Darwin's Fish Decal

[KenRU]

I'm interested in both theist and atheist opinions.

Just purchased the Darwin's Fish decal from Amazon and was wondering what the popular consensus was. Do you find it offensive? Disrespectful?

I know its a light-weight topic and all, but nonetheless, they all don't have to center around quantum theory, right?

All the best,

-Ken

(my apologies if this has been discussed already in another post)

[wiploc]

Did the folks who designed it mean it to be mocking and disrespectful? Sure. Do I need to let them get away with it by agreeing with them that the idea of evolution mocks the idea of Christianity and of Jesus' teachings? Nope.

When my great grandparents were struggling in Missouri and environs, getting chased out of their home cities, states and nation, the folks around them referred to them with a demeaning label meant to mock and denigrate them.

Until they took that name and made it their own, and now calling someone a "Mormon" is not an insult.

Great post. That's part of why I self-identify as an atheist. I don't like being pressured to call myself something else. I want to make the term respectable.

[KenRU]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead]

It's not my god, I'm an atheist. Just curious about the perception from both sides of the fence.

[ThePainefulTruth]

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
-Steven Weinberg

I like your quote, but a lot more oppression in the 20th century was accomplished by atheists in the name of government. I guess, the way a lot of people practice it, you could say it has a foundation in blind faith religion as well. Then there's Obama who's sort of playing both sides against the middle. I think evil people will do evil using whatever excuse they think will fly.

But don't get me wrong, I thing atheism and deism are the only two reasonable positions on God, as long as nobody claims certain knowledge. Scientists and professional atheists are even backing off from going there any more, as they should.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 33 by ThePainefulTruth]

Perhaps, certainly not in the name of atheism, as that would be as absurd as starting a crusade not because you hate soccer but because you are completely ambivalent towards it.

It's not a fair comparison regardless - there are far too many variables. Do you think if in the time of the Crusades, if they had the population levels and the technology/military capability we had in the 20th century that they'd still not have killed as many as atheists did?

Stalin didn't do anything because he was an atheist, though he did some things because he was an anti theist.

Whether or not Hitler was an atheist is certainly questionable, but regardless one can't claim he did anything "in the name of atheism". Atheism is defined by a lack of theism. It'd be like claiming he did it "for not in the name of theism", an incoherent sentence.

What exactly you mean by Obama "playing both sides" is also questionable, but the most questionable thing you've probably said is "professional atheists".

What makes someone a "professional atheist"?

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 33 by ThePainefulTruth]

Perhaps, certainly not in the name of atheism, as that would be as absurd as starting a crusade not because you hate soccer but because you are completely ambivalent towards it.

It's not a fair comparison regardless - there are far too many variables. Do you think if in the time of the Crusades, if they had the population levels and the technology/military capability we had in the 20th century that they'd still not have killed as many as atheists did?

Stalin didn't do anything because he was an atheist, though he did some things because he was an anti theist.

Whether or not Hitler was an atheist is certainly questionable, but regardless one can't claim he did anything "in the name of atheism". Atheism is defined by a lack of theism. It'd be like claiming he did it "for not in the name of theism", an incoherent sentence.

What exactly you mean by Obama "playing both sides" is also questionable, but the most questionable thing you've probably said is "professional atheists".

What makes someone a "professional atheist"?

Just a note here: while it is possible to be an atheist without being an anti-theist, it is NOT possible to be an anti-theist unless one is an atheist.

You know, exactly the way that it is possible to be a theist without being a true believing Christian, but one cannot be a true believing Christian without being a theist.

So yes, Stalin did some of his killing because he was an anti-theist, and one his goals was to rid the world (or at least his particular corner of it) of religion, but anti-theism is a subset of atheism, as Islam is a subset of theism.

It is possible for a theist to be anti-every OTHER theism, but that is not, quite, the same thing.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 35 by dianaiad]

Of course, I don't usually arguments based on historical influence of religion.

People will do dumb things, and reach dumb conclusions, regardless of religious beliefs. The crusades likely weren't purely religiously motivated, there were likely additional incentives for land and wealth. The moral standards of the time were certainly lacking (though that could itself be an argument against the church, or the clarity of the message of God)

The point I make is that attributing such things to atheism is double absurd; first because there's no way to separate the variables and secondly because atheism - something defined only by what belief a person is lacking - cannot itself be the basis for a reason.

Stalin wasn't religiously motivated; he was ideologically motivated. The difference between the definition of an ideology and a religion appears to just be the supernatural. His motivations were rooted in anti-theism, which while it requires atheism, puts no burden on atheism (even if you think such burden should be applied, which I don't).

Obviously theism intrinsically has no moral/ethical or objective (in the goal sense of the word) beliefs, except for those who believe a god is defined to be all-good, and so you can't blame theism any more than atheism.

Whether or not you can blame a religion is arguable, though you certainly can't blame the current participants of the religion, nor is whether or not the belief system was an inspiration for atrocities any indication of its truth or falsity.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 35 by dianaiad]

Of course, I don't usually arguments based on historical influence of religion.

People will do dumb things, and reach dumb conclusions, regardless of religious beliefs. The crusades likely weren't purely religiously motivated, there were likely additional incentives for land and wealth. The moral standards of the time were certainly lacking (though that could itself be an argument against the church, or the clarity of the message of God)

The point I make is that attributing such things to atheism is double absurd; first because there's no way to separate the variables and secondly because atheism - something defined only by what belief a person is lacking - cannot itself be the basis for a reason.

Stalin wasn't religiously motivated; he was ideologically motivated. The difference between the definition of an ideology and a religion appears to just be the supernatural. His motivations were rooted in anti-theism, which while it requires atheism, puts no burden on atheism (even if you think such burden should be applied, which I don't).

Obviously theism intrinsically has no moral/ethical or objective (in the goal sense of the word) beliefs, except for those who believe a god is defined to be all-good, and so you can't blame theism any more than atheism.

Whether or not you can blame a religion is arguable, though you certainly can't blame the current participants of the religion, nor is whether or not the belief system was an inspiration for atrocities any indication of its truth or falsity.

This is a prime example of the double standard often used by anti-theists and other critics of religion; while they are quite willing, even excited about, making religion the prime reason for things like the Crusades (you are unusual in that you admit that there might have been any other reasons for them at all) even though religion was the excuse for every single one of them, and the reason for NONE of them (the reasons all involved trade, the silk road, getting rid of troublesome knights and barons so that they wouldn't take over the kingdoms at home, and for said knights and barons, the chance to get very rich and get land). There wasn't a single crusade that was waged only because of religion...not one: land, trade and politics had to be involved in 'em all before anybody would go.

On the other hand, the same folks who refuse to see that religion was NOT the only, or even the primary, reason and impetus for the Crusades will not allow that 'getting rid of religion' was a factor in any of the atrocities committed by officially atheistic nations, as long as any atrocity was committed for any other reason.

The standard argument goes like this:

Pol Pot killed people because they were educated, wore glasses, could read or owned a car, therefore none of his killings were the result of his anti-theistic policies even though he killed all the priests and nuns BECAUSE they were priests and nuns.

Or....

Stalin starved the farmers in the Ukraine because he wanted them off the land, so none of his killings were religiously motivated even though he killed a bunch of Jews, Chrisitans and Muslims BECAUSE they were Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Or...(and this is a beaut...)

Mao killed a whole bunch of people because they went to western schools and universities, therefore even though he killed off all the religious leaders of his nation and confiscated all the religious temples and buildings and made them into government storage centers BECAUSE he wanted to get rid of all the religious influence in his country, we cannot say that any of his murders were 'because of religion."

The thing is, and I'm cutting you a little slack because at least you do acknowledge other motives for the Crusades, you are still arguing that theism can be held responsible for atrocities committed by theists, but refuse to allow that an atheist's belief system can be blamed for his actions...even when it is his belief system that allows/prompts those actions.

Or at the very least, does not prevent them.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 35 by dianaiad]

Of course, I don't usually arguments based on historical influence of religion.

People will do dumb things, and reach dumb conclusions, regardless of religious beliefs. The crusades likely weren't purely religiously motivated, there were likely additional incentives for land and wealth. The moral standards of the time were certainly lacking (though that could itself be an argument against the church, or the clarity of the message of God)

The point I make is that attributing such things to atheism is double absurd; first because there's no way to separate the variables and secondly because atheism - something defined only by what belief a person is lacking - cannot itself be the basis for a reason.

Stalin wasn't religiously motivated; he was ideologically motivated. The difference between the definition of an ideology and a religion appears to just be the supernatural. His motivations were rooted in anti-theism, which while it requires atheism, puts no burden on atheism (even if you think such burden should be applied, which I don't).

Obviously theism intrinsically has no moral/ethical or objective (in the goal sense of the word) beliefs, except for those who believe a god is defined to be all-good, and so you can't blame theism any more than atheism.

Whether or not you can blame a religion is arguable, though you certainly can't blame the current participants of the religion, nor is whether or not the belief system was an inspiration for atrocities any indication of its truth or falsity.

This is a prime example of the double standard often used by anti-theists and other critics of religion; while they are quite willing, even excited about, making religion the prime reason for things like the Crusades (you are unusual in that you admit that there might have been any other reasons for them at all) even though religion was the excuse for every single one of them, and the reason for NONE of them (the reasons all involved trade, the silk road, getting rid of troublesome knights and barons so that they wouldn't take over the kingdoms at home, and for said knights and barons, the chance to get very rich and get land). There wasn't a single crusade that was waged only because of religion...not one: land, trade and politics had to be involved in 'em all before anybody would go.

On the other hand, the same folks who refuse to see that religion was NOT the only, or even the primary, reason and impetus for the Crusades will not allow that 'getting rid of religion' was a factor in any of the atrocities committed by officially atheistic nations, as long as any atrocity was committed for any other reason.

The standard argument goes like this:

Pol Pot killed people because they were educated, wore glasses, could read or owned a car, therefore none of his killings were the result of his anti-theistic policies even though he killed all the priests and nuns BECAUSE they were priests and nuns.

Or....

Stalin starved the farmers in the Ukraine because he wanted them off the land, so none of his killings were religiously motivated even though he killed a bunch of Jews, Chrisitans and Muslims BECAUSE they were Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Or...(and this is a beaut...)

Mao killed a whole bunch of people because they went to western schools and universities, therefore even though he killed off all the religious leaders of his nation and confiscated all the religious temples and buildings and made them into government storage centers BECAUSE he wanted to get rid of all the religious influence in his country, we cannot say that any of his murders were 'because of religion."

The thing is, and I'm cutting you a little slack because at least you do acknowledge other motives for the Crusades, you are still arguing that theism can be held responsible for atrocities committed by theists, but refuse to allow that an atheist's belief system can be blamed for his actions...even when it is his belief system that allows/prompts those actions.

Or at the very least, does not prevent them.

All that said, I'd just like to point out that I don't think there's a recorded incident of a deist committing atrocities against theists, atheists or anybody. In fact, many of the primary leaders who brought enlightened freedom from tyranny into the world were deists. Yes, I know we're small, but growing, and that was a massive achievement--and we've only been around for c. 400 years or so. Doesn't that speak well for reason guided faith as opposed hearsay motivated blind faith?

Ooo, and we don't even have a symbol. (I knew there was a tie in there somewhere. )

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 37 by dianaiad]

Not theism intrinsically or especially, but any ideology or religion certainly can.
The only difference between an ideology and a religion appears to be beliefs in the supernatural.

Stalin killed because of his ideology, perhaps with additional reasons.
The people who actually fought in the crusades did it because of their religion and additional reasons.

It's not the theism that makes the difference - though belief that your standard is supernatural does put it beyond verifiability. (A problem with religion, not theism)

Theism is only one belief, and doesn't itself entail any goals or 'oughts' or anything. Religious beliefs, like ideological beliefs, that do entail them can be causes for wars and such.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 39 by Jashwell]

(A problem with religion, not theism).

What's the diff?