights using secularism.

As I have posted, I don't even wish to be called an atheist.

1458. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289368 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Comment #289365 by Wosret

I haven't been gotten to. I am actually rather amused. I think he is so fixated on what he thinks gays want to actually have taken in much of what we have posted here.

1459. Just a little jab, won't hurt

Comment #289361 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Comment #289358 by Caligurl

The vaccine makers should make them safe for everyone, not just the majority.

That is not the judgement that is made. I think you will find that having cancer isn't very safe. That is why vaccinations, even if there is risk of a reaction, is preferable.

1460. Just a little jab, won't hurt

Comment #289359 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 3:55 pm

Comment #289356 by Caligurl

I have a Ph.D. in biology and a degree in biochemistry. One should always be cautious with medication, but different drugs have quite different origins, and so general allergy to them is not feasible.

Also, you have not posted here that one should use caution. You posted that people were being used as human guinea pigs. That is a serious charge.

In the past day there has been a warning about the spread of measles in the UK due to lack of take-up of vaccinations.

1461. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289353 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Comment #289352 by Bernstein

Not all homosexuals subscribe to your tactics.

And what do you think these tactics are, creep?

1462. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289351 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 3:41 pm

Comment #289347 by Bernstein

I presume by "my kind" you mean wicked manipulative gays, who are contaminating your "pure atheism"?

You really are a nasty piece of work.

1463. Just a little jab, won't hurt

Comment #289348 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Comment #289346 by mordacious1

I have had close friends die of cancer in recent years. I am sure they would have preferred a vaccine even if there was a nasty reaction rather than what they suffered.

1464. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289345 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Comment #289343 by Bernstein

I am gay, and I don't need people like you fighting for me, thank you very much.

Your sad fantasy that gay people are "using you" and your atheism in some way is insulting.

1465. Just a little jab, won't hurt

Comment #289344 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Comment #289340 by Caligurl

Personal experience is not reasonable evidence in this situation. There is no such thing as a "general succeptibility to side effects", as drugs vary widely in their nature, as to vaccinations.

No matter what you may think of the situation in the USA, other democratic governments around the world have been eager to introduce this vaccine.

1466. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289301 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Comment #289298 by Bonzai

I think it is an interesting proposal. The obsession with homosexuality is weird.

1467. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289297 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Comment #289293 by Bonzai

This isn't just different opinions. It is the posting of nutty stuff ("The Gay Delusion") and a refusal to deal with what is posted.

I think it is possible.

1468. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289289 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Comment #289285 by Quetzalcoatl

Decius suggests Bernstein is a plant, trying to stir things up. I think that hypothesis has merit. He could be trying to get us to link atheism with homosexuality (at least a support for gay rights).

1469. Just a little jab, won't hurt

Comment #289273 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Oh dear.

Creationists, climate change deniers, conspiracy theorists. They are all the same. They know better than the experts, and there is always some big secret plot to ruin their lives.

"Evilutionists" make up fossils.
The "Liberal elite" are evironmental nutcases.
Big Pharma is out to get us all.

1470. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289211 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 10:03 am

Comment #289209 by Sciros

Sorry, I didn't mean to be nastily sarcastic. I was just musing.

The point I was trying to make is that actively promoting anti-rationalism is not equivalent to leaving kids alone. It simply isn't indoctrination not to mention something.

1471. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289196 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 9:40 am

Comment #289194 by Sciros

I can. Unless you're aware of something I'm not (like for instance, that they actually discuss religion in early schooling and take a critical, rational approach to it and ask children to arrive at their own conclusions), it is childhood indoctrination and nothing more.

That is a strange use of the word "indoctrination". I suppose that I was indoctrinated into a lack of belief in fairies at school because we did not critically discuss the fair folk in biology lessons. Perhaps this is true.

However, I think that teaching children religion is an active encouragement to put aside rationality. It is not equivalent to not mentioning religion.

1472. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289190 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 9:33 am

Comment #289187 by Wosret

Don't you dare shave. I don't understand this obsession with men looking like boys.

1473. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289188 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 9:32 am

Comment #289185 by Sciros

An atheist by childhood indoctrination is still an atheist -- but you can't say "oh he's atheist so he's rational."

Somehow I can't see the situation in Sweden (for example) being as a result of childhood indoctrination.

I am saying that Swedes are not more rational than Americans or that Japanese are more rational than North Koreans. People are the same around the globe. They're not born smarter and more capable of rational thought in Japan.

This is about the possibilities of education. I have no doubt that as a result of education, the Swedes tend to think more rationally than Americans (on average).

1474. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289179 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 9:22 am

Comment #289176 by Sciros

But as an aside, I really don't like the general idea of "we can't stoop to their level." There's no universal reason for this,

I think there is. If you use the tactics of your opponent in this way, you can't then complain about how they operate. And, we are dealing with opponents who will not hesitate to use the charge of "hypocrisy".

1475. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289169 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 9:17 am

Comment #289163 by Sciros

That's great and all, but that doesn't make it true. And I'm sure we've all met at least a few folks who are clear counterexamples to that optimistic view (Joe Morreale, anyone?).

I think there is evidence that it is true. There are many societies where the majority are rationalists (such as Scandinavian countries).

There will always be people who won't respond, which is why I think secularism needs to be legally enshrined.

1476. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289158 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 9:09 am

Comment #289153 by Sciros

Here's why: Steve's approach of promoting general rationality will work for the, well, more intelligent of the populace.

The view of the UK government is that critical thinking (which is a foundation of rationality) should be possible for everyone, not just some intelligent elite.

Comment #289150 by decius

That is an interesting thought. If he can make it seem like atheists are invariably associated with nasty queers...

1477. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289145 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 8:47 am

Comment #289136 by decius

He is clearly a big silly. I wonder what gave him that idea?

1478. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289138 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 8:39 am

Comment #289134 by Bernstein

It's no surprise where you stand on the matter.

What is that supposed to mean?

I am not concerned about promoting homosexuality. All I want to promote is rationality and secularism, so that society is fair. Allowing same-sex marriage is a consequence of that, as are many other things, such as equal rights for women.

If other groups wish to help the fight for rationality and secularism, good for them.

You have made me think that actively encouraging out homosexuals to campaign for reason is a good idea. If you are so freaked out, just think how much pressure it will put on some religious people!

1479. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289129 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 8:29 am

Comment #289124 by Bernstein

You don't seem to be reading my posts.

I don't want to rid the world of all irrationality. I just want to live in a secular society. You are straw-manning all over the place.

Anyway, you are the one making problems for yourself with your "pure atheism" cause. As Baron Scarpia has shown, that will get you nowhere without the foundation of rationality, as atheism is merely a lack of belief in one thing. It does not get you world peace or whatever.

Look, you are wrong. You are wrong that rationality can't be taught. You are wrong that promoting atheism alone will stop people doing crazy things.

There is no shame in being shown to be wrong. It is one of the ways we rationalists learn things.

1480. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289107 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 7:55 am

Comment #289104 by Bernstein

Unnecessary baggage.

Why?

1481. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289103 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 7:53 am

By the way ... great posts Baron.

I particularly liked:

"Congratulations - you've just confessed that atheism is too small a peg to hang reason on."

1482. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289099 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 7:51 am

Comment #289098 by Bernstein

Now, can you tell me at what point I'm supposed to suddenly talk about homosexuality and why?

I suggest right at the start... how about with "Poofs! Don't they just creep you out?"

1483. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289096 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 7:50 am

Comment #289087 by Bernstein

You are the one not trusting people. You won't give people the tools of reason and let them make their own decisions about deities.

And, I do have to ask, after reading so many of your posts...

Seriously, what is your hangup about homosexuality?

1484. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289077 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 7:22 am

Comment #289075 by Bernstein

To assume that reason or rationality can be "taught" to people in such a way that it applies to such a wide range of issues is being disingenuous.

You are wrong. There have long been standard ways of teaching rationality and critical thinking that have been used in education. This kind of teaching is being promoted by the UK government, encouraging teachers to include instruction about how to evaluate evidence and use reason in their lessons.

This makes me suspect you don't really understand what it is you think you are rejecting.

Comment #289076 by AllanW

Yet it leads me to think we might be able to turn the tables on the current cretinist agenda; 'teach the controversy' equally well applies to this concept of teaching rational scepticism versus religious dogma, doesn't it?

Yes. This why I think the move to increase "critical thinking" teaching in UK schools is such a good idea.

1485. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289073 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 7:07 am

Comment #289070 by Bernstein

Are you saying that belief in god is some kind of "default" for the human race?

For those who aren't educated about the methods of reason, yes. At least a belief in the supernatural.

Bear in mind that some people may be opposed to things like homosexuality for cultural reasons as well.

Exactly. That is why we promote reason, not atheism.

They might still be homophobes, but they're less likely to blow you up because their god tells them to.

Promote reason and you deal with both issues.

1486. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289067 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 7:00 am

Comment #289066 by Bernstein

Fewer people tempted to fly planes into buildings.

Actually, no, you haven't got that. Because if you try and promote atheism without reason, there is no foundation for atheists to stay atheist.

You are seriously on the wrong track.

You need to change the way people think, not just what they think.

1487. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289065 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 6:53 am

Comment #289062 by Bernstein

One should be free to disbelieve in god without having to believe in homosexuality.

If you just aim to promote atheism, what will you have achieved? Irrational people who don't believe in God. They may still believe that their gut feelings are some kind of truth, and they may still believe that spirits are talking to them.

Forget about atheism. Forget about homosexuality. Promote rationality and allow for a real debate.

1488. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289061 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 6:49 am

Comment #289052 by Bernstein

Are you suggesting that the same "rationality" that leads to atheism necessarily leads to the acceptance of homosexuality? What else does this rationality, in your view, necessarily lead to?

I don't care. What I want is for people to be able to think clearly and deal with arguments and disagreements in a way that is fair for all. That is what rationality and secularism gives.

Encourage rationality and who knows where it can lead? The point is that the existence of Gods, homosexuality, stem cell research etc. are then open for discussion, not closed for debate by faith.

By promoting "atheism" and not "reason" you aren't actually opening up discussion. You have a single-issue campaign that isn't going to deal with real problems.

1489. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289050 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 6:34 am

Comment #289049 by Bernstein

I would leave the term, "rationality", in the broad sense, out of it. I would focus, strictly, on why belief in gods is "unnecessary".

But without rationality, you have no basis to argue that.

I wouldn't start by trying to sell what might appear like my own biased opinion on such issues under the guise of promoting atheism.

That is a problem you make for yourself by attempting to promote "atheism" rather than "reason".

Comment #289048 by jabber

What if that strategy doesn't work - who else might he suggest could be sacrificed to the 'cause' - isnt this mind set so familiar?

Indeed.

1490. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289045 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 6:15 am

Comment #289043 by Bernstein

This, I think, is a dangerous way to play it. You are, in effect, saying that people with a different opinion on certain issues than yourself, are irrational.

No. I am saying they have beliefs that aren't rational. There is no harm in saying that. We all have irrational beliefs at some level. That is part of being human. What I want is for irrational beliefs to be personal and largely private. Religion should be a personal matter, not something that is involved in public discussions of truth and ethics.

It may surprise you, but many religious people support this view. In increasingly multi-faith societies secularism protects personal belief against oppression, and ensures fairness for all in the public space.

Barak Obama has stated quite clearly that all points of view regarding policies must be expressed in a way that can be deal with using reason and argument. He is a secularist.

Right now, it's getting difficult to identify or focus on what exactly it is we are fighting for.

No. It is just that you seem to have a problem with this. I know exactly what I am fighting for. First, secularism. Second, for religious beliefs to be considered as silly as a belief in dragons and fairies. The first is, I believe, quite achievable in the short term. The second may take generations.

Saying "atheism is true" achieves nothing. The only way to change beliefs is using argument. That involves reason. So, your approach is mistaken. You need to promote reason in the first place to even have a chance of persuading people to be atheist, if that is your goal.

1491. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289036 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 5:25 am

Comment #289034 by jabber

Gay men don't seem to want to be parntered with an 'obvioulsy' gay man - camp is fine in a best freind, but not in a husband

Please don't generalise like this.

1492. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289011 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 3:58 am

Comment #289004 by Bernstein

It's one thing to tell people it's irrational to believe in god but quite another to tell them that their homophobia (this word has a wide brush, by the way) is somehow god-induced as well.

Who is suggesting that? The only thing we are suggesting is that their homophobia is enabled by their belief that it is God's will.

I think you really misunderstand what people here want to do. My feeling is that what they want to do is promote rationality, not specifically atheism. So effectively you are setting up a straw man - promotion of pure atheism - and then saying how it should and should not be done.

If we promote rationality, that should include acceptance of homosexuality, womens rights, and so on. That we are atheists is a consequence of this, not the prime motivation.

1493. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #288998 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 3:02 am

Comment #288996 by Quetzalcoatl

Something that puzzles me. If Jesus needed to go down to Hell to sort things out for us, why didn't he just go there? All that scourging and crucifixion seems and awfully long-winded way to go about things.

Even if he needed to die to get there, there are much quicker and less painful ways.

1494. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #288991 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 2:52 am

Comment #288989 by Quetzalcoatl

However, promotion of reason and rationality practically requires us to take a stance against bigotry and discrimination, religion-fuelled or otherwise. Atheists can condone homosexuality and fight for gay rights without it being about their atheism.

Absolutely.

We have to promote reason and rationality as positive positions. That means not allowing people to condemn others on the basis of religion, or gut feelings. They have to come up with rational justifications for their views. Unless we challenge such views, we could end up with secular bigots as against religious bigots. We should insist on rational discussion of everything - not just religion!

Refusing to challenge them on certain aspects of their beliefs, particularly those that are discriminatory, because you are afraid they will reject it is nothing less than pandering to their bigotry. And quite frankly I'm sick and tired of seeing that in the world. It's time for it to change.

*applause*

1495. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #288979 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 12:10 am

Shrommer-

Everything good that we ever experience on earth is thanks to God.

God either interferes in the world, or he doesn't. If he does, then he is responsible for everything evil too. There is huge suffering in the world. Combine that with the suffering of his son, and there is only one conclusion possible:

God is nasty.

1496. Bush set to relax endangered species rules

Comment #288848 by Steve Zara on November 22, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Comment #288846 by Titania

So please forgive my impulsiveness. I could not miss meeting you.

I will e-mail with some thoughts.

1497. Bush set to relax endangered species rules

Comment #288844 by Steve Zara on November 22, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Comment #288842 by Quetzalcoatl

To not discuss it at all is to miss an opportunity to educate a wider audience.

Absolutely.

Sorry, Titania - I still have scars from "muslim immigration/explusion" discussions on this site. Your intentions are admirable.

1498. Bush set to relax endangered species rules

Comment #288841 by Steve Zara on November 22, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Comment #288840 by Titania

I think hungarianelephant would be a very valuable contributor.

1499. Bush set to relax endangered species rules

Comment #288839 by Steve Zara on November 22, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Comment #288837 by Quetzalcoatl

You have already guessed what I was going to post :)

1500. Bush set to relax endangered species rules

Comment #288838 by Steve Zara on November 22, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Comment #288831 by Titania

You are doing a truly wonderful job of organising things. What I would suggest (and I will e-mail in more detail) might be a discussion of why people come up with the idea of restricting immigration based on religion. We could then discuss the deep problems with this, and how we deal with extremists within existing national and international laws regarding human rights.

I think we could have a very positive discussion about how to deal with religious extremists without fuelling the bigots.