Mmmmm... We are spinning off topic on a subject (more like two) which I find interesting and important. However it is complex and unfortunately emotionally charged. Opinion is beyond logic, except for issues of consistency. I do not wish to offend you, and I do not wish to come off as challenging your feelings/opinons as wrong.
I have read your entire reply and you make some compelling arguments. If you want to pursue this as a more in depth discussion (perhaps even a Great Debate) I'd be open to such. For brevity I will address the central points that I think encapsulate what I think we are discussing.
I am happy to live with religious people as long as it is a personal belief. In truth I live happily with them even if they do indoctrinate their children but am just opposed to the practice.
What you stated above is basically my own position. I am, as I have said, personally repulsed by Abrahamic tenets, as well as any dogma (religious or other) and prefer a life grounded in a more sober, analytical approach to knowledge of the world in which I live.
I would prefer my children live in that same fashion from birth, and not be exposed to much of what I consider nonsense, or irrationality, until they are confident in the lifestyle that I would want them living.
While I might wish my neighbors would agree with me and my lifestyle, they likely will not. While I wish they wouldn't raise their children the way they do, they likely will. Though I may bring the subject up with my neighbors, or chuckle about them with people of my lifestyle, I would not expect or demand them to change or share my opinion on life.
Fanaticism is almost never in the name of atheism, either. Secondly, draw a list up of the atrocities committed in the name of atheism, & another in the name of religion. You'll find it a very one sided scale. I can't think of any atrocities committed in the name of atheism. It's not that atheists aren't capable of atrocity, it's just that atheism in & of itself doesn't lead them to it.
This is true and yet misleading to what is being discussed. Atheist fanatics won't do something in the name of atheism, as there is no "atheism" to be named. They will however join other factions and certainly can commit atrocities in the name of "antitheism", as well as pro secular causes they find important.
In a similar way, while theists may kill in the name of a particular God, they do not do so for "theism" in general. And when they kill for a God they are in practical reality doing so to protect (or advance) a particular set of social doctrines/practices, or maybe even a particular mortal leader. For example I would find it naive to claim that the 9/11 hijackers actually killed themselves for God, rather than for a specific ideology/movement.
The key to this is that atheism and theism may both lead to fanaticism in cause on particular issues. Atheists do not hold some rational cure, or immunity to that phenomena. I think there is no question that theists have commited more atrocities. I would argue that this is because there haven't been many atheists in general up till now.
It may be argued that certain religions, monotheistic ones in particular, allow for greater conditions which lead to fanaticism. That may be true, but then that does not help argue for atheism in general.
“Societal fixation on protecting children”?! Instilling an unfounded fear in children is mental abuse. It is inescapable.
I think your claim is highly unrealistic. The definition of abuse has become so watered down at this point that everything seems to count. In the above case "unfounded" is based on your worldview. But ignoring that, instilling fear is not abuse, unfounded or otherwise.
If a parent tells their kid not to go to the park alone, or talk to strangers, because they might be kidnapped, this may be quite unfounded and create a permanent distrust of parks or strangers. A parent may tell their child not to use too much electricity because it uses up power and will lead to global warming that will kill everything on the planet. A parent may warn their child never to use drugs or they will go crazy, maybe die. A parent may warn their kid that sexual material will harm them and they need to stay away from it, and not so anything sexual (even masturbate), until they are 18...
All of this is unfounded fear, but it is not abuse. Growing up means one will be indoctrinated in some worldview. Since absolutely no one has a claim on knowing the truth of the world, and will have some particular bias about something, parents will ultimately instill some irrational fear or bias in their kid.
Kids get over it. Hearing that some kid went bananas because they found out their parents lied about Santa Claus, tells me something about that kid, not about the practice of pretending there is a Santa Claus. Granted there can be some specific cases of such hard indoctrination that a person does nothing but suffer, but that has to be made on a specific basis, and not thrown at whole religions or religion itself.
If your claim is true, particularly when linking harm with irrationality, then the history of the world has essentially been one of a race of mentally abused people... particularly as much of it has involved a belief in theism, and for the western world, monotheism.
But you don't have beliefs, Holmes. You have an acceptance that logic, reason & a requirement for evidence are of import, & that they are demonstrably useful. It is not the same thing.
It is the same thing. We all have beliefs. My atheism does not lead to reason and scientific methodology, nor vice versa. I have seen highly religious people that were excellent scientists (commited to that methodology), and atheists who are not science minded at all.
The findings of science challenge some specific tenets written in some specific books. It will be up to theists to somehow square that away. Those that abandon science choose to give up something quite useful... then again they may only ignore it in some rather specific spots. I have seen atheists abandon science and reason all the same when it runs counter to their personal, unwritten tenets.
Atheists as well as science minded people can equally practice and defend: discrimination of minorities (gender,age,sexuality,drug use, etc), slavery, and death penalty for "victimless crimes". You are right atheists who are against such things do not have to explain why they claim a belief based around a book that does excuse such things, but that seems to be a minor point. Atheist writers certainly have justified such things.
You sidestepped my point on being an anti-fanatic was anti-multicultural. I chose the most extreme example I could think of, but there are many others.
I believe being anti-fanatic is not being anti-multicultural as the fanatics (according to my own definition of that term) are invariably engaged in anti-multiculturalism, intolerance, and moving toward violent action. They not only do not like the way I live but they are going out of their way to eliminate me.
Once arms are raised, or being raised, against me and my lifestyle, then we are facing a completely different situation.
Within my own society I may also have cause to work against, and verbally challenge the practices of some other systems. That would be to stop my civil rights from being violated. But again that is not antimulticultural, my culture CONTAINS the concept of civil rights.
On the other hand I do not believe in changing the value systems of other cultures and nations. It really is none of my business, unless they are arming for war against me. So as for your list of things other cultures do... yes westerners should stop trying to change other cultures to fit our own paradigm.
China, Japan, India, the Polynesians, the American Indians, all had valid cultures which functioned in ways quite opposite of the way we thought then, as well as today. I maintain it was hubris to change them to fit our own then, and it remains so today. We were not superior then and we are not superior today. We are all different.
Cultural diversity means that yes in some parts of the world people will oppress minorities, or do a variety of things we find repulsive. Amazingly members of those societies generally do not view it in that same way. Sure we can introduce them to our standards and get them upset with their own, but that is the same missionizing principle used in the past, and like then would not stand up except for the vast economic and military power the western world can wield against them.
I don't see how changing cultures is any less repulsive today, then when we did so to say the Polynesian Islanders, just because we leave out the part about having to believe in God.
Dawkins uses many examples of theism, not a single one. He does not tar everyone with the same brush. Far from it. But religion can lead to religious fanaticism & saying so isn’t fallacious or insulting. It’s a statement of fact.
I think it is fair to say that Dawkins primarily focuses on Abrahamic texts. And he spends his time focusing on the fanatics, rather than on the moderates or even the light theists. He really does not spend time making clear how little this represents most theism, nor that it does not mean theism inherently leads to such things. This gives a vastly skewed vision of religion (even if I wholly agree with his analysis of the literal Abrahamic God as well as such fanatics).
Likewise, he spends no time on atheists engaged in similar behaviors, or calling for similar things as the theist fanatics. He also spends much time connecting atheism with rational thought, and scientific progress, which are not synonymous.
Thus the overall picture and manner of debate is fallacious and insulting. Did you watch the clips of Dawkins at the link Straggler provided?
“It is my fucking business when you impose your irrational beliefs on members of my society that lack the mental faculties to properly assess them, especially when there are so many potential negative corollaries involved. So perhaps you should mind your own fucking business & leave other human beings to determine their own religion or worldview.”
Their children are not yours and vice versa. Once you set a precedent that you (or any members of a society) have privileges that override the rights of a parent, they have a legitimate right to call your own views and instructions into question. Same goes when one culture starts trying to effect another through force of legal, economic, or military might.
I agree they should be leaving me and mine alone. Consequently I will agree to leave them and their's alone, until they directly threaten mine.
You are just being intolerant of their deeply held conviction that they should indoctrinate others, right?
This is an interesting problem. You are absolutely correct in pointing out that some belief systems mandate trying to change others. I suppose that is exactly where my multiculturalism ends to some degree. I guess it would all depend on the methodologies employed to make the changes.
In the end this reaches back to the point I made about fanaticism. Once a person moves to threaten another person in order to change their culture, then it is simply warfare. That is not some "debate", or "interraction", which might inherently lead to changes. That is intolerance, antimulticulturalism (as part of the makeup of their system), and violent action.
A state of war is different than a state of peace. Once war begins, self-preservation is higher than principles of how to deal with those who are not attacking you directly. And in that case dialogue is at an end anyway.
Uhhmmmm... yeah, this was an attempt at brevity on the matter. I hope I did not come off as offensive, and managed to make my stance more clear.
Edited by holmes, : stated
holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
Now if only we can settle the dogma definition!
™ Version 4.2