The fine line between being a bigot and just being annoyed

[LARA]

Since I'm not even half smart enough to join the total mind fuck session of Categorical Moral Imperitives (seriously you guys are blowing my mind  :cool:

Isn't there a point where our hatred of the bigotry of Religon becomes bigotry in itself?  I think it was SteveS who gave us a nice Nietzche quote a while back, something to the effect  of being careful when battling a monster not to become one ourselves.  Not that I'm going to start liking Nietzche or anything.

Does freedom not just include the freedom to speak the truth, but also the freedom to speak what may be unproven?  To say for a moment that 2+2=5 and then try to prove it, if you will?  I'm not saying we have to bow down to bullshit, as religious authorities want to require us to do, but not everything religious authorities teach is really untrue.   Most of us have figured this out and extracted the positives and thrown away the delusions.

Isn't the real issue authoritarianism rather than religion?  I mean not every religious or crazy person is a threat to our freedom, some of them are quite passive in their insanity, so they really aren't really trying to get us to bow down before their craziness.  Isn't the real problem being forced to accept a proposition as fact without questioning and testing of that proposition before we accept it?

Look at China.  This is a country of atheism.  Is this a positive model of society?  I mean that question honestly.  Is enforced atheism the way to go?

Enforced atheism scares me as much as any other enforced belief.   And I'm probably best described as an atheist.  But what I'm really interested in is your opinion.

[myleviathan]

I feel like I'm watching intellectual porn and I'm so totally underage

That's such a great description!   I'm repulsed but I can't turn away...

Isn't the real issue authoritarianism rather than religion?

That's true. Religious people, especially evangelicals, think they have the monopoly on morality. They believe they're the ultimate authority on truth. This allows churches to manipulate whoever buys into the bullshit however they feel, or face isolation. And yes, they're passive for the most part, but extremely organized. They still vote in mass, and keep idiots in office who don't value forward progress. Plus, this mentality is extremely annoying to people who value thought. You can't have a thoughtful discussion with people who believe with all of their heart that they have all moral authority.

Look at China. This is a country of atheism. Is this a positive model of society? I mean that question honestly. Is enforced atheism the way to go? Enforced atheism scares me as much as any other enforced belief. And I'm probably best described as an atheist. But what I'm really interested in is your opinion.

I totally agree with you here. Forcing thought in any direction is wrong. China's history is rich, and their food is tasty, but I would imagine it's a scary place to think for yourself.

[Kylyssa]

Any forced belief is wrong.  Freedom of thought and speech is the way to go.

[LARA]

That's the thing isn't it?  Forcing any belief is wrong.  To exist, religion requires forced belief because it must be accepted on faith and therefore it can eventually be proven wrong.   Authoritarianism is the problem for me and religion is an object in the authoritarian class. (java anyone?   ).  People may not inflict their religious beliefs on me, but if they accept things on faith they are part of an authoritarian order and are supporting it.  Authoritarian systems are by nature bigoted because they always place the members fitting their label in authority over others without question.  

So is atheism by nature authoritarian, too?  By this I'm not saying that all atheists are authoritarians, just trying to look at the potential of an atheistic belief system to become authoritarian.

Can the truth be authoritarian?  No, because it's the truth.  You will arrive at it eventually by questioning.  So if atheism is true, it can't be authoritarian by nature, but any truth might be used by an authoritarian system.

[Asmodean]

Any forced belief is wrong.  Freedom of thought and speech is the way to go.

I agree. In a perfect world, it IS the way to go. Our world is, however, an imperfect cesspool of hypocricy. Thus, many people who proclaim to support freedom of thought and speech would likely not hesitate to limit, corrupt and/or take it away given half a chance.

[tornado]

Something I'm a little confused about: How do you decide when a belief system becomes authoritarian? When, in presenting your beliefs, do you cross the line from reasonable discussion into being forceful?

[Will]

Since I'm not even half smart enough to join the total mind fuck session of Categorical Moral Imperitives (seriously you guys are blowing my mind  
It's not every day I'm basically refereed to as an intellectual Ron Jeremy.

Isn't there a point where our hatred of the bigotry of Religon becomes bigotry in itself?

It most certainly can become bigotry. Bigotry is really only characterized as intolerance, which could be an appropriate descriptive term for some atheists' views on the religious. As a matter of fact, it reminds me of "reverse racism", which is not uncommon amongst those races which were/are mistreated another race. For example, if a black man has developed the view that all white people are racist, he himself has become racist. I see definite parallels.

We simply have to bear in mind that it's our responsibility to be the bigger person as reasonable and intelligent people.

Isn't the real issue authoritarianism rather than religion?

I take issue more with the sheep than the shepherd, but I understand what you're saying and I have to agree.

[Will]

oops, double post....

[LARA]

I'm glad you saw the compliment in my cerebral meltdown, Will.  



Any philosophical concept remotely linking back to Hobbes, Kant or Heidegger and I'm slamming my eyes shut and and feigning non-existence.

[susangail]

When I was a Christian and I would try to tell people about God and what not, I was always told to stop pushing my beliefs on others, my beliefs were wrong, the works. I was always frustrated because people told me to stop pushing my beliefs on them, and yet, they were pushing their disbelief on me. I wasn't tolerant enough and I was told that on more than one occasion. Now I see that I was being a jerk but it still makes me think how even religious people get stuff pushed on them. Any belief can be pushed on anyone. I always say to believe what you want, don't push it on others, and it's all good. I don't know, that's just my two cents.

Look at China.  This is a country of atheism.  Is this a positive model of society?  I mean that question honestly.  Is enforced atheism the way to go?

Enforced atheism scares me as much as any other enforced belief.

True true. Enforced belief of any kind sucks. Your mentioning of China made me think of my dad's upcoming mission trip there. They have to call the trip "East Asia" because China is such a closed country. Missionaries aren't allowed in so they're going in as tourists. My dad says he probably won't even be able to take his Bible. I don't like mission trips but this seemed interesting to me.

[rick]

I'm a misanthrope. Authoritarianism does not come from either belief in God or belief in something other than God. It comes from the very nature of humanity itself. Atheists like to cite religious leaders as being evil as a result. Likewise, Christians tend to categorize non-Christians as evil out of hand. They are both wrong. Evil is a part of the humanity syndrome.

My two cents.

[Tom62]

China is not a country of atheism. They have many different kind of religions there, including  Buddhism ( which is the largest organised religion), Taoism, Neo-Confucianism and polytheistic folk religion. It is true that under Mao's regime religion was banned, because it was considered to be incompatible with the communist ideas. Many houses of worship were then either destroyed or converted for public use. This policy relaxed considerably in the late 1970s at the end of the Cultural Revolution and more tolerance of religious expression has been permitted since the 1980s. The 1978 Constitution of the People's Republic of China guarantees "freedom of religion" with a number of restrictions. Since the mid-1990s there has been a massive program to rebuild Buddhist and Taoist temples.  In recent times the government has expressed support for Buddhism and Taoism, organizing the World Buddhist Forum in 2006 and the International Forum on the Daodejing in 2007. The government sees these religions as an integral part of Chinese culture. In October 2007 the new statute of China cites religion as an important element of citizens' life. However, the Chinese government has also banned religious cults such as the Falun Gong and Xiantianism.

[myleviathan]

Atheists like to cite religious leaders as being evil as a result. Likewise, Christians tend to categorize non-Christians as evil out of hand. They are both wrong. Evil is a part of the humanity syndrome.

Well spoken.

It is true that under Mao's regime religion was banned, because it was considered to be incompatible with the communist ideas.

I'm sure the same reasons exist for banning certain religions and allowing others. Some support the communist ideal and others are opposed to it. While China may not be strictly enforcing atheism, it's still attempting to control the beliefs of its people.

[Tom62]

I'm sure the same reasons exist for banning certain religions and allowing others. Some support the communist ideal and others are opposed to it. While China may not be strictly enforcing atheism, it's still attempting to control the beliefs of its people.

That's absolutely true. However, now that the chinese govenment supports some religions, you can no longer call it an atheist state. In many Arabic states you also have also a government controlled religion and it is also not allowed there to bring in christian missionaries. I would not call them atheist states either.

[LARA]

Excellent info Tom62.  I see Wikipedia has taught you well. (article "Religion in China").

But before I dive into a red herring argument and try to claim that Buddhism is atheistic (damn is that a word?!?), I will concede that China is not an atheist country and simplify and rephrase my rather brainstormy first post to a simple question:

Would you want to live in an atheist state?  What exactly would an atheist state consist of?  How would violators be dealt with?  Prison?  Expulsion?  Thorazine?   Death by being tickled severly on the errogenous zones with partially cooked spaghettis while being forced to watch all episodes of "American Idol" on high speed so that the high notes shatter the eardrums?