Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Savage Love Savage Love Letter of the Day
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 5:16 PM
From your latest column: "And finally, CAEM, there is no God—you do realize that, right? No hell below us, above us only sky, etc."I've been a regular reader for a couple years, Dan, but you've lost me on this one. What do you hope to achieve by ridiculing the beliefs of someone who came to you for advice? Your response to this person is as dogmatic as the institutions you criticize: it does not indicate any attempt to tolerate mindsets that differ from your own, nor any respect for the needs and desires that bring people to religion in the first place. I have found your columns entertaining in the past, but will not continue reading as I now believe your advice to be too prejudiced to be trustworthy.
And for what it's worth, I do not practice any particular religion, I support gay rights and I am politically liberal.
Disappointed By Your Stance
Someone can assert that there is a god... and i'm out of line for asserting that there isn't? Sorry to lose you, DBYS, but that's a price I'm willing to pay.
Share via
1
Poor Dan. Such a victim of prejudice.
In fairness, I don't believe this person's complaint was based on a single line from a single post.
In fairness, I don't believe this person's complaint was based on a single line from a single post.
3
Both assertions are out of line and ridiculous. With all the other battles to fight, why be a hardliner on this one? Live and let live - and if they're not letting you live, then take them to task for failing to meet their own standards of peace, love, etc.; crappy culture begets crappy religion, not the other way around.
4
DBYS missed the fact that Dan gave the guy several options that did not involve denying his god. If the guy really wanted to know how to cope with with being celibate, he should have asked a priest.
Oh wait....
Oh wait....
5
Don't you get it Dan only the religious are able to say what they believe. If you don't think there is a god or think X religion is silly you have to keep your mouth shut lest you be called a bigot. Even if you just disagree but don't want to deny them any rights or prevent them from believing you are still intolerant.
@3 Not all religions are about peace and love. That's a pretty modern thing.
@3 Not all religions are about peace and love. That's a pretty modern thing.
8
I thought your advice to CAEM was spot on, until that last line. The tone was a little smug and condescending (e.g., "you do realize"). You didn't say "I believe" or "I think that", and as a result it came across as "... and if you don't believe that there's no God you're stupid" (whether you meant that or not).
I actually thought the original letter writer was pretty tame with his religious attitudes -- "in the teachings of my particular religion", "religion has been for me". He doesn't come across as a "you must believe what I believe", one-true-religion kind of guy, just that his religion is important to him and he doesn't know how to deal with (presumably) being gay.
I'm not going to take my ball and go home or anything, like DBYS, but it was a bit of a dick thing to say (or rather, it was said in a dick-ish way).
I actually thought the original letter writer was pretty tame with his religious attitudes -- "in the teachings of my particular religion", "religion has been for me". He doesn't come across as a "you must believe what I believe", one-true-religion kind of guy, just that his religion is important to him and he doesn't know how to deal with (presumably) being gay.
I'm not going to take my ball and go home or anything, like DBYS, but it was a bit of a dick thing to say (or rather, it was said in a dick-ish way).
9
@5 et al: Nobody's saying you can't be atheist.
The problem is most atheists act like such smug, know-it-all, enlightened superior dickheads about it.
For all the anger, rancor, bile, and hatred expressed by the atheists in this limited forum, I find myself wanting to identify with the religious people more.
The problem is most atheists act like such smug, know-it-all, enlightened superior dickheads about it.
For all the anger, rancor, bile, and hatred expressed by the atheists in this limited forum, I find myself wanting to identify with the religious people more.
11
@9 et al: Nobody's saying you can't be christian.
The problem is most christians act like such smug, know-it-all, enlightened superior dickheads about it.
For all the anger, rancor, bile, and hatred expressed by the christians on fox news, I find myself wanting to identify with the athiest people more.
The problem is most christians act like such smug, know-it-all, enlightened superior dickheads about it.
For all the anger, rancor, bile, and hatred expressed by the christians on fox news, I find myself wanting to identify with the athiest people more.
12
It's amazing how many religious people will whine that atheists are "intolerant" and "closed minded" whenever we state our views. Far from it: those who say such things are just terrified of any kind of rational, intellectual certainty.
I have vastly more respect for someone like Kim, who posts here and is devoutly Christian but not threatened by atheists, than I do these types of "agnostic", lets-not-really-confront-any-difficult-intellectual-questions mush-brained cobags.
I have vastly more respect for someone like Kim, who posts here and is devoutly Christian but not threatened by atheists, than I do these types of "agnostic", lets-not-really-confront-any-difficult-intellectual-questions mush-brained cobags.
13
@8 But maybe his religion IS the problem. Dan is advice columnist who people write to for advice and that is what he gave the guy. He told him that his attachment to his religions was the source of his problem and he should get over it.
Why should he pretend otherwise?
Why should he pretend otherwise?
14
Good on you. I'm sick of being polite when it comes to respecting peoples 'beliefs'.
There is no God
Get over it.
There is no God
Get over it.
15
@5 - I agree that peace and love haven't been in religion since the start - they are only central since, oh, the 1st century BCE or so. I'm just saying - you can't make universal generalizations about religion or believers without being a bigot. You have no idea what concepts like "religion" or "god" means to someone unless you ask them personally. So nobody has any business making blanket statements like that.
We do expect that people in our society understand the implications of the fact that not everyone is going to see things their way, and the burden of proof is on those who want to control the behavior of others. If you're religious and you can't communicate your moral concerns in secular terms, you should probably just keep them to yourself, and people who aren't doing that need to be taught that it's not cool to use their religion as justification to push other people around. Usually religion just serves as a foil for people to be the assholes they are in the first place; religion ain't the cause.
And it certainly doesn't follow that that applies to all religious people. Choose your targets wisely, or you're going to make enemies out of your friends.
We do expect that people in our society understand the implications of the fact that not everyone is going to see things their way, and the burden of proof is on those who want to control the behavior of others. If you're religious and you can't communicate your moral concerns in secular terms, you should probably just keep them to yourself, and people who aren't doing that need to be taught that it's not cool to use their religion as justification to push other people around. Usually religion just serves as a foil for people to be the assholes they are in the first place; religion ain't the cause.
And it certainly doesn't follow that that applies to all religious people. Choose your targets wisely, or you're going to make enemies out of your friends.
16
@11 - I agree that many Christians act like smug- know-it-all enlightened dickheads ("I've been saved", "you should accept the Lord Jesus into your heart", etc.). But, the original letter writer seemed to be not one of those people. I'm all in favor of being dick-ish to people who are dick-ish about their beliefs, but...
BTW, I'm agnostic, and, at one point definitely had the "all religious people are idiots" viewpoint. But, I softened a bit as a figured out that people are religious for a variety of reasons and get a variety of different things out of it -- if you're religious, as long as your not a one-true-religion or a boy-I-sure-do-love-that-James-Dobson person, I'm not going to automatically think you're an idiot until you prove otherwise.
BTW, I'm agnostic, and, at one point definitely had the "all religious people are idiots" viewpoint. But, I softened a bit as a figured out that people are religious for a variety of reasons and get a variety of different things out of it -- if you're religious, as long as your not a one-true-religion or a boy-I-sure-do-love-that-James-Dobson person, I'm not going to automatically think you're an idiot until you prove otherwise.
19
giffy - I actually thought the first few paragraphs of his advice was excellent. Religion is this dude's problem, and Dan did a good job of explaining it. But, the last line seemed kinda pointless...
20
@16
I was just pointing out that generalization about any group being a bunch of pricks are easy, because most people are pricks when you get down to it. I'm also agnostic and know cool religious people and cool athiests...and a whole lot of pricks.
I was just pointing out that generalization about any group being a bunch of pricks are easy, because most people are pricks when you get down to it. I'm also agnostic and know cool religious people and cool athiests...and a whole lot of pricks.
21
@11 Touche.
Can we both try to be a part of the solution now?
Because the "us against them" mentality leads nowhere and sure drives an artificial wedge between otherwise decent people, straight, gay, atheist, or religious.
Can we both try to be a part of the solution now?
Because the "us against them" mentality leads nowhere and sure drives an artificial wedge between otherwise decent people, straight, gay, atheist, or religious.
23
Going through his latest column I fail to see why do any of these people write in the hopes of getting any sound advice from him. He's truly vicious in his responses, especially with those homosexuals struggling, that sorta caught me by surprise but after thinking about it, it makes sense that he would. When one professes an ideology that is not grounded on the principles of love, of our Creator, what can you expect?
Maybe this poor man who finds himself in this spiritual struggle should skip trying to seek his fellow men advice , especially those of gay atheists who hold a special hatred of religion and instead search for it in the scriptures, because CAEM, men's thoughts and advice are often fraught with imperfection but the word of God will guide you to make the best decision for you life. One that will free you, enrich you and those around you spiritually and in all aspects of your human journey.
Maybe this poor man who finds himself in this spiritual struggle should skip trying to seek his fellow men advice , especially those of gay atheists who hold a special hatred of religion and instead search for it in the scriptures, because CAEM, men's thoughts and advice are often fraught with imperfection but the word of God will guide you to make the best decision for you life. One that will free you, enrich you and those around you spiritually and in all aspects of your human journey.
24
@15 Its a bit latter than that. Peace in early Christianity would probably be more analogous to order or contentment. At least for the majority of the faith. Most early christian writers had little problem with violence against nonbelievers, sinners, or apostates.
It was not until very recently that the idea of Christianity as a non-violent movement about loving everyone took hold. How liberal Christians conceive of Jesus and Christianity is a modern interpretation more than anything.
And don't confuse disagreement with attack. Saying there is no god is no different from saying there is a god. I don't think Christians are silly or dumb even though I might think there religion is. There is a fundamental difference there.
It was not until very recently that the idea of Christianity as a non-violent movement about loving everyone took hold. How liberal Christians conceive of Jesus and Christianity is a modern interpretation more than anything.
And don't confuse disagreement with attack. Saying there is no god is no different from saying there is a god. I don't think Christians are silly or dumb even though I might think there religion is. There is a fundamental difference there.
25
@19 I think Dan just wanted to quote Lennon...
@23 For once you have a point. People should not seek spiritual advice from atheists. Though the fact that anyone would need to be told that...
@23 For once you have a point. People should not seek spiritual advice from atheists. Though the fact that anyone would need to be told that...
26
If you ask an atheist for advice and you bring religion into the discussion yourself, should you be surprised if the atheist has an atheistic opinion about religion?
27
the truth is that most people grow out of "Atheism" in their thirties, when they have kids and realize that the world doesn't revolve around them and their ego. It's not a stretch to say that dan has never felt that sense of self sacrifice. He loves himself too much to allow for a God to exist.
Atheism is a big snooze, over played and cliche. Get a new rap kiddos. Maybe die your hair purple, get a tatoo or peirce something. Your ignorance on the subject of spiritual matters is as mature as your fashion sense.
Atheism is a big snooze, over played and cliche. Get a new rap kiddos. Maybe die your hair purple, get a tatoo or peirce something. Your ignorance on the subject of spiritual matters is as mature as your fashion sense.
28
@24 - The Rabbi Hillel (1st century BCE) said, "What is hateful to you, do not do to anyone else. That is the whole of the Torah. The rest is commentary."
Whatever, I'm not going to try to blanket-defend all religions or whatever. But we have standards in our modern society; we can determine whether people are being assholes by what they do, not what they think. If people act like assholes, we call them out.
Whatever, I'm not going to try to blanket-defend all religions or whatever. But we have standards in our modern society; we can determine whether people are being assholes by what they do, not what they think. If people act like assholes, we call them out.
30
@15 "You have no idea what concepts like "religion" or "god" means to someone unless you ask them personally."
I don't buy this. So there is criteria for what a Christian is, what a Muslim is, and what a Hindu is. If you can't tell what someone's relationship to their religion is by what they call themselves then all religions are meaningless.
Just having a religion shouldn't guarantee that everyone has to respect your beliefs. Beliefs are just ideas. A religion has to stand up as a serious idea to be taken seriously. If you call yourself a Christian, and then run around doing things that Jesus told his people not to do, you do not have the right to be taken seriously. Most people that call themselves Christians in this country are barely familiar with the text they claim to base their beliefs off of, and their actions often contradict with the message of those texts. If you're too lazy to study or be consistent in your own beliefs, you deserve to be treated like an idiot, because you are.
I don't buy this. So there is criteria for what a Christian is, what a Muslim is, and what a Hindu is. If you can't tell what someone's relationship to their religion is by what they call themselves then all religions are meaningless.
Just having a religion shouldn't guarantee that everyone has to respect your beliefs. Beliefs are just ideas. A religion has to stand up as a serious idea to be taken seriously. If you call yourself a Christian, and then run around doing things that Jesus told his people not to do, you do not have the right to be taken seriously. Most people that call themselves Christians in this country are barely familiar with the text they claim to base their beliefs off of, and their actions often contradict with the message of those texts. If you're too lazy to study or be consistent in your own beliefs, you deserve to be treated like an idiot, because you are.
31
I thought it was a great answer to what reads as a come-on by a professed christian whose force-fed beliefs are suddenly clashing with his reality. Dan's closing sentence was a fine coda to a response that eloquently granted CAEM's wish for a clearly needed injection of rationality.
32
Get on the fucking train, guys. Be an Apathist with me.
I am too apathetic to think about God or whether God exists or doesn't. The only time I think about God and God's existence is when I think about how long it's been since I last thought about God. (Which was about 7 years ago when I was 17. And guess what, I was in the shower trying to remember when the last time I thought about God was. Which was probably the last time I went to church... some time in elementary school?)
I would have written an Apathist manifesto, but I just don't care enough about God or whether he exists to fucking write it.
I am too apathetic to think about God or whether God exists or doesn't. The only time I think about God and God's existence is when I think about how long it's been since I last thought about God. (Which was about 7 years ago when I was 17. And guess what, I was in the shower trying to remember when the last time I thought about God was. Which was probably the last time I went to church... some time in elementary school?)
I would have written an Apathist manifesto, but I just don't care enough about God or whether he exists to fucking write it.
33
@28 Ok fair enough, Judaism, especially the mystical versions, did get a bit of a pacifist streak for a time. And the Essenes, of whom Jesus(or the inspiration(s) for the myth), was probably a member were somewhat similar to the modern version of liberal Christianity. However, those were not ever really the majority and most died out not to really be revived for a couple millenia.
And I am by no means calling the religious assholes. I just think this is something that everyone should be able to debate and express an opinion on without being accused of intolerance based on simple disagreement.
And I am by no means calling the religious assholes. I just think this is something that everyone should be able to debate and express an opinion on without being accused of intolerance based on simple disagreement.
34
Speaking as a person who is Christian (of the progressive variety), I first want to say that your advice nailed CAEM's problem. He's holding on to a terribly dogmatic view of his particular religion (and I would guess Catholic, too), and frankly, most people who do that never really let themselves be happy. They are too worried about breaking the rules and being punished to let themsleves feel genuine joy in the wonders of life (and yes, sex is included in that).
BUT...
You did take a really condescending tone with him, Dan, especially the last part. Granted, he should have done a little more research into who you were before he wrote to you, and he shouldn't expect validation of his beliefs from someone who is an agnostic or an atheist. Still, you didn't have to throw that last line in there like that. No, it wasn't an attack, but it was kind of dick thing to say.
BUT...
You did take a really condescending tone with him, Dan, especially the last part. Granted, he should have done a little more research into who you were before he wrote to you, and he shouldn't expect validation of his beliefs from someone who is an agnostic or an atheist. Still, you didn't have to throw that last line in there like that. No, it wasn't an attack, but it was kind of dick thing to say.
35
Believing in god is a cop out for people who cannot deal with the fact that life is really only what YOU make out of it.
There is no greater significance you will ever understand as a lowly mortal being chained to the life sustaining cycle of eating, shitting and fucking.
If you want to fill your void with dogma designed to control you, religion, have at it, but understand your life style is a lesser evolved state.
The Doctor recommends Hallucinogens.
There is no greater significance you will ever understand as a lowly mortal being chained to the life sustaining cycle of eating, shitting and fucking.
If you want to fill your void with dogma designed to control you, religion, have at it, but understand your life style is a lesser evolved state.
The Doctor recommends Hallucinogens.
36
I, for one, look forward to when Dan broadens his hatred to other Abrahamic religions, especially Islam.
Nothing brings readership like a fatwa, Dan.
Nothing brings readership like a fatwa, Dan.
37
@30 - Let's sort this out. People identify with a religion based on subjective criteria; there are huge, vast differences within religions (just compare Bishop John Shelby Spong, Thomas Merton, or Carlton Pearson with, say, James Dobson, and you'll get the idea). It's almost impossible to make general statements about what Christianity means to all these people that applies across all of them.
I agree with your point about people being assholes. If people are acting like assholes, DOING asshole things, then hell yeah, tear them a new one. But you don't KNOW that simply by what religion somebody identifies with, until and unless they say or do something that outs them as an asshole. That's all there is to it.
And yeah, I would basically agree that the concept of "religion" gives more heat than light. It's generally meaningless and is understood by most scholars on the subject as a convenience catch-all category (much like "culture") that, in usage, needs to get defined as precisely as possible before you can say anything meaningful with it. Read up:
http://hypertiling.wordpress.com/2009/07…
I agree with your point about people being assholes. If people are acting like assholes, DOING asshole things, then hell yeah, tear them a new one. But you don't KNOW that simply by what religion somebody identifies with, until and unless they say or do something that outs them as an asshole. That's all there is to it.
And yeah, I would basically agree that the concept of "religion" gives more heat than light. It's generally meaningless and is understood by most scholars on the subject as a convenience catch-all category (much like "culture") that, in usage, needs to get defined as precisely as possible before you can say anything meaningful with it. Read up:
http://hypertiling.wordpress.com/2009/07…
38
@23 But aren't the scriptures also a collection of the writings of who knows how many men whose thoughts and advice were often fraught with imperfection?
39
" I agree that peace and love haven't been in religion since the start - they are only central since, oh, the 1st century BCE or so." Peace and love may have been professed as ideals since the beginning of Christianity but it wasn't followed as a policy. Unless you call thesupport of slavery , the witch burnings, the slaughter of the Cathars, or the murder of Hypatia by scraping her flesh from her with shelss loving ..... I think that religions spread love and peace when they have lost temporal power.
40
@35 - Now we're getting somewhere interesting. I don't personally "believe" in a God as literally described by religions, but I think of religions as human inventions that tell us something about ourselves, what we think God must be like, or how we see our role in the universe. None of that makes it literally true, of course, but it's also far from useless.
And yeah, hallucinogens have basically been at the root of almost every really interesting religious insight.
And yeah, hallucinogens have basically been at the root of almost every really interesting religious insight.
41
Islam, Christianity and Judaism are the same fucking religion and the swaying, praying and kneeling followers are either to stupid to realize it, or in denial.
43
@12, I totally agree with you.
I'm so sick of hearing religious apologists accuse athiests of being "fundamentalist" or "intolerant", or equating people like Dawkins and Hitchens with Rick Warren. It's such a fatuous accusation.
There is a critical difference between the theist and the athiest: the theist believes in the existence of something which, while un-falsifiable, is also un-provable. The athiest merely denies the existence of that thing. The onus here rests on the theist.
It is not intolerant, or "fundamentalist", or "close minded" to call for objective proof of a positive assertion, and in the absence of it, sustain the presumption that the assertion has not been made out.
As I've posted before here on Slog, I personally do believe in the existence of God (for want of a better word), but I am painfully aware that the only evidence I have to support that belief is entirely subjective. Accordingly I don't assert it as objective fact, and I don't get offended or defensive if others question the soundness of my belief.
I'm a big fan of Dawkins. I find his logic unassailable and his arguments utterly compelling. I also find him extremely entertaining. If I ultimately retain my faith notwithstanding that logic and those arguments, it's not without some intellectual embarrassment, and it's certainly not a position from which I'm entitled to take umbrage at those who, quite understandably, might view my religious beliefs as ridiculous.
I'm so sick of hearing religious apologists accuse athiests of being "fundamentalist" or "intolerant", or equating people like Dawkins and Hitchens with Rick Warren. It's such a fatuous accusation.
There is a critical difference between the theist and the athiest: the theist believes in the existence of something which, while un-falsifiable, is also un-provable. The athiest merely denies the existence of that thing. The onus here rests on the theist.
It is not intolerant, or "fundamentalist", or "close minded" to call for objective proof of a positive assertion, and in the absence of it, sustain the presumption that the assertion has not been made out.
As I've posted before here on Slog, I personally do believe in the existence of God (for want of a better word), but I am painfully aware that the only evidence I have to support that belief is entirely subjective. Accordingly I don't assert it as objective fact, and I don't get offended or defensive if others question the soundness of my belief.
I'm a big fan of Dawkins. I find his logic unassailable and his arguments utterly compelling. I also find him extremely entertaining. If I ultimately retain my faith notwithstanding that logic and those arguments, it's not without some intellectual embarrassment, and it's certainly not a position from which I'm entitled to take umbrage at those who, quite understandably, might view my religious beliefs as ridiculous.
44
Pause
Before we get wrapped up in the old tired arguments about religion, let me remind everyone that the topic was more along the lines of "Did Dan act like a dick to this guy?"
Play
Before we get wrapped up in the old tired arguments about religion, let me remind everyone that the topic was more along the lines of "Did Dan act like a dick to this guy?"
Play
45
@39 - Stalin was an atheist. Does that mean you're a genocidal maniac?
Again: Religions are neither inherently good nor inherently evil. Assholes come in all stripes. Religion is optional.
Again: Religions are neither inherently good nor inherently evil. Assholes come in all stripes. Religion is optional.
46
Seeing as CAEM wanted advice on being celibate, I think Dan's advice was fine. CAEM must come to peace with who he is, who God is, and his relationship with God.
CAEM expressed that he understood that Dan is (my description) an agnostic/atheist blend. So, I hope that he wasn't stung by Dan's opinion.
Although, I disagree with Dan (about the existence of God, heaven and hell), I don't think his intent was to be smug or hurtful. I think Dan was trying to help CAEM find peace. Was Dan's statement necessary, I don't think so. Could he have made his point with kinder words, I think he could. Still, he has every right to state his opinion. Especially in his own column. Those of us who disagree, get to love him (as a fellow human) for the person he is, and allow him his opinions.
47
# 45 No - not by a long shot - I'm neither an atheist nor homicidal. I was making the point that, while Christianity had temporal power, they enforced their message of peace and love with violence. Adn I'm wondering if that is true of most organized religion.
48
36 You know he wont cause like others with his same ideological proclivity he will not dare to insult other religions especially those who he knows wont take the abuse like christians do. You see bashing christians is safe, its seen as something 'intellectual' that's why they do it.
49
@8
I think you're right on here. Dan was being a condescending DICK in his final comments to the guy. Wow, gee, Dan's just soooooo enlightened whereas anyone who disagrees with him is not. He often pulls this crap. Once again, he's showing himself to be totally narrow and not so smart. I love atheists who believe that THEIR view is the only one with any truth to it, thereby showing themselves to be just as bad as the religious dogmatists whom they ridicule. Hypocritical and just plain dumb.
So stick to the sex advice, wouldja Dan? Cos that's what you're so good at. When you try to show yer stuff on the political and/or religious fronts, you often embarrass yourself. Do yourself a favor and stop before you start.
I think you're right on here. Dan was being a condescending DICK in his final comments to the guy. Wow, gee, Dan's just soooooo enlightened whereas anyone who disagrees with him is not. He often pulls this crap. Once again, he's showing himself to be totally narrow and not so smart. I love atheists who believe that THEIR view is the only one with any truth to it, thereby showing themselves to be just as bad as the religious dogmatists whom they ridicule. Hypocritical and just plain dumb.
So stick to the sex advice, wouldja Dan? Cos that's what you're so good at. When you try to show yer stuff on the political and/or religious fronts, you often embarrass yourself. Do yourself a favor and stop before you start.
50
#8 said "it was a bit of a dick thing to say (or rather, it was said in a dick-ish way)." and i agree.
#34 said "You did take a really condescending tone with him, Dan, especially the last part." and i agree.
the thing is, this is Dan's usual tone. he simply loves to condescend. and his posting the letters here, inviting comments from the peanut gallery, is a perfect example of his ultimate lack of respect for those seeking his advice. they are his freaks to put on parade for his sloggers to laugh at and join in his condescension. unfortunately, not all his writers are into humiliation.
i hate to agree with loveschild about anything, but i come close on this one since i feel bad for anyone who seeks Dan's advice.
#34 said "You did take a really condescending tone with him, Dan, especially the last part." and i agree.
the thing is, this is Dan's usual tone. he simply loves to condescend. and his posting the letters here, inviting comments from the peanut gallery, is a perfect example of his ultimate lack of respect for those seeking his advice. they are his freaks to put on parade for his sloggers to laugh at and join in his condescension. unfortunately, not all his writers are into humiliation.
i hate to agree with loveschild about anything, but i come close on this one since i feel bad for anyone who seeks Dan's advice.
51
@48 That is nonsense. To say that there is no god is as objectionable to muslims as it is to christians.
But it is likely that Dan, or any other gay man in this country, has received far more condemnation from christians than from muslims. Maybe there is an apostate muslim version of Dan Savage out there somewhere.
But it is likely that Dan, or any other gay man in this country, has received far more condemnation from christians than from muslims. Maybe there is an apostate muslim version of Dan Savage out there somewhere.
52
@43
Just because something can't be proven thru the use of the scientific method or the other objective measures we currently have at our disposal as humans, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Such a view IS incredibly narrow and further suggests that all subjective experiences and views are IN-valid. Oh, and by the way, the athiest doesn't simply "deny the existence of the thing" that others believe in; he adamantly states that there IS NO thing. Sorry, but it's just another form of dogmatism.
Just because something can't be proven thru the use of the scientific method or the other objective measures we currently have at our disposal as humans, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Such a view IS incredibly narrow and further suggests that all subjective experiences and views are IN-valid. Oh, and by the way, the athiest doesn't simply "deny the existence of the thing" that others believe in; he adamantly states that there IS NO thing. Sorry, but it's just another form of dogmatism.
53
#36.
Dan understands that Christianity isn't the only Abrahamic Monotheistic religion that teaches hate and intolerance.
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/isla…
I, for one, look forward to when Dan broadens his hatred to other Abrahamic religions, especially Islam.
Dan understands that Christianity isn't the only Abrahamic Monotheistic religion that teaches hate and intolerance.
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/isla…
54
1. Where in that letter did the writer say there IS a god? Was it in the part you cut out? 'Cuz all we saw was him talking about, "my religion." Sure, that implies he believes, but no one's taking issue with Dan implying he DOESN'T believe. When you say to someone, "There is a god," or "There isn't a god," you cross the line from talking about your own beliefs to proselytizing.
2. You're using the, "The Christians do it, so it's okay for me to do it, too," argument? Really, Dan? You don't see how that's just plain pure hypocrisy? Excuse me if I thought the real battle here was about respecting other people's rights to live their own lives, not about trying to determine which belief system is the, "right" one.
2. You're using the, "The Christians do it, so it's okay for me to do it, too," argument? Really, Dan? You don't see how that's just plain pure hypocrisy? Excuse me if I thought the real battle here was about respecting other people's rights to live their own lives, not about trying to determine which belief system is the, "right" one.
55
Ecce Homo - I'm pretty much who the hell knows on the god issue, but reducing atheism to selfishness is ridiculous. What I want to believe--especially as I think about having and loving kids--is that I'm not ever really going to die. Sounds awesome to me and a better way to stroke my ego than believing in nothing. Stop pushing the "humble yourself" agenda -- it's not about super duper egos, it's about finding the arguments for religion frail even while you realize that your knowledge of all great things is incredibly lacking. At least it is for me.
56
Religion is this dude's problem, and Dan did a good job of explaining it. But, the last line seemed kinda pointless...
He had to throw it in because if he tries to break off, the family Christians in his life will play the trump card of, "If you defy our god YOU WILL GO TO HELLLLLLLL" and he may relapse back into the problematically conflicted state that led him to write this letter.
To not assert that point at the end leaves that benefit of the doubt open for the bigoted Christians in the letter writer's life to exploit. Better to throw it out there and deter the effects of any forthcoming bullshit.
57
I'm not a fan of dogmatic statements about the way the world is. Slap on the wrist to Dan for his "you realize" sentence. Still, it's hard to argue that religion hasn't viciously, profoundly fucked up sex and sexuality (for glbt's in particular).
And DBYS (facepalm)... congratulations on quitting Dan's column in a snit and looking like a total scrotum.
And DBYS (facepalm)... congratulations on quitting Dan's column in a snit and looking like a total scrotum.
58
@52, I don't agree. Obviously a failure to prove something exists doesn't disprove it, but neither does it shift the presumption that it doesn't. Holding to that presumption isn't "narrow", it's rational. You do it every day on a whole range of issues (dare I invoke Dawkins' trite example of the "flying spaghetti monster" here?).
As to the question of subjective experiences, it's not a matter of treating them as "invalid". That may have immense profundity and existential validity to the person experiencing them, but it's not close minded to discount (note I didn't say "reject entirely") their probative value. Again, it's entirely rational to do so.
Finally to your last point, it's only logical to assert the absence of something unproven as a means of communicative shorthand. The line between unproven and non-existent, while real, is gossamer thin.
As to the question of subjective experiences, it's not a matter of treating them as "invalid". That may have immense profundity and existential validity to the person experiencing them, but it's not close minded to discount (note I didn't say "reject entirely") their probative value. Again, it's entirely rational to do so.
Finally to your last point, it's only logical to assert the absence of something unproven as a means of communicative shorthand. The line between unproven and non-existent, while real, is gossamer thin.
59
@54 Of course, people have the right to live their own lives. The dude that wrote the letter could have went right along and lived his life without writing for advise from a gay sex columnist who would be the one most likely to tell him that his belief that celibacy was his only option was a stupid idea. Belief systems work - up until the point that they don't and that dude's belief system wasn't working too well. Dan just took him by his pious shoulders and tried to shake some sense into him.
After all, he did ask.
After all, he did ask.
60
And Confluence -- the type of atheism you insist is the only one that exists is called strong or positive atheism. You CAN also just say there is no proof for god and be an atheist.
I don't think I can fully prove there isn't a god or gods but that doesn't mean I believe in any. I'd also be willing to throw the whole unknowable thing in there too. So there you go. (Weak/negative) atheist and agnostic. You can be both.
And thanks to Dan for presenting a viewpoint that could do this guy a lot of psychological good. He's free to make of it what he wants. But to confidently toss an underrepresented spiritual outlook that involves no repression shame? You've all illustrated that this is a view that gets hushed everywhere else so more power to Dan for voicing it.
I don't think I can fully prove there isn't a god or gods but that doesn't mean I believe in any. I'd also be willing to throw the whole unknowable thing in there too. So there you go. (Weak/negative) atheist and agnostic. You can be both.
And thanks to Dan for presenting a viewpoint that could do this guy a lot of psychological good. He's free to make of it what he wants. But to confidently toss an underrepresented spiritual outlook that involves no repression shame? You've all illustrated that this is a view that gets hushed everywhere else so more power to Dan for voicing it.
62
Oh yeah, it's so smug and know-it-all to be rational. It's so elitist to tell it like it is. There's no proof of the existence of God? Keep that to yourself lest children learn there's no Sant Claus as well. And homos and Jews who refuse to commit suicide are intolerant of the Nazis beliefs who wish to see them dead. Moral relativism all the way!
65
When I was growing up and asking about God's existence, I would get a lot of "we don't know" and "some people believe". Not once did a grown-up tell me, "there is no God". As a young skeptic, I would have been so relieved to hear that! I would've been more comfortable in my atheism a lot sooner!
66
The sooner this guy ditches his ridiculous religious beliefs, the sooner he can be truly happy.
Religious people are far too sensitive about their beliefs. You can talk about God all you want, but if someone disagrees, you get all butt-hurt.
Religious people are far too sensitive about their beliefs. You can talk about God all you want, but if someone disagrees, you get all butt-hurt.
67
@64 I honestly don't know how to do one of those fancy little quote boxes some folks can do on this site, and I hate ghetto-ing it up with just some quotation marks.
I'm not trying to antagonize/troll anyone. I was just overly glib in asking the guy to back up his claimed expertise on the subject (and when you're saying someone else is wrong because of their 'ignorance' of the current subject, you are clearly setting yourself up as a guy who Knows What He Is Talking About).
But in all seriousness, I'd really like to know if the guy's going to at least pretend he has any sort of source when he says things like "the truth is that most people grow out of "Atheism" in their thirties, when they have kids and realize that the world doesn't revolve around them and their ego", or if he's just going to talk a big game about how he wasn't trying to generalize about all atheists and then try to change the subject. Misconceptions about atheism intrigue me as a conversational topic (if I had a dollar for every person I've met who assumed "atheist = nihilist"...). Has he read books on the subject? Can he quote any particular philosophers? I'd honestly like to know.
I'm not trying to antagonize/troll anyone. I was just overly glib in asking the guy to back up his claimed expertise on the subject (and when you're saying someone else is wrong because of their 'ignorance' of the current subject, you are clearly setting yourself up as a guy who Knows What He Is Talking About).
But in all seriousness, I'd really like to know if the guy's going to at least pretend he has any sort of source when he says things like "the truth is that most people grow out of "Atheism" in their thirties, when they have kids and realize that the world doesn't revolve around them and their ego", or if he's just going to talk a big game about how he wasn't trying to generalize about all atheists and then try to change the subject. Misconceptions about atheism intrigue me as a conversational topic (if I had a dollar for every person I've met who assumed "atheist = nihilist"...). Has he read books on the subject? Can he quote any particular philosophers? I'd honestly like to know.
70
Christians HATE atheists. It corrodes their minds to think that someone - anyone - refuses to participate in their fantasy of an after life. Christians can't conceive how it is possible that a person exists who hasn't "heard the good news!" of christ and how he died for their sins. As if a 2000 year old get-out-of-hell-free-card were not enough to convince them to be like minded. Those atheists must have had a bad experience with the church and that is why they rejected the LOVE of christ.
And this is why christians have to oppose science whenever they encounter it. Any sort of critical thinking or application of the scientific method invariably leads to atheism, so it must be stamped out. Personally, I would like to see christians ad hear to their beliefs more closely and eschew all forms of science-based medical treatments and let God solve their illness.
And this is why christians have to oppose science whenever they encounter it. Any sort of critical thinking or application of the scientific method invariably leads to atheism, so it must be stamped out. Personally, I would like to see christians ad hear to their beliefs more closely and eschew all forms of science-based medical treatments and let God solve their illness.
71
@70 has an amazing view of christianity. applause is needed.
i'd like to point out that even if there IS a god (a big fucking IF) what the hell does it matter to any of you? this big ethereal superman created the fucking universe in 7 days, according to some dogmatic nonsense, and christians think that singing along to some magic songs, and clasping your hands to wish wish wish with all your fucking heart is going to magically convince this deity, who has given no indication of doing so prior, is going to cause all their dreams to come true? and grant them access to some magical fairy land wherein he's going to do nothing for eternity and be fucking giddy about it? i'd rather live in the real world. at least here the crazy shit is tangibly insane. mark twain's letters from the earth. read it, learn it, love it.
i'd like to point out that even if there IS a god (a big fucking IF) what the hell does it matter to any of you? this big ethereal superman created the fucking universe in 7 days, according to some dogmatic nonsense, and christians think that singing along to some magic songs, and clasping your hands to wish wish wish with all your fucking heart is going to magically convince this deity, who has given no indication of doing so prior, is going to cause all their dreams to come true? and grant them access to some magical fairy land wherein he's going to do nothing for eternity and be fucking giddy about it? i'd rather live in the real world. at least here the crazy shit is tangibly insane. mark twain's letters from the earth. read it, learn it, love it.
73
67:
Not to put words in anyone's mouth, but I believe sirkowski @64 was referring to our dear, delusional friend ecce homo, and not to you when (s)he said "Trolls (i.e. e.h.) don't quote", that is, don't expect a citation to be forthcoming.
And of course Dan was perfectly in-line with stating his opinion, that's what his freaking column is: people ask for his opinion in the form of a question and he gives it, sometimes snarkily, sometimes with great sincerity. Sometimes, if the question is really complicated or requires response from someone more knowledgeable than himself, he consults with an expert on the subject. Anyone who's read "Savage Love" for more than about six months would know this already.
Criticizing him for doing what he's always done is just plain stupid. Don't like his advice, you're free to start your own column - get to it.
As for the "God question", well stating that God exists is just as much an opinion as stating that God doesn't exist, except that the former claim has literally no evidence to support it. Furthermore, theists claim all other gods - but their's - don't exist as well, so it's really not much more of a stretch to go from "all gods but MINE are false" to "ALL gods are false", since in reality atheists simply believe in one less god than monotheists do.
Not to put words in anyone's mouth, but I believe sirkowski @64 was referring to our dear, delusional friend ecce homo, and not to you when (s)he said "Trolls (i.e. e.h.) don't quote", that is, don't expect a citation to be forthcoming.
And of course Dan was perfectly in-line with stating his opinion, that's what his freaking column is: people ask for his opinion in the form of a question and he gives it, sometimes snarkily, sometimes with great sincerity. Sometimes, if the question is really complicated or requires response from someone more knowledgeable than himself, he consults with an expert on the subject. Anyone who's read "Savage Love" for more than about six months would know this already.
Criticizing him for doing what he's always done is just plain stupid. Don't like his advice, you're free to start your own column - get to it.
As for the "God question", well stating that God exists is just as much an opinion as stating that God doesn't exist, except that the former claim has literally no evidence to support it. Furthermore, theists claim all other gods - but their's - don't exist as well, so it's really not much more of a stretch to go from "all gods but MINE are false" to "ALL gods are false", since in reality atheists simply believe in one less god than monotheists do.
75
Ecce, as usual, doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm married to an atheist (I'm agnostic myself*) and we have children. It hasn't made either of us more "in awe" or anything like that - anything that makes us "grow out" of it. (When I see some of my other friends suddenly get religion when they have children, I view it as "getting scared into religion" rather than "growing out of atheism." Same with those who suffered sudden tragedy - which we also have gone through ourselves,)
So spare us the lecture, Ecce. I hope you stick around so I can laugh at you some more. You're a great source of unintentional comedy, like Loveschild.
* Since I think that atheism is as absolutist as any other religion, and since I think that you can't know for sure, I'm agnostic, the only rational way to be).
So spare us the lecture, Ecce. I hope you stick around so I can laugh at you some more. You're a great source of unintentional comedy, like Loveschild.
* Since I think that atheism is as absolutist as any other religion, and since I think that you can't know for sure, I'm agnostic, the only rational way to be).
76
Haven't read through all the comments, so maybe this is redundant.
But why really did CAEM choose to write to Dan? He wasn't ignorant of Dan's stance and who Dan is. Likely he was seeking just what Dan gave him. He is looking for permission. He is looking to get slapped down. He is looking for a way out. I suspect he wants a strong shove in the direction of his true self. He wanted what Dan gave him.
But why really did CAEM choose to write to Dan? He wasn't ignorant of Dan's stance and who Dan is. Likely he was seeking just what Dan gave him. He is looking for permission. He is looking to get slapped down. He is looking for a way out. I suspect he wants a strong shove in the direction of his true self. He wanted what Dan gave him.
78
Matt @ 75,
We're different, having kids did draw me back. My husband is an agnostic of sorts, and I believe. I wasn't "scared back" into faith, I just made peace with the reasons I walked away. Proof positive, that we all live different lives. Each of us has a unique story.
Peace.
We're different, having kids did draw me back. My husband is an agnostic of sorts, and I believe. I wasn't "scared back" into faith, I just made peace with the reasons I walked away. Proof positive, that we all live different lives. Each of us has a unique story.
Peace.
79
Comte - but there's no proof at all in this debate, one way or the other. Certainty can never be assured on this topic. Dan states so emphatically that there is no god -- I tend to be of the "we can never really know" persuasion (though, I believe that if there is some higher power, it certainly doesn't look like the Judeo-Christian God, or Allah, etc.). I read his last sentence and was like, he speaks with the same certainty that the religious do.
And Gomez - you make a good point about family influences, but I said that the last sentence was pointless because one little sentence at the end of what was otherwise good advice is in no way going to change this guy's mind about the existence of God. Saying "God doesn't exist" isn't going to convince anyone of anything or arm them to fight their family influences.
Obviously Dan can write whatever the hell he wants and take whatever tone he wants. Sometimes, Dan being dick-ish is half the fun of his column. It just stuck out to me this time, because the object of his dick-ish-ness seemed like an earnest guy instead of someone doing something dick-ish themselves.
And Gomez - you make a good point about family influences, but I said that the last sentence was pointless because one little sentence at the end of what was otherwise good advice is in no way going to change this guy's mind about the existence of God. Saying "God doesn't exist" isn't going to convince anyone of anything or arm them to fight their family influences.
Obviously Dan can write whatever the hell he wants and take whatever tone he wants. Sometimes, Dan being dick-ish is half the fun of his column. It just stuck out to me this time, because the object of his dick-ish-ness seemed like an earnest guy instead of someone doing something dick-ish themselves.
80
Wow Dan! nice work, eighty comments in only barely over six hours, amazing how much emotion a declaration of atheism can stir up- go first amendment!
81
Has anybody here ever read the column? On a regular basis? The guy is a smart-ass. A sarcastic ... bombastic ...
Anybody who writes in should expect to get roasted. Hell, they should get their money back if they don't.
Anybody who writes in should expect to get roasted. Hell, they should get their money back if they don't.
82
@75, So you think your spouse is irrational then? Can't say I agree with you there, any more than it's irrational to say you believe that vampires don't exist. Sure you could be remain "open" and say you're "agnostic" about vampires, but isn't it slightly less disingenuous to round up to disbelief?
@12, Ps. I like Kim too - I was waiting (in a non-stalkerish way obviously) for your post on this thread Kim.
@12, Ps. I like Kim too - I was waiting (in a non-stalkerish way obviously) for your post on this thread Kim.
83
Hey Julie,
Maybe it wasn't intended to be dick-ish. Maybe, it was intended to be the final option. I know, from my experience, that I had to walk away. It was only when I made peace, that I could come back. I needed to wrestle with God, scream it out, tell God off with a lot of profanity, determine what exactly my heart believed. The faith I have now is richer and deeper, than it was before I walked away and gave God the finger. Maybe, that is the road that CAEM will need to walk, so that he can find peace with himself and with God? It's his journey to take.
Maybe it wasn't intended to be dick-ish. Maybe, it was intended to be the final option. I know, from my experience, that I had to walk away. It was only when I made peace, that I could come back. I needed to wrestle with God, scream it out, tell God off with a lot of profanity, determine what exactly my heart believed. The faith I have now is richer and deeper, than it was before I walked away and gave God the finger. Maybe, that is the road that CAEM will need to walk, so that he can find peace with himself and with God? It's his journey to take.
85
Maybe no one else notices, but I've listen to Dan enough times to know that he doesn't hold back his feelings or opinions. Nor should he, it is his show after all. And yes, Dan does undercut a lot of people asking for help - it's one of the reasons why I haven't called him because in all honestly I'm a bit of a pussy who would get his feelings hurt. That's fine, whatever.
Sometimes Dan is really on ball and awesome, and sometimes he reminds me of a Bill O'Reily-ish guy telling someone to shut up. Dan is not perfect, but the answer is simple; if you don't like what he has to say, don't listen to him.
Sometimes Dan is really on ball and awesome, and sometimes he reminds me of a Bill O'Reily-ish guy telling someone to shut up. Dan is not perfect, but the answer is simple; if you don't like what he has to say, don't listen to him.
87
@59 - Sure, and Dan can write whatever the fuck he wants. But I agree with this writer that it ain't good advice. Everything up to that point WAS good advice, good stuff that would help the guy open his mind and come to his own conclusions, etc., but Dan sticking a, "There is no God," in there was self-serving. And like many atheists, Dan does shit like this constantly because, just like the Christians, he can't stand the presence of people who don't agree with his viewpoint about the universe.
Proselytizing atheists are no fucking different from proselytizing Christians, Muslims, Hare Krishnas, Scientologists, or what the fuck ever. No less obnoxious. No. Different. I say this as a panentheistic pagan who doesn't give a flying FUCK if anyone else believes exactly as I do, but am constantly faced with people walking around doing exactly this while whining CONSTANTLY about how other religions do the same to them. Wah wah wah wah!
Shut the fuck up and learn a lesson from those of use who have actually grown up and learned to be secure in our beliefs. I certainly DON'T pepper my daily conversations or e-mails or anything with, "by the way, God exists manifested in all creation, but also as a seemingly paradoxical consciousness," because statements like that carry an implication of, "I'm right, you're wrong, I'm smart, you're dumb, believe as I do because I say do." That's asinine.
The writer of this letter made statements about how, "my religious beliefs are blah blah balh." Not "THE religious TRUTH is blah blah blah." So he was showing some respect for an alternate viewpoint. Dan did not return the favor.
Proselytizing atheists are no fucking different from proselytizing Christians, Muslims, Hare Krishnas, Scientologists, or what the fuck ever. No less obnoxious. No. Different. I say this as a panentheistic pagan who doesn't give a flying FUCK if anyone else believes exactly as I do, but am constantly faced with people walking around doing exactly this while whining CONSTANTLY about how other religions do the same to them. Wah wah wah wah!
Shut the fuck up and learn a lesson from those of use who have actually grown up and learned to be secure in our beliefs. I certainly DON'T pepper my daily conversations or e-mails or anything with, "by the way, God exists manifested in all creation, but also as a seemingly paradoxical consciousness," because statements like that carry an implication of, "I'm right, you're wrong, I'm smart, you're dumb, believe as I do because I say do." That's asinine.
The writer of this letter made statements about how, "my religious beliefs are blah blah balh." Not "THE religious TRUTH is blah blah blah." So he was showing some respect for an alternate viewpoint. Dan did not return the favor.
88
"Dan is not perfect, but the answer is simple; if you don't like what he has to say, don't listen to him. "
I love most of what Dan has to say. Because of that, I feel all the more compelled to let him know when he says something I don't. And he's welcome to dismiss my opinion as he wishes. But I've seen over and over again that Dan is someone who listens to alternating points of view and will change his own as a result of the arguments of others when he feels it's appropriate.
I love most of what Dan has to say. Because of that, I feel all the more compelled to let him know when he says something I don't. And he's welcome to dismiss my opinion as he wishes. But I've seen over and over again that Dan is someone who listens to alternating points of view and will change his own as a result of the arguments of others when he feels it's appropriate.
89
@73
Ah, gotcha. Even on a corner of the internet that isn't the infamous Slog comment threads, it's usually a safe bet to assume a vague statement made in your direction is specifically meant for yo, y'know? I got overly defensive.
Ah, gotcha. Even on a corner of the internet that isn't the infamous Slog comment threads, it's usually a safe bet to assume a vague statement made in your direction is specifically meant for yo, y'know? I got overly defensive.
90
Why would an omnipotent god hide? Why would this all powerful being not just appear and tell us what is the correct religion? Why would this deity care what religion folks were? Is this all knowing, all seeing god also some petty, mind game playing, "If the mortals don't guess correctly, I'm sending them straight to hell!" sort of fellow? Why would he care if folks believed in him or not? I mean really, why would I ever worship such a sadistic, "Love me or burn!" god?
Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
91
The assertion that God is real is on our money, in our pledge of allegiance, and on the lips of nearly every Grammy Award-winning musician. There's no difference between these and Dan's lighthearted -- and true -- assertion. The reader is simply not used to hearing the counterpoint to what has become the norm.
94
Some believers still think a belief in a god is sacred. It may be to them, but I happen not to recognize the concept of sacred therefore I will not treat religion as such. Doing so gives religion the very status it wants.
Belief in god does not occupy a special place that requires everybody to tread lightly upon it.
Blasphemy may be a sin to believers, but in the U.S. The first ten amendments to The Constitution trumps the Ten Commandments.
The term "religious sensibility" is an oxymoron.
Belief in god does not occupy a special place that requires everybody to tread lightly upon it.
Blasphemy may be a sin to believers, but in the U.S. The first ten amendments to The Constitution trumps the Ten Commandments.
The term "religious sensibility" is an oxymoron.
95
Dan, I support your right to reject religion, because I support the Constitution. Freedom of Religion allows for Freedom FROM Religion.
At this point I am fraking sick of Christmas anyway (Even the Xians should be) I think we need federal law to support a Winter Holiday without all the zombie jesus references.
At this point I am fraking sick of Christmas anyway (Even the Xians should be) I think we need federal law to support a Winter Holiday without all the zombie jesus references.
96
So, nobody has pointed out that the letter writer snidely calls Dan a "so-called" expert? The second I read that, I thought, "Jeez, a little douchey." The end of his letter basically struck me as saying he had no other recourse and Dan was his last, icky resort.
At no point did he say, "I'm glad somebody is out there for me, even if our beliefs drastically differ, which I do respect. Thank you for reading my letter."
If you don't believe in Dan's expertise, don't ask him.
At no point did he say, "I'm glad somebody is out there for me, even if our beliefs drastically differ, which I do respect. Thank you for reading my letter."
If you don't believe in Dan's expertise, don't ask him.
97
All I have to say about the letter is that people have developed a really warped idea of what constitutes intolerance.
98
I don't see how someone could read your column, and know about you, and than go all flaming like because you don't believe in God, I always figured that was a given. I happen to be a person of faith, but it does not bother me when people don't believe in God, we all walk our own paths.
99
@87 How did you learn about your "pantheistic paganism"? I'll bet at some point, someone, said, oh hey here is a belief system that is pretty cool.
There is nothing wrong with proselytizing in the right context. One of the big reasons that free speech is so important is that it lets us all express our ideas, have debates, and learn from each other. Maybe my life would be better with Jesus or Xenu in it. I am open to that possibility and am more than happy to listen to people who think that. There is a difference between sharing beliefs and say yelling at people on the street, but that is a matter of politeness just as there is a difference between protesting and harassing.
Dan was expressing his opinion. There is no need to preface such statements with "this is my opinion"" or any other silly equivocations since the fact that such a statement in in fact the authors opinion is pretty damn obvious. If it was someone else's Dan would have said "And Bob thinks..."
There is nothing wrong with proselytizing in the right context. One of the big reasons that free speech is so important is that it lets us all express our ideas, have debates, and learn from each other. Maybe my life would be better with Jesus or Xenu in it. I am open to that possibility and am more than happy to listen to people who think that. There is a difference between sharing beliefs and say yelling at people on the street, but that is a matter of politeness just as there is a difference between protesting and harassing.
Dan was expressing his opinion. There is no need to preface such statements with "this is my opinion"" or any other silly equivocations since the fact that such a statement in in fact the authors opinion is pretty damn obvious. If it was someone else's Dan would have said "And Bob thinks..."
100
I chuckled at Dan's response, but I did think, "Wouldn't telling him to check the Unitarians (and check out the Unitarians) be more productive?"
101
Dan - Thank you for not being an apologist about your rationalist stance. Like several others in this thread, I am continually annoyed by the position that completely baseless theistic dogma is somehow more enlightened, and to contradict it with rational atheistic thought is offensive. What's offensive is the notion that irrational, baseless, self-contradictory drivel is still a driving force in our world, and that calling such nonsense "religion" somehow gives it some status worthy of protection.
102
Fuck yeah, Dan! Make no apologies for speaking the truth. That's what people write to you in hopes of receiving, fuck them if they can't handle it.
103
We live our lives according to the stories we have heard that make sense to us, but when those stories (the memes) conflict with our biology (the genes) there is trouble brewing. Most psychology is a culturectomy (removal of indoctrinated culture in order for the natural organism to flourish in the real world rather than try to live in a world of fantasy/subjective rules that are in conflict with nature). Sometimes the shock method of introducing a "definite" alternative point of view can help but one always runs the risk of the listener rejecting the whole argument. The gentleman may reflect upon the matter and grow away from his indoctrinated culture over time, but in my experience it is more helpful to simply present the fact that the learned culture may not be true and leave it open for exploration.
I wish him and Dan both the best of luck in their continuing search for truth (that wonderful spot where objective and subjective realities overlap).
I wish him and Dan both the best of luck in their continuing search for truth (that wonderful spot where objective and subjective realities overlap).
105
Religion is the most effective way to neuter the human mind (in regards to logic, creativity, feeling, or any other mental function).
Just stop caring about god. Can't you be a good person and live a good life without some stupid myth to guide you, are you really that incapable of doing anything on your own? Seeing a very religious is a lot like seeing a morbidly obese person, I just want to scream at them to stop destroying their life, to get a handle on things.
Just stop caring about god. Can't you be a good person and live a good life without some stupid myth to guide you, are you really that incapable of doing anything on your own? Seeing a very religious is a lot like seeing a morbidly obese person, I just want to scream at them to stop destroying their life, to get a handle on things.
106
Also, we really need to stop giving religious institutions tax breaks (except when they actually do spend money on something other than grandiose buildings in the most expensive areas of the country).
107
@75
I think you're referring to a common misunderstanding of atheism. I don't personally know a single atheist who is certain that there is no god, to an extent that they wouldn't change their minds if any actual evidence of a god were to turn up.
I disagree that agnosticism is the most rational position. Consider unicorns. There's no evidence that they exist, even though they are widely depicted as mythological characters and a certain segment of the population (primarily very young people) actually believe in them. I think most people will agree that the rational position on unicorns is that they don't exist. Not, "hey, I can't PROVE that they don't exist any more than the neighbor kid can prove that they do, therefore, we just don't know." No. There's a mountain of logical arguments supporting their nonexistence, and no logical argument at all supporting their existence, so it's really ok, as a rational person, to say they don't exist. In fact, an adult who claims -- sincerely, with a straight face -- to be on the fence about the existence of unicorns is gonna have a rough time being taken seriously, and might have their mental health questioned. We only accept such beliefs from children because we know that critical thinking is a skill that we develop over time, and we don't expect them to have it down at a young age.
Swap out god for unicorns, same argument.
I think you're referring to a common misunderstanding of atheism. I don't personally know a single atheist who is certain that there is no god, to an extent that they wouldn't change their minds if any actual evidence of a god were to turn up.
I disagree that agnosticism is the most rational position. Consider unicorns. There's no evidence that they exist, even though they are widely depicted as mythological characters and a certain segment of the population (primarily very young people) actually believe in them. I think most people will agree that the rational position on unicorns is that they don't exist. Not, "hey, I can't PROVE that they don't exist any more than the neighbor kid can prove that they do, therefore, we just don't know." No. There's a mountain of logical arguments supporting their nonexistence, and no logical argument at all supporting their existence, so it's really ok, as a rational person, to say they don't exist. In fact, an adult who claims -- sincerely, with a straight face -- to be on the fence about the existence of unicorns is gonna have a rough time being taken seriously, and might have their mental health questioned. We only accept such beliefs from children because we know that critical thinking is a skill that we develop over time, and we don't expect them to have it down at a young age.
Swap out god for unicorns, same argument.
108
@79:
It all depends on how you choose to define "proof". Theists make a positive assertion: "God exists", but are unable to provide a single piece of evidence to support this claim; in point of fact, they further assert that no proof whatsoever is required to substantiate their assertion, because God is beyond such semantics, basically creating a logical conundrum based on circular reasoning: "I know God exists, even though I can't prove it. But, I don't have to prove it, because I know God exists". This type of assertion is not only illogical, it is irrational, and in fact anti-intellectual because it is based on nothing more than the person's belief that it must be true BECAUSE they believe it to be so.
From the Atheist's perspective this lack of evidence to support the positive assertion is precisely what leads them to conclude that it is more reasonable, logical, and demonstrable to state "God does not exist", IF we're going to deal with absolute, black-and-white assertions.
@107 makes this point clear. Most Atheists who make the categorical negative assertion that "God does not exist", do so based on the fact that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence - or rather, the absolute lack of evidence of any kind - must inevitably lead to this assertion, if one follows the chain of logic to its conclusion. This does not mean, however that, should any credible, verifiable, and provable evidence to support the Theist's positive assertion be forthcoming, they would not modify their viewpoint accordingly. But, until such evidence is presented, there is no compelling reason for them to do so.
Unfortunately, because the Theists' assertion is based on belief and not on evidence, there is a tendency for them to bristle and become defensive whenever their belief is challenged. They KNOW they can't verify the existence of God by any rational means, but expect the rest of us to accept their belief as valid nonetheless. And of course, whenever the argument comes up, one of their first responses is to challenge Atheists or Agnostics to "prove God DOESN'T exist", which of course makes no sense whatsoever, given their fundamental assertion that "provability" is irrelevant to the issue; if no proof is required to establish God's existence in the affirmative, why do they make the fallacious error of requiring proof of God's non-existence in the negative. This inconsistent and erroneous insistence that their opponents adhere to a standard of proof they themselves are incapable of achieving completely and fatally undermines their entire argument.
More...
It all depends on how you choose to define "proof". Theists make a positive assertion: "God exists", but are unable to provide a single piece of evidence to support this claim; in point of fact, they further assert that no proof whatsoever is required to substantiate their assertion, because God is beyond such semantics, basically creating a logical conundrum based on circular reasoning: "I know God exists, even though I can't prove it. But, I don't have to prove it, because I know God exists". This type of assertion is not only illogical, it is irrational, and in fact anti-intellectual because it is based on nothing more than the person's belief that it must be true BECAUSE they believe it to be so.
From the Atheist's perspective this lack of evidence to support the positive assertion is precisely what leads them to conclude that it is more reasonable, logical, and demonstrable to state "God does not exist", IF we're going to deal with absolute, black-and-white assertions.
@107 makes this point clear. Most Atheists who make the categorical negative assertion that "God does not exist", do so based on the fact that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence - or rather, the absolute lack of evidence of any kind - must inevitably lead to this assertion, if one follows the chain of logic to its conclusion. This does not mean, however that, should any credible, verifiable, and provable evidence to support the Theist's positive assertion be forthcoming, they would not modify their viewpoint accordingly. But, until such evidence is presented, there is no compelling reason for them to do so.
Unfortunately, because the Theists' assertion is based on belief and not on evidence, there is a tendency for them to bristle and become defensive whenever their belief is challenged. They KNOW they can't verify the existence of God by any rational means, but expect the rest of us to accept their belief as valid nonetheless. And of course, whenever the argument comes up, one of their first responses is to challenge Atheists or Agnostics to "prove God DOESN'T exist", which of course makes no sense whatsoever, given their fundamental assertion that "provability" is irrelevant to the issue; if no proof is required to establish God's existence in the affirmative, why do they make the fallacious error of requiring proof of God's non-existence in the negative. This inconsistent and erroneous insistence that their opponents adhere to a standard of proof they themselves are incapable of achieving completely and fatally undermines their entire argument.
109
99 - Uh, no. "Proselytizing" is, by its very nature, pushy. That's different from talking about your belief systems in an appropriate context and with people who may be sympathetic. Or just talking about them as if they are YOUR BELIEFS and not, you know, fact. Like the original letter writer did.
The reason I identify as "panentheist" is because it's a conclusion I came to on my own. I didn't know there was a label for it until I saw it on my crush's (now husband's) Facebook profile early in our relationship and ASKED, "What does that mean?"
In a perfect world, I think we'd regard religion in much the same way as we regard hobbies; this is my thing, it doesn't have to be yours, but if it is, let's have some fun together. Or, you know, fetishes. Same deal.
Ultimately, there is a factor of choice, personal taste and just plain individuality involved in what our religious persuasions end up being. We act like it's all about the TRUTH and what IS, but it's really no different from narcissistic middle school cliques going around telling people what kinds of music they are and aren't allowed to like.
Dan giving advice to someone about how to reconcile his religion with his sexuality is, to me, like giving similar advice to a BDSM fetishist and ending with, "By the way, your kink is an unnecessary perversion and you should really just work to get over it and enjoy vanilla sex."
Oh, and please don't raise the "free speech" straw man, here. No one's talking about bringing in oppressive censorship from any government or similar agency. Null point. We're talking about why we disagree with Dan, which is *gasp* another element of free speech! (Holy shit! You mean disagreeing with people isn't an infringement on their first amendment rights? My god, the internet's been lying to me this whole time???)
More...
The reason I identify as "panentheist" is because it's a conclusion I came to on my own. I didn't know there was a label for it until I saw it on my crush's (now husband's) Facebook profile early in our relationship and ASKED, "What does that mean?"
In a perfect world, I think we'd regard religion in much the same way as we regard hobbies; this is my thing, it doesn't have to be yours, but if it is, let's have some fun together. Or, you know, fetishes. Same deal.
Ultimately, there is a factor of choice, personal taste and just plain individuality involved in what our religious persuasions end up being. We act like it's all about the TRUTH and what IS, but it's really no different from narcissistic middle school cliques going around telling people what kinds of music they are and aren't allowed to like.
Dan giving advice to someone about how to reconcile his religion with his sexuality is, to me, like giving similar advice to a BDSM fetishist and ending with, "By the way, your kink is an unnecessary perversion and you should really just work to get over it and enjoy vanilla sex."
Oh, and please don't raise the "free speech" straw man, here. No one's talking about bringing in oppressive censorship from any government or similar agency. Null point. We're talking about why we disagree with Dan, which is *gasp* another element of free speech! (Holy shit! You mean disagreeing with people isn't an infringement on their first amendment rights? My god, the internet's been lying to me this whole time???)
110
What is really sad is that a 20 year old man is contemplating a life of celibacy, and solitude because of his belief that a scornful, magical, imaginary being is going to burn him for all eternity just for being true to his sexuality.
111
@ 107, we have set test criteria for the existence of unicorns. We DON'T have them for the existence of god(s). That's where the logical supposition that we can disprove his/her/their existence breaks down.
112
Unicorns exist,
Yes I know
'Cause the Bible tells me so.
Psalm 92:10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
Yes I know
'Cause the Bible tells me so.
Psalm 92:10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
113
@112 - You could try looking at a contemporary translation that has some actual scholarship behind it rather than the KJV...
Psalm 92:10 (NRSV) "But you have exalted my horn like that of the wild ox;
you have poured over me fresh oil."
Psalm 92:10 (NRSV) "But you have exalted my horn like that of the wild ox;
you have poured over me fresh oil."
114
Sheryl, are you saying Oxen are imaginary? Oh, wait, you are saying that there are different interpretations of the same work, that different people will take it a different way, depending on their training, background, influences, education...up to and including the belief that it could be a work of fiction. Thanks for pointing that out.
116
You know I totally read that last line as in response to the writer going "Oh I know how you feel about religion and I don't know why I'm asking you for advice because you're pretty areligious/atheistic but this is the problem I'm having with religion and being a fag."
Having an atheistic awakening is also a perfectly good way to deal with being gay and Christian.
Why are we debating unicorns.
Having an atheistic awakening is also a perfectly good way to deal with being gay and Christian.
Why are we debating unicorns.
117
@93, Violet(@107) pretty much nailed the point I was trying to make.
I think your argument @111 is flawed by the way. What set test criteria do we have for unicorns (or vampires to use my example) that we don't/can't have for gods?
I go to church every Sunday, take communion, sing the hymns, recite the creeds, listen to the readings and contemplate the sermon. I don't suggest that any of it is rational behaviour. Nor do I think it's wrong for Dan or anyone else to deny that God exists, or even to mock me for believing that he does. After all, my head agrees with him 100% (even if my heart doesn't).
I think your argument @111 is flawed by the way. What set test criteria do we have for unicorns (or vampires to use my example) that we don't/can't have for gods?
I go to church every Sunday, take communion, sing the hymns, recite the creeds, listen to the readings and contemplate the sermon. I don't suggest that any of it is rational behaviour. Nor do I think it's wrong for Dan or anyone else to deny that God exists, or even to mock me for believing that he does. After all, my head agrees with him 100% (even if my heart doesn't).
119
Aussie Steve (@ 117),
I struggle with my heart and my head, too. I'm not threatened by Dan's opinions, and the teasing of others (Dan has never teased me). I always appreciate the transparency of other people of faith, and found it encouraging that both Mother Theresa and Henri J.M. Nouwen struggled during their lifetimes.
I struggle with my heart and my head, too. I'm not threatened by Dan's opinions, and the teasing of others (Dan has never teased me). I always appreciate the transparency of other people of faith, and found it encouraging that both Mother Theresa and Henri J.M. Nouwen struggled during their lifetimes.
120
@119, you're a breath of fresh air kim in portland.
I've run the full gamut of ontological positions in my life-so-far, including attempted athiesm (although Thompson's Hound caught up with me eventually), so it's hard to be offended by any viewpoint that I've probably held myself at one time or another.
BTW, I don't know if it's your first name or the photo of the fender, but my mind's eye always sees Kim Deal when I read your posts...
I've run the full gamut of ontological positions in my life-so-far, including attempted athiesm (although Thompson's Hound caught up with me eventually), so it's hard to be offended by any viewpoint that I've probably held myself at one time or another.
BTW, I don't know if it's your first name or the photo of the fender, but my mind's eye always sees Kim Deal when I read your posts...
121
Aussie Steve,
I can't say I have run the full gamut, but I did have it out with God (more than once).
Thank you for the compliment, Kim Deal is far, far more talented. That is me and my fender (my other guitar love is a martin) in the avatar enjoying life.
Peace.
I can't say I have run the full gamut, but I did have it out with God (more than once).
Thank you for the compliment, Kim Deal is far, far more talented. That is me and my fender (my other guitar love is a martin) in the avatar enjoying life.
Peace.
122
@111 Yeah, I don't see why there should be different criteria for establishing the existence of unicorns and gods. Care to explain?
I do not logically suppose that we can disprove their existence. I didn't say that. I said that, in the absence of evidence that something does exist, the most rational position is that it does not.
I do not logically suppose that we can disprove their existence. I didn't say that. I said that, in the absence of evidence that something does exist, the most rational position is that it does not.
123
Well, gods aren't supposed to be animals of this dimension like unicorns. That should pretty much satisfy you, Violet & Steve.
124
@123
I regret to inform you that I remain unsatisfied. LOL
If a god is to interface with . . . ehm. . . our dimension? eek . . . without actually having any presence in it, that's gonna require a lot of explaining. Laws of physics being what they are and all.
I mean, if somebody wants to claim that their god exists in some alternate plane and that's why we can't seem to detect it. . . well. . .alrighty, then. But, again, the devotee of rationality is completely reasonable in saying, "ok, well, get back to me when you have some evidence that this alternate plane itself exists, and then maybe we can work on your god issue, but either way, for now, I'm gonna not believe in this thing for which there's no evidence, kthx."
I regret to inform you that I remain unsatisfied. LOL
If a god is to interface with . . . ehm. . . our dimension? eek . . . without actually having any presence in it, that's gonna require a lot of explaining. Laws of physics being what they are and all.
I mean, if somebody wants to claim that their god exists in some alternate plane and that's why we can't seem to detect it. . . well. . .alrighty, then. But, again, the devotee of rationality is completely reasonable in saying, "ok, well, get back to me when you have some evidence that this alternate plane itself exists, and then maybe we can work on your god issue, but either way, for now, I'm gonna not believe in this thing for which there's no evidence, kthx."
125
Eh. Another answer tinged with shit on a question relating to celibacy. I guess I'm not surprised...
I didn't disagree with the whole response, but I think you were out of line by personally insulting him for his religion.
I didn't disagree with the whole response, but I think you were out of line by personally insulting him for his religion.
126
COMTE: God is beyond logic. that's all there is to it. either you is or you ain't. I apologize for all the insecure proselytizing idiots who have accosted you, since i agree with you that there's no point, and it's mostly pigheaded, even though i agree with them about god.
127
Someone can assert that there is a god... and i'm out of line for asserting that there isn't? Sorry to lose you, DBYS, but that's a price I'm willing to pay
Someone may have asserted the existance of god to Dan, but did CAEM, in the published letter? When I re-read; no clues at all are being given, pointedly you might note, to the specific sect of 'religion' being discussed. No mention of god. And little about the love/kink that's so taboo - it could be any marginal or minority kink, or something else entirely that causes CAEM to face a life of 'solitude and celibacy'. [ "Desires almost all 20 year old males have", to me, says underage dating/risking statutory rape charges; going out with that freshman girl you though was hot, now that you're almost beer-buying age]
I don't agree with DBYS's pouty comment for the same reasons cited above [i.e. "What, are you NEW here?"] , but cannot agree with Dan pulling out the logic NOW when he already defied (deified?) it.
Comes off as Dan either being over-defensive or just trying out a soundbite line on a dupe that might not have fully deserved it.
Someone may have asserted the existance of god to Dan, but did CAEM, in the published letter? When I re-read; no clues at all are being given, pointedly you might note, to the specific sect of 'religion' being discussed. No mention of god. And little about the love/kink that's so taboo - it could be any marginal or minority kink, or something else entirely that causes CAEM to face a life of 'solitude and celibacy'. [ "Desires almost all 20 year old males have", to me, says underage dating/risking statutory rape charges; going out with that freshman girl you though was hot, now that you're almost beer-buying age]
I don't agree with DBYS's pouty comment for the same reasons cited above [i.e. "What, are you NEW here?"] , but cannot agree with Dan pulling out the logic NOW when he already defied (deified?) it.
Comes off as Dan either being over-defensive or just trying out a soundbite line on a dupe that might not have fully deserved it.
128
@ 124, if you're relying on science to answer everything, you're going to miss out on a lot. Why? Almost every scientific breakthrough raises dozens of new questions for scientists to answer; as a whole, science has an extremely rudimentary understanding of our world and universe as it is. It's nowhere near even positing a theory as to what life IS.
There are also tons of phenomenon that don't seem to conform to scientific theories, with their insistence that things be observable and experiments be repeated. It may be that some things aren't perceivable to most people, and it may also be that the rigid discipline of science, which works great for many things, is completely ill-suited for any sort of spiritual matter.
This is why I say agnosticism is more logical than atheism. Atheism ignores things that don't fit its framework, and offers no theory as to what life is. There may be a philosophical logic to atheism, but not a scientific one.
There are also tons of phenomenon that don't seem to conform to scientific theories, with their insistence that things be observable and experiments be repeated. It may be that some things aren't perceivable to most people, and it may also be that the rigid discipline of science, which works great for many things, is completely ill-suited for any sort of spiritual matter.
This is why I say agnosticism is more logical than atheism. Atheism ignores things that don't fit its framework, and offers no theory as to what life is. There may be a philosophical logic to atheism, but not a scientific one.
129
@ 127, I disagree. Re-read the letter; saying that giving in to his desires would lead to getting kicked out of church, along with saying that a lifetime of celibacy is his only recourse, makes it crystal clear that we're NOT talking about statutory rape.
130
@128
You say that science has a rudimentary understanding of the universe. Sure, there are certainly plenty of things we don't understand yet. But science is by far the best way to learn about the universe; it has given us far more answers than any religion ever has, since religion's answers are basically just humans making shit up.
I'm not sure what your comment "[science is] nowhere near even positing a theory as to what life IS" means. We know what life is: it's molecules that have arranged themselves into DNA so that they can reproduce.
And then you say that "[atheism] offers no theory as to what life is." I don't know why you would expect atheism to offer a theory on that. Atheism is simply the assertion that gods do not exist, and nothing more.
You say that science has a rudimentary understanding of the universe. Sure, there are certainly plenty of things we don't understand yet. But science is by far the best way to learn about the universe; it has given us far more answers than any religion ever has, since religion's answers are basically just humans making shit up.
I'm not sure what your comment "[science is] nowhere near even positing a theory as to what life IS" means. We know what life is: it's molecules that have arranged themselves into DNA so that they can reproduce.
And then you say that "[atheism] offers no theory as to what life is." I don't know why you would expect atheism to offer a theory on that. Atheism is simply the assertion that gods do not exist, and nothing more.
131
You should have told him to join the Episcopal Church. I'm an atheist, but damn, that church almost makes me want to join it!
132
@ 130, are you sure? That sounds like the description of how it works, not what it is. It's like saying a car is a collection of parts that burns gasoline to travel. That tells me what it does but not what it is.
All life comes from somewhere; that's observable in both sexual and asexual reproduction. But what is it? Science hasn't even begun to describe the force that makes us alive; it can't even say whether it is or is not a force.
If atheism "is simply the assertion that gods do not exist, and nothing more," it's still an assertion that raises the question as to what life is, and where does it come from, if there is no god or gods. Ignoring the question won't make it go away; dismissing life as merely a series of chemical reactions doesn't either.
All life comes from somewhere; that's observable in both sexual and asexual reproduction. But what is it? Science hasn't even begun to describe the force that makes us alive; it can't even say whether it is or is not a force.
If atheism "is simply the assertion that gods do not exist, and nothing more," it's still an assertion that raises the question as to what life is, and where does it come from, if there is no god or gods. Ignoring the question won't make it go away; dismissing life as merely a series of chemical reactions doesn't either.
133
Apparently, I'm an idiot. The first thing I thought when I read it was that the guy was a Buddhist monk. I didn't know that Catholicism would require a life of "celibacy and solitude", which is what his letter stated.
Catholic priesthood requires celibacy, but not solitude, right? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what he means by solitude. But then the "pray away" comment makes more sense within a Christian practice, so I suppose I was wrong right off the bat.
Catholic priesthood requires celibacy, but not solitude, right? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what he means by solitude. But then the "pray away" comment makes more sense within a Christian practice, so I suppose I was wrong right off the bat.
134
@ 133, I think he means the solitude of never having a spouse/partner/boyfriend. That's how I read it anyway.
135
Hey, @70..."And this is why christians have to oppose science whenever they encounter it. Any sort of critical thinking or application of the scientific method invariably leads to atheism, so it must be stamped out."
You do know that some of the most impressive scientists of all time were religious? Like Isaac Newton, Carolus Linnaeus, Michael Faraday, Samuel Morse, James Joule, Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Joseph Lister, George Washington Carver...the list goes on and on.
The antagonism between faith and science is really a red herring...it's much more likely to be an issue in popular thought than in practical application. There are PLENTY of scientists doing amazing work in their respective fields who also have personal religious beliefs--there always have been and there always will be. They do not have to be mutually exclusive.
Personally, I think the modern mindset that religion and science are enemies has probably caused many modern scientists with personal religious beliefs to keep their mouths shut on the issue, knowing that one camp or the other is going to take issue with them. It's too bad that we keep ripping people to shreds, regardless of which side of the fence they land on.
You do know that some of the most impressive scientists of all time were religious? Like Isaac Newton, Carolus Linnaeus, Michael Faraday, Samuel Morse, James Joule, Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Joseph Lister, George Washington Carver...the list goes on and on.
The antagonism between faith and science is really a red herring...it's much more likely to be an issue in popular thought than in practical application. There are PLENTY of scientists doing amazing work in their respective fields who also have personal religious beliefs--there always have been and there always will be. They do not have to be mutually exclusive.
Personally, I think the modern mindset that religion and science are enemies has probably caused many modern scientists with personal religious beliefs to keep their mouths shut on the issue, knowing that one camp or the other is going to take issue with them. It's too bad that we keep ripping people to shreds, regardless of which side of the fence they land on.
136
@132
"That sounds like the description of how it works, not what it is. It's like saying a car is a collection of parts that burns gasoline to travel. That tells me what it does but not what it is."
I'm not understanding your problem here. That is what a car is.
"Science hasn't even begun to describe the force that makes us alive; it can't even say whether it is or is not a force."
What "force"? What on earth are you talking about? Science has certainly described life, quite well in fact (open a biology textbook sometime), but it sounds like you're looking for some kind of magic behind it all.
Sorry, life IS just chemicals. It's really complex and fascinating, but still just chemical reactions and laws of natural selection. If you're asking about purpose, I think you're just thinking about this wrong. Nothing in nature has a purpose, it just is.
"That sounds like the description of how it works, not what it is. It's like saying a car is a collection of parts that burns gasoline to travel. That tells me what it does but not what it is."
I'm not understanding your problem here. That is what a car is.
"Science hasn't even begun to describe the force that makes us alive; it can't even say whether it is or is not a force."
What "force"? What on earth are you talking about? Science has certainly described life, quite well in fact (open a biology textbook sometime), but it sounds like you're looking for some kind of magic behind it all.
Sorry, life IS just chemicals. It's really complex and fascinating, but still just chemical reactions and laws of natural selection. If you're asking about purpose, I think you're just thinking about this wrong. Nothing in nature has a purpose, it just is.
137
@ 136, no, that's simply not the case. You won't find any scientific, peer-reviewed study supporting what you just stated; you reached that decision arbitrarily, just like any person of faith.
139
In general, people seem offended because they seem to think that this guy's religion deserves special consideration. But Dan is only being honest and consistent. Compare Dan's response here to his responses to other people with lifestyles he doesn't agree with, like those who want to eat poop or fuck dogs: he mocks them, criticizes them, is disgusted by them...then goes on to give them the best advice he can on how to indulge their desires in a reasonable way without hurting anyone else. He's done the exact same thing here.
The only difference is that a lot of people think, erroneously, that religion intrinsically deserves more respect than dog-fucking.
The only difference is that a lot of people think, erroneously, that religion intrinsically deserves more respect than dog-fucking.
140
"This is why I say agnosticism is more logical than atheism. Atheism ignores things that don't fit its framework, and offers no theory as to what life is."
No, it doesn't. Atheism is open to any possibility of what life is. They just want some evidence. If it's based in Godforce, cool; show us. Is it about doing the right thing, making the world better for each other? Sure, atheism doesn't hinder any of that, or oppose it. Atheism is anything except religion, and ethics, morals, and meaning are included--as you would see in any atheist text, eg, Dawkins and others attempts to come up with better ten commandments, and many other examples.
"athiesm is a religion."
Far from it. Atheists can be dogmatic, but if they're being dogmatic about their method (seek knowledge, request proof) I give them kudos. Religion is "we insist this book one of us found is the real word of God, debate over, do what I say, quiver in fear, advance not, or at best, more slowly." It can't be disproved, it doesn't like change. Science welcomes new knowledge (maybe slowly, because humans are flawed, see Kuhn, "The structure of scientific revolutions" but it has been science and observation in the real world that has advanced us not religion. I do submit that totalitarianism / communism are religions--blind obedience, no dissent, thank you. Stalin wasn't an atheist; his religion was state power, and he didn't want to be wrong. I'd love it if God were around to keep me alive forever and fix the earth!
No, it doesn't. Atheism is open to any possibility of what life is. They just want some evidence. If it's based in Godforce, cool; show us. Is it about doing the right thing, making the world better for each other? Sure, atheism doesn't hinder any of that, or oppose it. Atheism is anything except religion, and ethics, morals, and meaning are included--as you would see in any atheist text, eg, Dawkins and others attempts to come up with better ten commandments, and many other examples.
"athiesm is a religion."
Far from it. Atheists can be dogmatic, but if they're being dogmatic about their method (seek knowledge, request proof) I give them kudos. Religion is "we insist this book one of us found is the real word of God, debate over, do what I say, quiver in fear, advance not, or at best, more slowly." It can't be disproved, it doesn't like change. Science welcomes new knowledge (maybe slowly, because humans are flawed, see Kuhn, "The structure of scientific revolutions" but it has been science and observation in the real world that has advanced us not religion. I do submit that totalitarianism / communism are religions--blind obedience, no dissent, thank you. Stalin wasn't an atheist; his religion was state power, and he didn't want to be wrong. I'd love it if God were around to keep me alive forever and fix the earth!
141
Also worth pointing out how old the Bible, Torah, and Koran are, and how very long it has taken us to respect each other, establish just governments, end racial prejudice, etc, DESPITE the extreme religiosity of the people in power and their subjects for thousands of years. Religion is neither necessary nor sufficient for civilization and good behavior. The rapid changing of morals in the last 100 years can't be due to upheavals in religious thought. Rather, it's our own moral sense getting funneled into our behavior, magnified by a time of relative prosperity (which science and industry have provided), and sometimes expressed as a religious sense because adherents are taught morality stems from religion so they assume their good acts are due to their religious sense.
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Feet, Ears, Gasmasks... by Dan Savage
-
High School In Mississippi Cancels Prom to Prevent Lesbian Student From Bringing Female Date—And Potentially Incites Violence Against Lesbian Student by Dan Savage
-
But Won't It Confuse The Children? by Dan Savage
-
The Enemy of the Good by Dan Savage
-
Deep Thought by Christopher Frizzelle
-
SL Letter of the Day: Doggy Style by Dan Savage
-
Crazy Christian Lady Asks Jesus To Give Crazy Christians Total Control Of The Media... by Dan Savage
-
Hateful and Pathetic Old Closet Case Comes Out by Dan Savage
-
They Don't Just Hate Fags by Dan Savage
-
The Only Exercise I Got... by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (141) RSS