|
RIP Christopher Hitchens (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Halcyon+On+On |
Do you believe there's anything wrong with aggression?
I think it's maybe the most important thing someone can be. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Do you believe there's anything wrong with aggression?
I think it's maybe the most important thing someone can be. |
might have cleared up a bit more in my edit?
Not necessarily, but it depends on context. The ANTI-theist movement confuses me. I don't understand who they're writing for; they make it out like they're writing to convert people away from religion, but they have as much effect as the religious zealots do in converting people to THEIR cause. People's natural reaction to agression is irrational defense. anti-theists CLAIM to be supporting pure rationality, but they simply aren't; they're peddling the same kind of hate-speech that give religious extremists a bad name, and the anti-theist movement doesn't seem to be aiming to convert people, but aiming to make people outcasts. Again, agression causes defense mechanisms in the 'victim' (lulz). Yelling at someone is automatically going to make them shut down, and defend whatever they believe; it is NOT Going to make them open up, or listen to what's being said.
So again, I can't figure out exactly what their point is. They aren't converting anyone with agression. Nobody is going to be told that they're simply IDIOTS for believing what they do, and then stop believing it. The only people who like the writings then, are the already-converted. And the only thing that they manage to offer the converted is a REASON to hate and ostracise the unconverted. So, instead of bringing the converted and unconverted together, they seperate them more and more. The anti-theists become more and more agressive, and the theists get more and more defensive, and feel ever-more attacked.
Now, this simply doesn't make sense to me. They get all uppity about people riding on their emotion (claiming to endorse reason), but are simply doing the same thing.
That's why I think anti-theists are 'extremist' trolls, in a nutshell.
edit: to sound like a stinky hippy; the only way to change people's mind is through calm rationality and empathy: A conversation, not a lecture. People all have reasons for their beliefs. These reasons are always contextual, and always complicated. Acting like my belief is better than yours makes an idiot out of both of us. Religion isn't dumb. Its been around since humans have, in various forms; more specifically, the IMPULSE to BELIEVE (something) is one of the most fundamental human drives. (edit2) This is what Nietzsche was on about. He specifically pointed to the fact that people need 'crutches'. Once people stop being religious, they become nationalists, or science-lovers, or whatever else... They're never devoid of some kind of belief-system. So, REMOVING a belief isn't possible; all that can be done is to replace on belief with another. People naturally have to have some kind of construct of belief. Nietzsche thought this was horrible, but that's another story.
What non-theists SHOULD be doing (imo) is pointing out that there are potentially more advantageous belief-systems out there than the ones that 'religious' people cling to.
Simply calling them idiots is 1. Pointless, since nobody will listen to that (except people who already believe what you do), 2. stupid, because it is insanely arrogant and ignorant, and therefore hypocritical. |
|
|
| djdk |
I keep seeing religious posting things along the lines of God 1 - Athiests 0 on this.
Surely if God wanted to really piss Hitchens off he would have made him immortal no? |
|
|
| RahulJ |
| R.I.P. Christopher Eric Hitchens! Respects! |
|
|
| Redd |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
edit: to sound like a stinky hippy; the only way to change people's mind is through calm rationality and empathy: A conversation, not a lecture. People all have reasons for their beliefs. These reasons are always contextual, and always complicated. Acting like my belief is better than yours makes an idiot out of both of us. Religion isn't dumb. Its been around since humans have, in various forms; more specifically, the IMPULSE to BELIEVE (something) is one of the most fundamental human drives. (edit2) This is what Nietzsche was on about. He specifically pointed to the fact that people need 'crutches'. Once people stop being religious, they become nationalists, or science-lovers, or whatever else... They're never devoid of some kind of belief-system. So, REMOVING a belief isn't possible; all that can be done is to replace on belief with another. People naturally have to have some kind of construct of belief. Nietzsche thought this was horrible, but that's another story. |
I think you're wrong here. Sure I think science is a good thing, does that make me a science-lover? Did you mean science-fanatic? I'm no nationalist either. So I guess that leaves me with "whatever else", which to me is just too vague to be either good or bad. I don't need a construct of belief as far as I know, but maybe I don't fully understand the meaning of such a construct. Either these theories about the fundamental human drives are wrong, or I'm just mentally ill.
| quote: | | Simply calling them idiots is 1. Pointless, since nobody will listen to that (except people who already believe what you do), 2. stupid, because it is insanely arrogant and ignorant, and therefore hypocritical. |
I was of the impression Hitchens always tried to avoid calling people idiots, but when arguing against something as irrational as heaven and hell etc., it's hard not to come across that way. I use irrational here because that is what most religions appear to someone without these "impulses to believe and human drives". Also here within lies the problem with using "calm rationality". To me, trying to argue rationally with most religious people (at least the most religious ones) is like trying to talk sense into a crazy person. This, understandably, might seem ignorant to some. I believe this can also be the reason many anti-theists comes off as extremist trolls.
I absolutely agree that simply calling people idiots is for the most part pointless. But, I can also see how calling fanatics idiots to dismiss whatever retarded and hateful opinion they have can be a good thing. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Redd
I was of the impression Hitchens always tried to avoid calling people idiots, but when arguing against something as irrational as heaven and hell etc., it's hard not to come across that way. I use irrational here because that is what most religions appear to someone without these "impulses to believe and human drives". Also here within lies the problem with using "calm rationality". To me, trying to argue rationally with most religious people (at least the most religious ones) is like trying to talk sense into a crazy person. This, understandably, might seem ignorant to some. I believe this can also be the reason many anti-theists comes off as extremist trolls.
I absolutely agree that simply calling people idiots is for the most part pointless. But, I can also see how calling fanatics idiots to dismiss whatever retarded and hateful opinion they have can be a good thing. |
Except this is not what happens. You're just proving the point when you say "trying to argue rationally with most religious people...." you're essentially backhandedly calling them idiots. You think that they are automatically irrational people simply because they're a theist.
And your last paragraph does not apply, because Hitchens, yourself, and pretty much every hardline anti-theist around do not focus their arguments on fanatics. They focus them on entire groups of people. Millions upon millions of people are lumped into their arguments which, unfairly so, paint all religious people as completely irrational and misguided people. And again, just look at your post. "Crazy", "irrational", "retarded." It is littered with these kinds of derogatory terms to describe hundreds of millions of people. Assumptions and Assertions like these are just as ignorant and hateful as what you seem to be arguing against.
Without saying it outright, you turned an initially promising and fair comment into "I think you're right that just calling them idiots is pointless, but it's too hard to discuss calmly with them because they're crazy and what they believe is retarded." |
|
|
| Redd |
What? No, the last sentence was only about fanatics, I'm not calling religious people idiots. Sure I call some of them idiots, but I tend to call many people, regardless of religion ideology or whatever idiots. I'm close to being a misanthropist, so this is less about religion and more about the hate of anyone being a fanatic.
And yes, that's what I wrote, it comes off as "calling them idiots". I do NOT however automatically think they're irrational because they're a theist. But, if you literally believe in heaven and hell, purgatory and whatnot, yes, I'll call you irrational. There is a huge difference between being a theist and believing earth and everything was created in 6000 years. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Redd
And yes, that's what I wrote, it comes off as "calling them idiots". I do NOT however automatically think they're irrational because they're a theist. But, if you literally believe in heaven and hell, purgatory and whatnot, yes, I'll call you irrational. There is a huge difference between being a theist and believing earth and everything was created in 6000 years. |
You're right, but being a Catholic/Christian/Muslim/Jew/etc. does not require that you believe that everything was created 6000 years ago. That's a very archaic view, and I don't even think the majority of members of these churches even believe that anymore. Maybe I'm just an idealist, but at least speaking from the many members of my family who are practicing Catholics, none of them believe those kinds of things. |
|
|
| Redd |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
You're right, but being a Catholic/Christian/Muslim/Jew/etc. does not require that you believe that everything was created 6000 years ago. That's a very archaic view, and I don't even think the majority of members of these churches even believe that anymore. Maybe I'm just an idealist, but at least speaking from the many members of my family who are practicing Catholics, none of them believe those kinds of things. |
I never intended to imply being a Catholic etc. equals irrationality. But then again, I kind of believe that if you don't believe these things, that are written about in the bible, and are supposed to be facts, you're not really practicing that religion. You've kind of made your own belief, and that's fine. As long as you have a rational view of your religion, I'm definitely not calling you an idiot, and I seriously doubt Hitch would have done either. Not even backhandedly. He might have made you feel like a fool, but that's because of his superb intellect and arguing. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| Fair enough. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
You're right, but being a Catholic/Christian/Muslim/Jew/etc. does not require that you believe that everything was created 6000 years ago. That's a very archaic view, and I don't even think the majority of members of these churches even believe that anymore. Maybe I'm just an idealist, but at least speaking from the many members of my family who are practicing Catholics, none of them believe those kinds of things. |
so why was it written so in the holy books? I personally believe in two senarios: either your looking at religion as a social culture, or as a faith. If it's a faith one should be taking the holy books as the sole accuracy of the truth. Otherwise you're just giving in to hundreds of years of "excuses" being created for a historically inaccuracies and atrocities within these books. Some people like to call these excuses interpretations. Take a couple of weeks and read each and every major holy book from front to back. You'll understand what i mean.
If you look at religion as a social culture, then that is a bit different. Taking the written morals being passed down through generations and abiding by them, not really caring about the actual literal context of the book. The clear follow up to this however, is why should one even take the context of a creator seriously? Is that the only thing holding religious people back from not being moral?
srussel, i bet you if you asked your parents if "jesus walked on water, jesus is the son of god, humans are born with original sin, true selflessness exist." All the answers to these questions would probably be yes.
If that is the case, don't you think that this falls into the archaic view notion? Where do you draw the line to differentiate (Besides being extremely vague on the affirmative as you are doing now).
The majority of catholics woud say yes; i know i went to a catholic highschool. |
|
|
|
|
