Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Pieter Tuulinen]

Oh, yes, with that I can kind of agree. Still, with his anti-thesim he's certainly not a greater advocate of freedom of speech than anti-feminists.

He turns the weapon of rhetoric onto those who have used it to forbid freedom of speech to those who disagreed with them for millenia. I'm really not seeing Hitchens as the problem in this equation but you, of course, are entirely free to differ.

[Jace]

Oh, yes, with that I can kind of agree. Still, with his anti-thesim he's certainly not a greater advocate of freedom of speech than anti-feminists.

He turns the weapon of rhetoric onto those who have used it to forbid freedom of speech to those who disagreed with them for millenia. I'm really not seeing Hitchens as the problem in this equation but you, of course, are entirely free to differ.

Well, he's not much of a problem anymore considering he has passed away. And he was the only effective rhetorician out of those four.

The issue (from my perspective, I can't speak for Mithra) is that too often blatant hate speech is cheered as championing freedom of speech. One can do the latter without the former.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Oh, yes, with that I can kind of agree. Still, with his anti-thesim he's certainly not a greater advocate of freedom of speech than anti-feminists.

He turns the weapon of rhetoric onto those who have used it to forbid freedom of speech to those who disagreed with them for millenia. I'm really not seeing Hitchens as the problem in this equation but you, of course, are entirely free to differ.

Well, he's not much of a problem anymore considering he has passed away. And he was the only effective rhetorician out of those four.

The issue (from my perspective, I can't speak for Mithra) is that too often blatant hate speech is cheered as championing freedom of speech. One can do the latter without the former.

I agree a lot! (Especially on the Hitchens not being, personally, a problem anymore, since he passed away. There's his legacy, though, which is, in part, problematic, though, I'd claim.) I'll just paste in the response I was about to type when Sarice answered:

First, it is a far stretch to claim that all religious people used rhetoric to forbid freedom of speech. It's already a far stretch to say that all Christians did so. It's also quite contentious, at best, to claim that they did so, because they were religious. And furthermore, I'm doubting that rhetorics is a tool that really is able to forbid freedom of speech.

That said, he is quite happy to use it exactly the way he polemicises against, if it is used against religious people: Because he was of the firm belief that they are wrong. He was dedicated to oppress religious people as much as he percieved religious people to have oppressed 'non-religious people'.

In the end, though: Where is the more of impact of anti-feminism in regard to free speech in comparison to Hitchens virulent and dogmatic anti-theism? It's not really that I said he is a problem per se: I've been saying that if anti-feminism is a problem when speaking out for freedom of speech, then anti-theism is arguably as well.

Or to use Hitchens' words: "Freedom of Speech Includes the Freedom to Hate." If that goes for Hitchens, then for anti-feminists and misogynists as well. ( But yes, to me this is a shabby excuse to try to justify hate speech. So, yes, I see Hitchens as a problem in the equasion. - I don't think that matters much, though, to the argument that Hitchens isn't a better spokesperson for freedom of speech than anti-feminists.)

[Vikarion]

Well, I was going to stay away from this if it were about gender. But, since it appears to be about something I do care a great deal about, I will comment.

First, I recommended Hitchens because I remembered that he had defended the right to speak, on several occasions, including the one regarding the Denmark cartoons of Mohammad. I also recommended him because he defended the right of those who disagreed with him to say what they wished as well. And it strikes me that Hitchens was, if not perfectly palatable to some, at least much more skilled in defending free speech than Karen Straughn, who, while interesting to listen to, I do not find especially convincing.

That said, I'll also stand up for the rest of what you criticize. For most of my life, I was a devout Evangelical Christian. In 2011, doing some study of the Gospels, and using my Hebrew and Greek dictionaries, I started noticing some contradictions and problems. This led me into an intense period of study and research, which led to my loss of faith.

I'm an atheist, and an anti-theist. Looking back, I see so many ways that religion blighted my life. While my decision was made on the basis of evidence, I also have to say that I am much happier, much more educated, and possess much more...well, peace. But the biggest benefit for me is that I now know the truth, and also that I'm not afraid of learning more truths.

So do I want to get rid of all religion? Yes. I believe religion to be a false comfort, a delusion, and a closing of the mind. I think that it creates tribalism, and I think that the teachings of religion enforce illogical and harmful strictures upon humans, which often lead to harm and death, such as the Catholic Church's prohibition of abortion and condoms, or Evangelicals attempting to teach Creationism, or the idea that beating your wife is sanctioned by the prophet Mohammad. And I've read these holy books, memorized portions of them, in fact, and I do know exactly what I'm talking about.

But anti-theism doesn't agree with banning religious speech. What I want, as an anti-theist, is the right for everyone to put their arguments out there, and for those arguments to be examined with an even-handed thought process evaluating each argument on the basis of reason and evidence. Because when that happens, atheism, tends to win. A lot. Which is one reason why unbelievers are the fastest growing religious demographic in the U.S.

That doesn't mean that I hate believers. Rather, I see them, and my former self, as victims of a mind-virus. And I do my best to, in a caring and kind way, ask them to examine their own beliefs. To date, I have aided in the deconversion of at least two of my friends from Christianity, and I hope to help far more escape the clutches of religion.

[Jace]

I don't have much of an interest in the debate as a whole, I've had it too many times. But religion is on the rise world-wide. That is something people rarely mention. They tend to just repeat the increase of non-religious in US and Western Europe. And it is always important to actually look at what surveys ask. There is indeed a rise in the West of not identifying with a specific religion -- but that is often overstated into a rise of atheism. Those are two different concepts.

Regardless, non-belief is indeed falling when you take the world as a whole. And there is recent evidence that the increasing trend of unbelief is starting to reverse in some Western countries.

Edit: I suppose the other thing I will mention is that people tend to assume a very West-centric view of religion. They assume that the Enlightenment is a process that is inevitable, etc. It is arguable that the influence of Enlightenment-style rationalism is waning, not becoming stronger. Even if the established religions were to deteriorate, there is no reason to assume that they will be replaced by old school rationalism like many prominent atheists seem to believe.

[Valadeus]

I would welcome your debate Vikarion, not here because it isn't the place for it.

I've dealt with plenty of atheists and anti-theists attempting to reason away my faith and my "religion," but none of them have succeeded because, in the end, I too believe I hold the truth and it has been found through honest search and evidence.

I agree whole-heartedly that organized religion has done a great many evils in this world and likely will still, and I agree that many individuals claiming to adhere to this-or-that religion have committed great evils and done many wrongs.

However, I've seen just as many wrongs and just as many evils committed my atheists, anti-theists, agnostics and other philosophies/religions/cults/whatever to know that it's not a condition of religion, it's a condition of the human heart.

Religion just takes the spotlight because its followers are supposed to be different and all too often, we aren't.

[Vikarion]

I don't have much of an interest in the debate as a whole, I've had it too many times. But religion is on the rise world-wide. That is something people rarely mention. They tend to just repeat the increase of non-religious in US and Western Europe. And it is always important to actually look at what surveys ask. There is indeed a rise in the West of not identifying with a specific religion -- but that is often overstated into a rise of atheism. Those are two different concepts.

Regardless, non-belief is indeed falling when you take the world as a whole. And there is recent evidence that the increasing trend of unbelief is starting to reverse in some Western countries.

Edit: I suppose the other thing I will mention is that people tend to assume a very West-centric view of religion. They assume that the Enlightenment is a process that is inevitable, etc. It is arguable that the influence of Enlightenment-style rationalism is waning, not becoming stronger. Even if the established religions were to deteriorate, there is no reason to assume that they will be replaced by old school rationalism like many prominent atheists seem to believe.

It would be more accurate to say that Islam is growing, and that is largely because they are having more kids than the rest of us.    That's ok, I'll simply brush up on my Koran studies, as indeed I am already doing.

But in societies with well-informed populations, the tilt is definitely away from religion - at least according to the studies I've seen.

As for worldviews, I hold only that an adherence to skepticism, rationality, and science will be necessary for the survival of our species. In my view, a Christian who is skeptical, otherwise rational, and accepting of science is better than an atheist who is not. But I'd rather have a person be more rational, and thus, an atheist as well as the others.

[Jace]

That last bit was what I was referring to in my edit. Even for those that are moving away from religion, there is little evidence that they are moving towards an old-fashioned rationalism as per Enlightenment. On the contrary, it seems that many so-called 'postmodernist' approaches are on the rise with the unbelieving. Not rationalism.

And Christianity is growing quickly worldwide. It is not just Islam. Christianity is spreading unbelievably fast in significant parts of Africa.

But again, I have no interest in the debate as such. It seems like a fairly pointless one, to me. The amount of people I have met that have changed their minds about these topics because of a debate they had with someone is less than I could count on one hand.

[Vikarion]

I've dealt with plenty of atheists and anti-theists attempting to reason away my faith and my "religion," but none of them have succeeded because, in the end, I too believe I hold the truth and it has been found through honest search and evidence.

Yes, you do, and I did when I was a Christian. Please don't be offended, because I only use this as an analogy, but I feel that "mind-virus" is a very apt way to describe what religions do. In a sense, they are like the AIDS virus, because they form a system in which the very methods we use for checking the truth of our beliefs are co-opted. For example, we do not use the same standards for evaluating our own religious beliefs that we do in evaluating other, similar claims.

I agree whole-heartedly that organized religion has done a great many evils in this world and likely will still, and I agree that many individuals claiming to adhere to this-or-that religion have committed great evils and done many wrongs.

However, I've seen just as many wrongs and just as many evils committed my atheists, anti-theists, agnostics and other philosophies/religions/cults/whatever to know that it's not a condition of religion, it's a condition of the human heart.

Religion just takes the spotlight because its followers are supposed to be different and all too often, we aren't.

This is what I like to call the "you are too!" argument. To me, it's rather irrelevant what crimes were committed, although it's hard to find crimes that were committed in the name of atheism, as opposed to Marxism. But I hate Marxism too.    Nonetheless, it really doesn't matter to me what crimes were committed by believers, in terms of my own belief. If Christianity were true, it would be true, whether Christians were responsible for the Crusades or not.

I left Christianity because I did Biblical research, and found the Bible to be a very flawed and unreliable document. Books of the New Testament were forged, the Gospels contradict each other and were written decades after the event by non-eyewitnesses who altered the stories in each account, the stories of the Old Testament, especially the early ones, are proven almost entirely false by archaeology, and the Creation account of Genesis, as well as the Flood, are entirely mythical, as shown by virtually any work in any of the biological, astronomical, or geological sciences. To start with.

That's why I left Christianity. I'm not offering a debate, this is my perspective.

[Vikarion]

And Christianity is growing quickly worldwide. It is not just Islam. Christianity is spreading unbelievably fast in significant parts of Africa.

Ah, yes, I had forgotten about that. I shouldn't have, given that they've taken up the practice of killing witches and gays.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/african-children-denounce_n_324943.html

[Jace]

Ah, yes, I had forgotten about that. I shouldn't have, given that they've taken up the practice of killing witches and gays.

As I said, I have no interest in a debate. But you should always account for people that convert from atheism to a religion in your perspective. The way you describe it above is as if people are infected because they are unaware of a cure -- that sounds rather insulting to people that do an incredible amount of research and convert as a result of that research.

I was an atheist for about ten years, five or so of which I considered myself an antitheist. I ended up converting to a religion after that time. But either way, I do not mind discussing things as long as they do not turn into debates. Debates about these things are rarely fruitful; we've all heard the other side's points thousands of times. But if you ever feel like a casual discussion about stuff, you can send me a message.

But in order to avoid starting a debate here, I will bow out of the topic.

[Vikarion]

I was an atheist for about ten years, five or so of which I considered myself an antitheist. I ended up converting to a religion after that time.

Well, I would never claim that an atheist can't convert. I would just like to know what sort of empirical evidence you could give for that belief.

And, btw, calling me out for saying that I think that religion is a "mind-virus" is a little...interesting...considering that you don't seem to have had any problem with calling my anti-theism "idiotic".

So while I don't go out of my way to offend, and, indeed, I pointed out that this was my view, I don't think that you're being entirely fair.

[Silas Vitalia]

Had to come back to post this.  Those honeybadger clowns were just tossed out on their asses after trying to pull some disruptive "anti censorship" (men's rights) stunts at a convention.  Love it.  http://kotaku.com/gamergate-booth-kicked-out-of-canadian-comic-expo-1698538297

[Jace]

I was an atheist for about ten years, five or so of which I considered myself an antitheist. I ended up converting to a religion after that time.

Well, I would never claim that an atheist can't convert. I would just like to know what sort of empirical evidence you could give for that belief.

And, btw, calling me out for saying that I think that religion is a "mind-virus" is a little...interesting...considering that you don't seem to have had any problem with calling my anti-theism "idiotic".

So while I don't go out of my way to offend, and, indeed, I pointed out that this was my view, I don't think that you're being entirely fair.

I did no such thing. I referred to Hitchen's antitheism as idiotic.

And he did often get quite idiotic. I do not extend that to all antitheists.

[Vikarion]

I was an atheist for about ten years, five or so of which I considered myself an antitheist. I ended up converting to a religion after that time.

Well, I would never claim that an atheist can't convert. I would just like to know what sort of empirical evidence you could give for that belief.

And, btw, calling me out for saying that I think that religion is a "mind-virus" is a little...interesting...considering that you don't seem to have had any problem with calling my anti-theism "idiotic".

So while I don't go out of my way to offend, and, indeed, I pointed out that this was my view, I don't think that you're being entirely fair.

I did no such thing. I referred to Hitchen's antitheism as idiotic.

And he did often get quite idiotic. I do not extend that to all antitheists.

I draw mine, from his. And, as he coined the term, how could I do otherwise? You called me an idiot, now you want to squirm out of it. Own up to it. You believe, and you think that I am a fool, and condemned to hell therefore. That doesn't offend me, as long as you are honest enough to admit it.

It does offend me that you are cowardly enough to try to avoid the implication.