Comments on: Do Atheists Hate Christmas?

By: Pacific Babe

Pacific Babe — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 01:37:48 +0000

And that means what Anon3? It doesn’t let you off the hook … you are accountable for teaching christians that basic human pleasures are sinful when sin does not and can not exist. That’s the whole missionary + christian agenda and you bought it hook line and sinker … well that, and collecting money from the church congregation for candlesticks. We all know how important money is to the church! If one of your boys is gay will you pray away the gay or just warn them that most living christians will want to beat the crap out of them or drag them behind P/U trucks? People on my team will not react way. You can tell your gay or straight son that we want them to enjoy their life however they care to live it and not one of us will harm them. It’s because YOU have taught twisted logic to vulnerable people who have a difficult time sorting out right from wrong that they resort to taking the law into their own hands. You are responsible for the murder of abortion doctors, the deaths of women who have used coathangers to abort a fetus, the deaths and beatings of gays, and you are responsible for the suffering of amputees and those with terminal health disease because it is YOU who have taught others that there are sins and suffering is dutiful. Where is your compassion? You are cold, callus and genuinely a really horrible person based on your responses here. Did you learn to behave that way in buybull study? You’ve failed to demonstrate an ounce of compassion in ANY of your responses. The only compliment I can make is that you’re a smart ass and sometimes it can be funny. You’ve failed to grasp any of Jason’s responses to you. I care about people who have lost their lives or livelihoods because of what christianity teaches. Do you have any idea how many poor people I met in my career with hoards of children who every week tithed 10% of their income to a sky fairy? Guess what? The banks foreclosed on many of those people and now they are at a homeless shelter … where is the church? Their kids needed food, shoes and books but the church kept intimidating them for more and more money. Really sick. Christians have PRETEND morals, PRETEND faith and PRETEND love of a mythical god. When a tribal person in Africa thinks a gay person engages in sinful sex or a woman looks at a man in which they judge is a sinful way or a woman aborted a fetus sinned, they feel they have a duty to defend the all-knowing sky fairy, so the best thing they can think to do is to take a hammer to the sinners head. All of that comes from your lousy book and the instructions that you and other christians continue preach to vulnerable people. Am I to forgive the stupid christians who misunderstood the missionary? Am I to forgive BREWER when this sort of action doesn’t offend him and he’s proud to claim he’s a christian? I lift my middle finger to that idea! YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE for the harm that comes to women, gays and children because you don’t teach morality, instead you teach your perception of a sin and that jesus and a sky fairy need protection. You teach HATE, pure and simple. No matter how christians try to spin it, it comes out as HATE.

Brewer are you reading this? You bet I’m still really angry! What is it that you said earlier? … I’d be a terrible mother?? and how did you arrive at that? Is it because I have compassion when christians don’t? I think lousy parents are like Anon3 who intentionally lie to their children, intimidate them with a hell or Abraham story, and choose to remain pridefully ignorant. I think lousy despicable people are like Anon3 who too willing oppress women and gays. This response might have been to Anon3, but I blame every christian, liberal or not, black or white, gay or straight for the suffering that’s occurred b/c they think there is “SIN”. Get real. Grow up! Let the law take care of anything that is criminal, teach morality by introducing young people to moral and ethical friends, introduce morals thru good books, fiction or non-fiction and keep creation mythology out of things or if you must teach mythology, be honest and tell the kids what it is … a myth! It’s time for religion to die. Please if anyone knows of a buybull burning, I want to be the first in line! There is nothing that could make me prouder than to watch that crap BURN!

By: anon 3

anon 3 — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 08:40:46 +0000

“I can only assume…”

exactly.

By: Tip O'Neill

Tip O'Neill — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:55:17 +0000

>”So who then will defend your right to freedom of thought? ”

I think you need to take up your objection to “the message of Jesus and Buddha” with them.

I’m just pointing out that it is “christians”, not atheists, who have no concept of the message of Jesus or Buddha.

By: Pacific Babe

Pacific Babe — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:48:56 +0000

Thanks, I agree with all your comments but one … It’s perfectly ok to believe in a non-existent god. It’s NEVER okay to believe in a non-existent god. For instance, we think this imaginary god might keep Anon3 from murdering someone and it might accomplish that, but the downside is that his belief system (and Michael Patrick Brewers) means that it’s okay to hate gays, oppress women etc etc. It’s time to eradicate religion and it can’t happen fast enough for me. Like you, I do believe the struggle for good will succeed in a few generations, but until then we’ve got to keep pushing forward for that to happen.

By: Pacific Babe

Pacific Babe — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:39:57 +0000

LOL … Of course I’m angry MPB. I’m angry because idiots like you think you’re a great parent when it’s okay for you to hammer the head of a gay person until he no longer breathes. I’m angry that you try to convince others they can buy their way into heaven if they’ll just give up 10% of their income so the church can get those new candlesticks. And, I’m angry to think that sick people like Anon3 exist who will hand women coathangers rather than allow them a safe abortion. I’m angry when women continue to be oppressed in this nation and other nations … Do you read the nsp? Have you seen that women are still being stoned just because they’ve looked at a man the wrong way? I’m angry that your religion teaches people that gays are substandard and therefore it’s okay to abuse them. I’m angry that I and anyone else can’t make their own decision to end their life with dignity rather than having to SUFFER as your very sick religion teaches. I’m angry that RELIGION teaches many to find a cure thru prayer rather than seeking medical help. I’m angry because idiot christians fight stem cell research so that those with Alzheimers, Parkinson’s etc won’t have a better chance at life. I’m angry that idiot christians want creationism taught as thought it is fact … It’s a myth! Get over it!

So I thank you for acknowledging my anger and giving me another opportunity to point out how idiotic it is to grasp at nothing and pretend it is something. Religion has NO solutions to heal the world. It’s oppressive and ignores that which it doesn’t care to deal with.

By: Pacific Babe

Pacific Babe — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:29:28 +0000

You’ll need to explain yourself Anon3 cause I have no clue what you’re trying getting at … You speak in codes that I’m sure must frustrate your wife and children. Here’s what I said “They might be able to recite 1000 bible verses, but they have no basic understanding of evolution and human compassion. You really are proud to be like these fundamentalists who beat a gay person to death with a hammer? ”

I can only assume that you like Mr. Brewer are fine with missionaries who teach that gay behavior is against a mythical god and therefore they should all take a hammer to the heads of gays. I assume you taught the same sort of compassion to your little flock and I’m confident you’ll pass that to your children. How many lies did you toss around over the holidays Anon 3?

By: Pacific Babe

Pacific Babe — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:23:53 +0000

Excuse me but why have you decided to inject the marines into a conversation about how atheists feel about Xmas? I’m more interested in your pride to hold on to the myth of christianity and how missionaries have value when they corrupt the vulnerable to the point of taking a hammer to their head?

By: nondescript

nondescript — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 15:49:25 +0000

Evolution has stood up in the court of law. Check out the Dover case as an example.

By: Chris Deliah

Chris Deliah — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 11:55:36 +0000

Someone above pointed out that an idea should be judged on its merit, not on its source. Which is true; though a polluted source can often be an indicator.
Sexuality is one of the very powerful forces that is too important to be left up to myth, religion, avatars or what have you. The old morality of restriction (picked up by Christianity but not unknown in most other major religions today) is particularly troublesome in the modern, congested world. Repress something, and it will find a way out, at least statistically. Hence the sexual abuses that have plagued the Roman Catholic Church and also some Buddhist monasteries. This is a separate issue to whether the ‘religion’ is authentic or good or not. The morality is wrong.
In the olden days, control a person’s sexuality and you had control of the person – very useful is certain situations. For instance, if a spiritual hermit did not want to be constantly bothered with thoughts of sex, he or she could voluntarily emasculate (or in exceptional cases, sublimate) that part of themselves. Even more handy for political and business regimes disguised as religion. Realising the changing times, some cults (political and religious) mandated that sex is ok if you are one of the faithful. A bit like the sex within marriage rule that bolsters so many religions. The family unit, whatever its merits, also being a useful unit that can be politically controlled and, with benefits/handouts to the unit, far more manageable than free-spirited single people or non-procreating (homosexual) units.
We all decide to believe in something – we believe in hope, our children’s future, the goodness of man, or our ability to succeed if we work hard or earn that degree. Belief is a powerful psychological tool. When belief is micromanaged by religious movements then there is less room for a scientific approach to self-improvement (one of the main aims of religion) or community welfare (another stated aim, which often fails on account of the imposed morality or sexual restrictions of the religions).
It’s perfectly ok to believe in a non-existent god. An imaginary hero can be as useful psychologically as a real or historical one. But examine the purity of the image and everything associated with it. If it is impure, re-make it in your own eyes or find a new one. But if you call your image ‘Jesus’ (as many evangelicals do without the slightest recourse to history or even an accurate knowledge of the bible), then you will also be liable to a backlash from the community of believers and priests that also use that name in their own image.
A problem with Xmas, to get back on topic, is that the whole mass of humanity – that worships or pays some sort of lip-service to someone or other that they call Jesus – comes together in a cross-national celebration of sorts. The result is that underlying fictions are reinforced. The priesthood gains in power from the mass turn-out (whether to mass or just mass-consumption). It gathers tremendous psychological force.
If it didn’t, religions that committed as many atrocities as our ‘modern’ ones do would all be banned, the same as any other movement that provided a fertile ground for immoral acts. But given the token acceptance – and some good PR in the form of altruistic or philanthropic deeds – sensible moves to do away with such cancers will continue to struggle. One day the struggle for good will succeed – but it may take a few generations yet!

By: jason

jason — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 04:55:16 +0000

“It’s usually said that we can’t know false beliefs.” … “You keep saying that as if it’s in the dictionary that way. You know it’s not, right? I don’t really want to keep saying I don’t agree with this characterization. Mathematicians don’t usually operate this way. Scientists don’t usually operate this way. Laypeople certain don’t.”

You are correct in stating that my definition of knowledge is not standard. The standard – which I suppose the above is the closest you’ll get to stating explicitly – is that knowledge is “justified true belief”. And as I’ve said previously, that definition of knowledge does require some form of faith.

” It should be plain to anyone that human beings are not capable of infallible certainty without some radical changes.”

Good, so we agree on fallibility. It may not be obvious that you’ve just refuted the standard definition of knowledge, “justified true belief.” Deutsch says it better than I can:

[BEGIN QUOTE]
The misconception that knowledge needs authority to be genuine or reliable dates back to antiquity, and it still prevails. To this day, most courses in the philosophy of knowledge teach that knowledge is some form of justified, true belief, where ‘justified’ means designated as true (or at least ‘probable’) by reference to some authoritative source or touchstone of knowledge. Thus ‘how do we know…?’ is transformed into ‘by what authority do we claim…?’ The latter question is a chimera that may well have wasted more philosophers’ time and effort than any other idea. It converts the quest for truth into a quest for certainty (a feeling) or for endorsement (a social status). This misconception is called justificationism.

The opposing position – namely the recognition that there are no authoritative sources of knowledge, nor any reliable means of justifying ideas as being true or probable – is called fallibilism. To believers in the justified-true-belief theory of knowledge, this recognition is the occasion for despair or cynicism, because to them it means that knowledge is unattainable. But to those of us for whom creating knowledge means understanding better what is really there, and how it really behaves and why, fallibilism is part of the very means by which this is achieved. Fallibilists expect even their best and most fundamental explanations to contain misconceptions in addition to truth, and so they are predisposed to try to change them for the better. In contrast, the logic of justificationism is to seek (and typically, to believe that one has found) ways of securing ideas against change. Moreover, the logic of fallibilism is that one not only seeks to correct the misconceptions of the past, but hopes in the future to find and change mistaken ideas that no one today questions or finds problematic.
[END QUOTE]

Reading this, you may be tempted to simply drop the “justification” and say that knowledge is only “true belief”. Yet such a truncated definition fails to make the highly relevant distinction between guesses and knowledge. I may believe that out of 1000 fair coin flips exactly 527 will come up heads. If we do the coin flips and get 527 heads, that doesn’t mean I “knew” that there would be 527, even though my belief happened to be true. Likewise an astrology reader may predict that I will come into some significant money in the new year. If I do, it doesn’t mean the astrologer “knew” it, even though his belief also happened to be true.

Since we can’t drop “justified” from the standard definition, it means the standard definition of knowledge is wholly incompatible with human fallibility. If you recognize human fallibility, which you say you do, then you must reject the standard definition of knowledge as “justified true belief”. That doesn’t necessitate that you accept mine. Feel free to offer your own, and we’ll see if yours is both compatible with human fallibility and better than mine.

““we have a good explanation for why and where the sun will rise…”
Didn’t you say, “Nothing more, nothing less?” This seems like more or less.”

I can understand why you’d have that impression. However, it is neither more nor less. A good explanation is an answer to the criticism that the theory lacks an explanation. That’s a criticism I could apply to, for example, the theory that in 1000 coin flips we’ll get 527 heads. Now if the person who believed that theory were to explain precisely how he was able to control the outcome of each flip in such a way as to guarantee 527 heads…and his explanation made sense…then the criticism would no longer apply and we might agree the person really could know there would be 527 heads rather than it being a lucky guess.

” I dare you to confess to your wife and kids that you aren’t actually certain about any knowledge, including how much you love them. ”I haven’t yet refuted the claim that I love you, honey…” ”
Apart from the intended shock value of violating entrenched social conventions, I think if you reflect on this a bit you’ll agree that the relevant question for my wife isn’t whether I’ve refuted the claim that I love her, but whether she has. Both real and fictional human stories are replete with examples where love is professed but not real, and also where love is real but not professed. Only she can rightly judge for herself whether I demonstrate love for her or not.