"We just want Jews to be perfected."

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Arrian
Question: Why is calling a religion dumb bigotry? I've seen this general tendency to respond to criticism of belief by calling it bigotry*.

Yet one chooses one's beliefs, or should. I mean, I've no doubt lots of people were "born" Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. and never thought about it but that's pretty obviously bad and worthy of ridicule in its own right.

If I say communism is wrong and mock a commie for his/her beliefs, I'm not called a bigot, and rightfully so. I may be wrong, or a jerk, but that's another matter.

If I say that Christianity (or a particular sect, or a particular Christian belief) is stupid and mock a Christian for his/her beliefs, I'm a bigot? I don't ****ing think so.

-Arrian

* - Kuci's comment is different b/c he sets it up as "Christians are acceptable..." Disagreeing with that essentially makes you a fan of Goodthink (or whatever it was called in 1984).

I agree with you that religious beliefs should be as mockable as political ones. But people do not "choose" their beliefs. Go ahead and choose to be a communist for the next 30 minutes, or a Sikh, or a follower of something else you don't currently believe in. You can't.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Arrian
Actually, I much prefer the Christians who don't believe the logical conclusions of their own axioms. The ones who do are bothersome.

Again, I much prefer the second group.

And yet I agree hypocrisy is bad. How can this BE?



-Arrian

That means you, like most humans, are irrational since each conclusion deductively follows from the premises.

[Arrian]

I think there is another possibility, Kuci:

I reject premise #2 and am therefore a (rational, damnit!) bigot.

Seriously, though... if one finds the "core beliefs" (or some of them) of Christianity to be bad, then one can rationally want Christians to ignore their core beliefs (or some of them) as much as possible, no?

edit: if the "core beliefs" in question are bad enough, this can trump one's distaste for hypocrisy, can't it? How is that irrational?

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by LordShiva

I agree with you that religious beliefs should be as mockable as political ones. But people do not "choose" their beliefs. Go ahead and choose to be a communist for the next 30 minutes, or a Sikh, or a follower of something else you don't currently believe in. You can't.

Uh-oh, we're going to have to define "choice" now, aren't we?

Beliefs are things that, hopefully, you've thought about. They can change. You can, in fact, convert to a new religion or philosophy. I know my politics have changed over time. I could, in fact, choose communism at some point in the future (unlikely, but possible).

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Arrian
I think there is another possibility, Kuci:

I reject premise #2 and am therefore a (rational, damnit!) bigot.

Of course that's a possibility, I already said it was. But if you do so, we have nothing to discuss. It's also a bit rich of you, then, to complain about Coulter being a bigot

Seriously, though... if one finds the "core beliefs" (or some of them) of Christianity to be bad, then one can rationally want Christians to ignore their core beliefs (or some of them) as much as possible, no?

That would be a rejection of Premise 3. I value intellectual rigor too much to do so (I also believe that lack of rigor helps exactly the religions you complain about more than it hurts them.)

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by LordShiva


I agree with you that religious beliefs should be as mockable as political ones. But people do not "choose" their beliefs. Go ahead and choose to be a communist for the next 30 minutes, or a Sikh, or a follower of something else you don't currently believe in. You can't.

In a way people might do so.
They can consciously decide to spend time thinking about the things they believed so far and afterwards reevaluate them, which might lead to a change in their beliefs

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Arrian
Beliefs are things that, hopefully, you've thought about. They can change. You can, in fact, convert to a new religion or philosophy. I know my politics have changed over time. I could, in fact, choose communism at some point in the future (unlikely, but possible).

They can certainly change. But teh only voluntary part about becoming a communist is the act of declaring it. All of the background thoughts, evidence selection and weighting, etc., are pretty much involuntary actions.

IIRC, one of teh earliest arguments in favour of freedom of religion was by Locke, who said that since people cannot voluntarily choose what to believe, it makes no sense to try to force them to do so, so let them be.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Arrian
I think there is another possibility, Kuci:

I reject premise #2 and am therefore a (rational, damnit!) bigot.

Of course that's a possibility, I already said it was. But if you do so, we have nothing to discuss. It's also a bit rich of you, then, to complain about Coulter being a bigot

Seriously, though... if one finds the "core beliefs" (or some of them) of Christianity to be bad, then one can rationally want Christians to ignore their core beliefs (or some of them) as much as possible, no?

That would be a rejection of Premise 3. I value intellectual rigor too much to do so (I also believe that lack of rigor helps exactly the religions you complain about more than it hurts them.)

1. When did I say Coulter was a bigot? I simply questioned why people cared what she said. My next post backed your basic premise that what she said was a logical extension of (fundie) Christian belief. WTF?

2. Lesser of two evils. The extension of your argument is that you would rather the (vast majority of Americans) Christians to all go fundy on us than be "hypocrits" who have a weakness for secularism. I'll pass, and I reject the idea that it is irrational of me to do so. I'll grant that a lack of intellectual rigor probably helps religion, though.

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

My expereince is that it is Christians who stop thinking about Christianity that stop beleiving, not those who are thinking about it.

On the otherhand, people who never understood it can start thinking about it, and realise that they don't agreed with it.

JM

[Arrian]

Originally posted by LordShiva

They can certainly change. But teh only voluntary part about becoming a communist is the act of declaring it. All of the background thoughts, evidence selection and weighting, etc., are pretty much involuntary actions.

IIRC, one of teh earliest arguments in favour of freedom of religion was by Locke, who said that since people cannot voluntarily choose what to believe, it makes no sense to try to force them to do so, so let them be.

The "background stuff" is not publicly declared, sure, but it is stuff you chose to do. You choose to read (or not read) a book (Bible, God is not Great, whatever). You choose to ponder the mysteries of the universe (or not), etc.

So basically I find myself disagreeing with Locke.

edit: I had a friend in college who converted to Catholicism as a teenager. His parents were atheistic. He thought about things and chose Catholicism. Strange guy. Anyway, he wasn't the best Catholic at times, but what 18 year old freshman at a co-ed college is?

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

1. When did I say Coulter was a bigot? I simply questioned why people cared what she said. My next post backed your basic premise that what she said was a logical extension of (fundie) Christian belief. WTF?

My arguement is a response to the ideas expressed in the OP, and others who complained about what she said.

2. Lesser of two evils. The extension of your argument is that you would rather the (vast majority of Americans) Christians to all go fundy on us than be "hypocrits" who have a weakness for secularism.

I don't believe that "going fundy" is the logical conclusion of Christian tenets. In fact, the fundamentalists violate many of them in their political beliefs, IMO.

Ideally, all Christians would rationally reject Christianity and become atheist humanists

[Kuciwalker]

(re: rejecting premise 3)

Originally posted by Arrian
I'll pass, and I reject the idea that it is irrational of me to do so. I'll grant that a lack of intellectual rigor probably helps religion, though.

I do not believe I ever stated rejecting premise 3 makes anyone inherently irrational; I suspect there are consistent beliefs that do reject it. If I have stated that rejecting premise 3 makes one irrational, I apologize, because that is mistaken.

What I did say is that I do believe Premise 3, and will not accept someone disputing it (in the course of this argument) without providing a good, consistent rationale.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Arrian
The "background stuff" is not publicly declared, sure, but it is stuff you chose to do. You choose to read (or not read) a book (Bible, God is not Great, whatever). You choose to ponder the mysteries of the universe (or not), etc.

But doing those things are not the same as believing.

We're talking here about the kinds of beliefs that require more than a dispassionate appraisal of the evidence. Two people, say, a socialist and a libertarian, can look at teh same situation and come up with completely different ideas. They can both see that you have, say, one person richer than teh other, can agree on all of teh reasons for it and all of teh numbers and prevailing political conditions, and teh socialist will say "I value equality, take teh rich persons money and give it to teh poor one" and teh libertarian will say "I value freedom, let teh rich person make his money and do with it as he pleases." Those sorts of value judgments are not of our choosing, but teh result of (for want of a better term) who we are. This is not to say they cannot change as we have new experiences or grow older or learn new things, but we cannot "choose" to make the opposing value judgment.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

1. When did I say Coulter was a bigot? I simply questioned why people cared what she said. My next post backed your basic premise that what she said was a logical extension of (fundie) Christian belief. WTF?

My arguement is a response to the ideas expressed in the OP, and others who complained about what she said.

2. Lesser of two evils. The extension of your argument is that you would rather the (vast majority of Americans) Christians to all go fundy on us than be "hypocrits" who have a weakness for secularism.

I don't believe that "going fundy" is the logical conclusion of Christian tenets. In fact, the fundamentalists violate many of them in their political beliefs, IMO.

Ideally, all Christians would rationally reject Christianity and become atheist humanists

1. Ok, but I didn't make that argument. I started quibbling with yours because... well, have a look at the OT today. This thread, somehow, became the interesting one. And now I have to go. Anyway, good job there.

2. I don't have the time to properly word my response to that. Bah. Talk to ya tomorrow.

-Arrian

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by Arrian


There is some wiggle room in there, sure. I could argue that my rejection of Christianity is not due to "stubborn and complete intolerance" but rather a reasoned examination of the evidence/arguments, and of course my own experiences.

I still think that definition matches up poorly with how "bigot" is used today.

-Arrian

I have a more direct answer to your question to why you would not be a bigot for calling communism stupid, but would be a bigot for calling a religion stupid. It's simple really, religion is on a whole new personal level with people then polotics are. In fact, our polotics change all the time, but our religion stays the same. Insulting ones religion is a personal attack against that person calling into question their worth as a person. Many people feel religion defines them as much as skin color or sex. Many cultures are based on religions. Insulting a religion may be seen as the same as telling somebody they are less of a person for their faith.

Understand, I'm not saying I feel that way, but I'm sure many do.