Canadians are always dissing America for its over-the-top religiosity, and rightly so. But their country (which I am now visiting) is not completely immune. Two days ago Canadian Raffi P. sent this email to both P.Z Myers and me, and I post it with permission:
Anyway here is my story from this past weekend which included my first run in with a preachy evangelical. So it’s Canada Day on Sunday and we are at a huge public park across the street from our house in suburban Toronto. There are thousands of people out, there are kids everywhere, music, games rides and food—just a good time! So my wife and I are sitting on a park bench with our one and half year old son taking it all in.
At this point, this man walks up to us and has a card trick ready to show us. So he does it and then hands me a couple of pieces of paper. I quickly scan them and see Bible verses printed all over them. So I know what he’s about but I don’t say anything; I wait for him to finish his trick.
No sooner had he done that, then he turns to me and says “Have you heard of the Gospel”? I didn’t answer his question; instead I just turned and said “So is this what you do, you go up to people enjoying themselves and try to peddle your religious views?” Safe to say he didn’t like that much, but at the same time you could tell in his eyes that he had perked up, realizing that he had a “live one” so to speak.
So he gets very engaged and starts ripping into me. He asks if I am an atheist; I say yes. Then, as if he was reading a checklist of idiotic things creationists say, exactly as I have read from your experiences on your websites every day, he says” Do you believe in heaven?”. Of course I say “no” and describe why (lack of evidence and all).
“Do you believe in Evolution?”. Well of course. Then he says that if evolution is true then where are the fossils? (I swear). Then he adds, “Well explain to me the dragonfly. The dragonfly is the one thing that has never evolved”*. And he was so adamant about this. As if the his entire religious belief hinges on the damn dragonfly.
Then he says how do you explain Love? I mean I can go on and on but it wouldn’t stop. I put him in his place, didn’t back down, threw it all in his face trying my best to channel Coyne and Myers. The one thing I have learned from the two of you, as well as from, Hitchens, is that when one has facts, evidence and science at hand, one must never back down. I asked him on three separate occasions to leave my family and I alone but he wouldn’t. After a while I got rid of him. Some people who had gathered and watched though said “He’s religious, you came off a little harsh”. I couldn’t believe it, as if I am supposed to bend over backwards and let this idiot ramble off his stupid thoughts.
After this experience I just became very angry and agitated and this was just one time! I have a new found appreciation for the crap that you guys deal with on an almost daily basis.
Now those who accuse us atheists of being strident and quasi-religious in our fervor should answer this question: would any atheist go up to a randomly-chosen family in the park and start prosyletizing against God? We don’t do stuff like that. Yes, we write articles and give talks at meetings and on the radio, but we don’t collar strangers, ruining their day by saying, “Have you heard the bad news about Jesus?”
Come on, liberal religious folks—let’s hear you decry this intrusive behavior instead of that of atheists, who don’t disturb people and their families on Canada Day!
_______
*And yes, dragonflies have evolved. There are ancestral forms in the fossil record, and while some ancient dragonflies look similar to modern ones, they are no means identical! (See also here.)
The correct reply to “Do you believe in Evolution?” is, “No, I don’t *believe* in it; I’m convinced it’s true because of the overwhelming evidence. Like I don’t “believe” in gravity, or atoms.”
Or “luckily I don’t need to believe it, I can know it!”
I think that answer is technically correct but rhetorically weak.
In such a situation there is no need to confuse the colloqial meaning of “believe” with a kind of philosophical equivalence of absolute certainty.
Why not just give the answer:
“I’m convinced it’s true because of the overwhelming evidence.”
That pretty much covers the important parts of your initial suggestion as an answer.
If you get pushed further; “Yes but do you really BELIEVE it”, you can then ask them to define “believe” in a way that is not covered by saying the evidence convinces you that it is true.
So the best reaction is: “Do you believe in gravity?”
“Why, yes.”
“Then you understand zilch about science. Evolution and gravity are no matters of belief. Formulate your question correctly.”
If you are going to say “believe” then you need to qualify exactly what you mean. My suggestion is that you simply use that qualification as your answer. Don’t try to say “I believe” or “I don’t believe, I’m convinced of the evidence”. Just say “I’m convinced of the evidence.
I don’t see the point with trying to educate a religious person in the scientific definition of the term “believe”.
That’s not the point. The point is to make clear a priori that such a christian is wrong and that you’re not going to cede ground.
I believe the evidence for evolution, and the arguments interpreting the evidence. “Believe” is a suitable word, “believe in” has a connotation of faith.
I am not going to turn another perfectly good English language word over to the faithists.
I had an argument with Labi Siffre (poet, singer and atheist) on Twitter about this. He chastised me because I denied that I “believed” in gravity. He said he wouldn’t trust me to take small children onto the door of a tall building… 😮
/@
It’s more of a personal relationship with reality.
Or perhaps “Belief doesn’t come into it. It’s a fact, like gravity or atoms.” (Those last two to pre-empt equivocation on “But it’s a theory”.
Good one Paul
The best repartee is that terrific line:
“Have you heard the bad news about Jesus?”
Could be used as a motto or the title of a new great book.
How about “I’m not interested in having a conversation about that”?
Or “If you’d like to take up my time, here’s my hourly rate”?
“He’s religious, you came off a little harsh”.
The idea that you should be respectful or even reverent to those espousing religious views is one that I believe the writers such as those mentioned in this post are doing a very good job at dispelling.
To which the response is: “He’s rude. He came on way too strong.”
/@
…and I told him that I’m an atheist. He choose to start an arguement.
…or “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”
If a theist can start arguing, with impunity, *for* god, I should at least be allowed to argue back, with impunity, *against* god.
It’s frustrating in the extreme that so many people cannot imagine the shoe being on the other foot. Would people have admonished the theist to take it easy on Raffi P. had he (and his atheism) been the instigator?
Maybe they weren’t being wrongheaded. Maybe they meant “He’s religious (ie. obviously mentally disturbed). You came off a little harsh (by not taking his disability into consideration).”
Maverick that’s exactly what I thought!
“but he’s RELIGIOUS..mutter mutter” as if he’s a loopy-tunes..:we can’t be MEAN to him!” lol
I love the double standard…
The religious guy is allowed to walk up and hassle random strangers, and then NOT walk away until asked at least three times, but the atheist is harsh.
And people say that religion is under attack in this world. Ha!
My favorite was the time a fundie asked my brother Bob if he had found Jesus. Bob replied, “I didn’t know he was missing.” That was sad about people telling Raffi that the evangelical was religious, so he shouldn’t be so hard on him. The fact that the evangelical was so annoyingly religious was a good reason to be hard on him.
Reminds me of the sticker I had on my dorm room door that said, “I found Jesus. He was hiding behind the couch.” The evangelical young men that came around door to door in the dorm to preach and collect donations for their church we’re kind of confused by it. I giggled at that.
Then when asking for donations, they took a look around my dorm room. I could tell they were looking for like a big TV or fancy computers all us rich college kids have. When they just saw a microwave, ramen noodle packages, and mountians of books and notes, I asked if I looked like I had the money. Not that I’d give anyway.
I’ve always wondered how they got in the swipe-card locked dorm building. This post gave me an idea though. Maybe someone held the door open for them thinking, “He’s religious, you can let them in.”
That is almost certainly how they got in.
Religiosity = free pass in so, so very many contexts.
Well, you know what they say. When God closes a door and puts a card-lock on it, he leaves a window cracked open enough that you can shimmy through it if you try hard enough.
Also, a stray apostrophe snuck into “were”.
“I didn’t know he was missing.”
Reminds me of the answer of the other often asked question “Are you ‘born again’?”
– “No, I got it right the first time.”
I love it when I get asked if I had found Jesus, so many good replies. “Is he that bloke like Krishna?” “I didn’t know he was lost, where did you last see him?” “It’s pronounced ‘hey-sus’ and I last saw him in the garden centre.” etc.
@eric: If you get asked to donate have some Monopoly money handy give them that. “But this isn’t real money” “It’s as real as your god” The Jehovahs loved it here in England.
Mine is, “No thanks, once was QUITE enough.”
“Why, does he owe you money?”
He is like his Yeshua- a lover of logicide-faith! He expects people to follow ever-dead Yeshua even though they think otherwise.
Le’s then criticize Yeshua, that scam of the ages as a moral leader as deist, Miklos Jako does in ” Confronting Believers!”
Reblogged this on Reason against Religions! and commented:
Those know-nothing theists!
What more might one add to this?
Once while perusing the selections at the pre-packaged lunchmeat section of my local supermarket (back around 1977 when I was a grad student), I suddenly had a guy in my face wanting to know if I had accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior. It was really bizarre. Another time, in front of other supermarket in town there, a pair of maybe 20y/o Jewish guys wanted to know if I was Jewish. Growing up in northern Virginia, that kind of thing never happened.
This is why I never buy lunch meat.
+1
Well, it’s best to avoid savioury food…
/@
Hilarious!
In the lunch meat section of grocery stores in KY, you can get “bible cheese”: pimiento cheese spread (yuk!) with bible verses printed on the plastic tub. They do the same thing in eastern NC with barbecue and coleslaw.
I’m a bit younger than you, but I also grew up in NOVA and it was completely secular at that time. I’ve almost forgotten what it was like to live in such a place.
Our local paper prints, among the crosswords, sūdoku, horoscopes and the like, a “Text for the day”. I can never understand why it’s always from the same book, or why it so often offers neither useful information nor wisdom.
You always want to shop the outer periphery of the supermarket, that’s where the unprocessed fresh fruit, vegetables, meat (if you’re an omnivore) and dairy products are.
It’s the centre part that contains all the processed foods that are best avoided, with a few notable exceptions such as otherwise unprocessed frozen fruit and vegetables.
And presumably it’s the centre part where the funigelicals hang out along with all the rest of the suspect produce.
Specifically in the aisle with all those tubs that have “Planter’s” written on the side.
‘…but we don’t collar strangers, ruining their day by saying, “Have you heard the bad news about Jesus?”’
No, but I might start. Good idea.
I don’t collar strangers, but when people begging money on the street say “God bless you” after I give them money, I ask them to stop using that phrase: God hasn’t done anything for them; I have.
“God hasn’t done anything for them; I have.”
Or IF He has, it apparently didn’t work out too well.
My own reply is “There is no God. If there was, you wouldn’t be standing here.”
It’s odd how Christians go around trying to proselytize, when most people are Christians alreadu, and it’s not like the ones that aren’t, aren’t Christians simply because they’ve never heard of Jesus. On the other hand, many Americans don’t believe in evolution, and both, regardless of whether they believe in it, don’t understand it. So going around teaching people about evolution makes more sense.
Their arrogance is amazing. They think other people are so ignorant that they have to go out and convert them. And it is not that they want to make sure everyone are christian…they want everyone to be their exact denomination. If you ask me, proselytizeing is rude.
I’m sure the, “He’s religious, you came off a little harsh” comment was given because of the undue respect the religious get. But I also looked at it as someone doing something they can’t control, like yelling at a kid. “He’s a child, don’t yell at him for picking his nose, he doesn’t know better.”
But still, he’s a grown up. He should know.
Why wasn’t it the other way around and a third party say something to the religious guy, “He’s trying to enjoy the day with his family, don’t preach.” Now quiet family time is certainly deserving of respect.
When people on the street approach me with religious tracts, hoping to have a nice chat about Jeebus, I always cut them short by asking, ‘Do I look like an idiot?’
You could always start your reply with, “Gee, aren’t you a bit old to still believe that stuff? I mean, you do know that Jesus is just zombie Santa Claus with snuff porn, right?” Then mention the enchanted garden with talking animals and an angry wizard, and the talking plant that gives magic wand lessons to the reluctant hero.
Chances are slim that they’ll make it very far into their spiel….
Cheers,
b&
…though maybe you should ask them to remind you to click the subscribe checkbox first, before you piss them off….
b&
I was thinking something similar. start with a disbelieving chuckle, “you don’t really beleive that crap, do you?”
And not to forget foundling intestines, always good for a visceral response.
Sehr gut!
/@
Foundling intestines.
I’ve heard of atheists and barbecued babies before, but it never occurred to me to use orphaned ones. In any case, I can’t imagine there would be enough organ meat to make sausages with their intestines.
Hey, it made it through the spel cheker, what more do you want ?
We actually had a Salvationist come up to us at Skeptics in the Pub the other night. Nice guy, I began by saying I’d donate when a Salvation Army Major would marry me and my husband, with a brass band. He protested that the SA’s persectuion of gays (they helped with a petition to oppose law reform) was a long time ago, and a lot of Salvationists had been unhappy about it. He told us that he’d been an atheist but had converted when … [long story] … he’d been trying to get some cows to water through thick snow and nothing worked till he said “God help me!” One of us later said that he hadn’t been quick enough to ask why this guy’s God had killed his friend in the Christchurch earthquake.
Something very specific in this story had my head spinning. I have an example in my own experience.
I was once riding the HSR bus in Hamilton, Ontario when I was a student there. An apparently normal elderly lady sat down beside me and after a few minutes abruptly asked if I went to church. I said no. Unsurprisingly she said she did, and told me she didn’t have cancer anymore, that she had been treated by doctors and nothing had worked, but when she had beseeched Jesus for help her cancer had gone away. I said I couldn’t say exactly what happened, but if I had to make a bet, I’d say the doctors and perhaps blind luck were to thank. At this point, I noticed a few mildly interested passengers had begun to pay attention to our conversation. The lady asked me if I believed in god. I said no.
What happened next startled me and when I told my friends the story afterwards, they asked me if I was certain the story is true. I assure you it is.
The lady shrieked. I whipped my head around with quick glances to get my own bearings as if the noise had originated somewhere else on the bus. Most of the riders were now paying attention, including the bus driver who I could see looking directly at me in the rearview mirror. The lady wailed – WAILED – “Oh But you MUST! YOU MUST! DO YOU KNOW WHAT AWAITS YOU? FIRE! A LAKE OF FIRE! TURNING AND BURNING, BURNING AND TURNING. FOREVER AND EVER! TURNING… AND BUUUUURRRNNINGGG!”
I waited a few seconds into this tirade before I started to say as flatly as I could, but loud enough so I could hear my own voice, “I don’t believe that’s going to happen! I don’t-” She started to arch forward slightly, head forward but eyes glazed and looking right at me, holding her two index fingers parallel and rolling them over each other, screeching, “TUUURRRNING! AND BUUUURNNNING!”
Incidentally, the very next stop was mine, and as I got off, unless I am the worse judge of facial expressions on the planet, forget hell: the bus driver could have set me ablaze with the look of disgust she gave me. We were only seated about two metres from the front, so I’m assuming the driver could hear at least some of the conversation or get some idea of what was going on. I didn’t really look at the other passengers as I left. There was no effort by the bus driver to ask what had happened – which surely would have resulted in her asking the lady to calm down. Being viewed as the villain – or at least feeling you are – in such a situation is confusing and infuriating.
Is that from The Bible or Arthur Brown?
More like a mixture of The Bible and Monty Python And The Holy Grail. Remember “Burn the Witch”? “Burrrn her! Burrrnn Her!”
Like that.
That sends shivers down my spine~..to think that people believe in Hell so strongly. It’s always just been a vague concept to me as the worst I had to fear was Eternal Death which meant exactly that – dead in the literal sense due to a different interptreation of the word “Hades” in the church I was raised.
But this turning and burning business! And to say that out loud like some kind of threat to someone..this is the worst kind of torment, so to speak
I wonder what does Ceiling Cat does to unbelievers :/ the rotisseried-chicken punishment or something worse 🙁
Ha ha ha! The ceiling cat will have us on spits, turning and roasting for eternity… or till we’re crispy and golden brown!
Believers will not go to heaven unless they’re physically inside a church when they die.
Spread this tale, please. It would be interesting to see how the religibots handle the consequences.
Like!
I wonder if your inquisitrix maintained sufficient sphincter tonus during her exertions. If not, then the bus driver got her just desserts after you got off.
She’d get on with the God Warrior Trading Spouses woman.
When people talk about Jerry Coyne, PZ Meyers and Richard Dawkins they spew out a string of abusive ad hominem attacks then finish off by saying how rude and strident they are. It never occurs to them that just because they are the pious they can’t attack someone and expect not to be put in their place.
I love how the argument from religious people is basically, “Your evidence doesn’t hold up to my lack of evidence.”
I am Canadian, originally a Brit from 55 years ago. Regrettably we have a born-again Prime Minister who is a member of The Alliance Church
group and who won a majority government with less than 40% of the electorate supporting him a year ago. His majority has given him virtually unlimited power to change the nature of Canada, and he is certainly taking advantage of it. Enough said – I can feel the bile rising in my throat as I write !!!!
I am Canadian …. Regrettably we have a born-again Prime Minister who is a member of The Alliance Church ….
Likewise with the first part there. And exactly my sentiments about our Prime Minister.
I had actually been a member of his Party – in part because its precursor or one of its parents, the Reform Party, had, I thought, the more sensible views on fiscal policies and the Nisga’a Treaty – and I had actually assisted them briefly during the last election. At least until I realized the religious – Christian – basis and bias for many of their policies. What really got my goat was that Prime Minister Harper had commendably, if pragmatically, refused to reopen the debate in Parliament on abortion but had hypocritically condoned the curtailment of aid to third-world countries if it was to be used to fund abortions there.
And further digging led to Marci McDonald’s The Armageddon Factor: the Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada which more or less drove a stake through the heart of any allegiance I had to the Party. [Haven’t read it yet myself but just various discussions on it was sufficient].
Brits are always dissing America for its over-the-top religiosity (and rightly so), too. But this made me cringe (esp. as a life member of the National Trust): Causeway centre gives creationist view. Good poll results, though! (We could make it better! 😉 )
/@
Some of us want to challenge the National Trust on this, but need to be sure of the exact wording. Is it a bald acknowlegement that a creationist account exists, or is it something that does indeed imply that it’s an acceptable alternative? And the main source of the story seems to be the biblical literalist Caleb Foundation, which has an interest in making a big thing of this. So please, does anyone know what the National Trust material is actually saying?
Update: Here’s what the National Trust actually says:
[Quote] This debate has ebbed and flowed since the discovery of the Causeway to science and, historically, the Causeway became part of a global debate about how the earth’s rocks were formed.
This debate continues today for some people, who have an understanding of the formation of the earth which is different from that of current mainstream science.
Young Earth Creationists believe that the earth was created some 6000 years ago. This is based on a specific interpretation of the Bible and in particular the account of creation in the book of Genesis.
Some people around the world, and specifically here in Northern Ireland, share this perspective.
Young Earth Creationists continue to debate questions about the age of the earth. As we have seen from the past, and understand today, perhaps the Giant’s Causeway will continue to prompt awe and wonder, and arouse debate and challenging questions for as long as visitors come to see it.[end quote]
I particularly like the words “a specific interpretation of the Bible”, neatly deflating the cretinist claim to speak for God.
Elsewhere, there is an excellent account of the geology, and actually Finn M’Cool gets more visibility than the cretinists. The abominable Caleb Foundation, in other words, are bragging about a triumph that does not exist.
Thanks for the detective work, Peter.
However, I still see no reason for the NT to mention this at all!
I’ve no problem with the NT recounting the myths and legends surrounding the Giants’ Causeway, as long as they’re specifically presented as such. That provides local colour (just like the presentation of the legends of King Arthur at Tintagel).
But to give any space to contemporary creationist views contra geological history (which are in not even remotely connected to the Giants’ Causeway itself, even if they are held by some of the local population) is as unwarranted as presenting Genesis stories at the NHM. In that regard, to have this mentioned at all is a win for the Caleb Foundation.
/@
“discovery of the Causeway to science”? That sounds like really awful English to my ears.
I really enjoy it when religious nuts knock on my door. I rip apart their beliefs with the most gentle, polite, and often socratic words i can find. Sadly, I seem to have been black-listed, as they never stop by any more. The best instance was when an adult couple and a 14 (or so) year old girl came by. They had the girl do all the talking – maybe that keeps people from screaming at them. So it was me versus a 14 year old girl. As I said, I am as polite and gentle as I can be, but obviously, the route was on. Maybe Im flattering myself, but I bet none of the 4 of us ever forget that conversation.
Do you mean “rout”?
“You came off a little harsh?” This was probably a product of the well-known and generally deserved cultural reputation of Canadians as courteous and friendly, not eager to offend (except, perhaps, at hockey games). “You came off a little harsh” is a fairly faint admonition. Please recall Robert Stack’s character in “Airplane!”
I condemn this behaviour. Do you condemn the people who sent hate mail to science journalist Melinda Wenner because she reported on a study that showed children who attended church were better adjusted than their peers who did not?
Please provide examples of the hate mail you refer to.
From the horse’s mouth:
http://blindedscience.blogspot.ca/2007/04/religion-science-and-hate-mail.html
And then? A bad behavior is a bad behavior. Someone else’s bad behavior is no excuse for behavioring badly.
My moral of the story is: If liberal Christians are obliged to apologize for the bad behaviour of the people mentioned in the story above, atheists should be obliged to apologize for the people who sent hate mail to the science journalist who reported on a study showing positive effects of religion. My personal opinion is individuals shouldn’t be held responsible for bad behaviour on the part of members of their group. If they are, then it should go both ways.
I agree that bad behavior needs to be called out regardless of the source and the person made the comment you pointed to is an ass****.
But there is an important difference that needs to be acknowledged. In one case, bad behavior is someone being a personal jerk. In the other case it is a logical consequence a shared belief system. Xtians are called upon by their religion to go convert people and save them from the fires of hell. Atheists are not called upon by some shared belief system to be obnoxious. You are making a false equivalence.
I agree that bad behavior needs to be called out regardless of the source and the person made the comment you pointed to is an ass****.
But there is an important difference that needs to be acknowledged. In one case, bad behavior is someone being a personal jerk. In the other case it is a logical consequence a shared belief system. Xtians are called upon by their religion to go convert people and save them from the fires of hell. Atheists are not called upon by some shared belief system to be obnoxious. You are making a false equivalence.
Well, according to Wenner (who for all I know might be an atheist herself), it was more than one person who hate-mailed her.
I’ll say that not all atheists and not all Christians are obnoxious proselytizers. But if atheists aren’t called to convert others to their belief system, why did the League for the Militant Godless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists) emerge? Why are there militant atheists (who, I’ll be clear again, don’t represent everybody who does not believe in God) who want to legally prohibit parents from raising children in a religious faith?
Oh, for Jebus sake.
Please define “militant atheist”. Are you talking about the ones that burn Christian healthcare clinics? Or maybe the ones that fly planes into buildings?
I apologize for all the atheists who have send hatemail as such.
Now it’s your turn.
OK, I’ll apologize for the obnoxious person in the story. I don’t think I have to, though, and I don’t think you should have to apologize for the jerks who sent hateful messages to Melinda Wenner.
Then your whole subthread doesn’t make much sense, Liz.
You still haven’t answered my question about the effort to ban parents from raising their children in a religious faith.
With regard to militant atheists imposing their opinions on others, read the 16th paragraph of this article by a self-described Jewish agnostic:
http://www.salon.com/2000/03/24/elian_2/
Personally I think religious education of children is a form of child abuse.
I put it in the same class as those who amputate parts of children’s sexual organs for religious or cultural reasons or those who sexually abuse children in a religious context.
Religious eduction is even more invidious than physical abuse as the damage it causes it not always immediately apparent, it can take years before the results of stunted mental development caused by religious indoctrination become visible at which point the perpetrators are more difficult to identify and bring to justice.
You’re perfectly entitled to your own opinion. And if you feel strongly about this, then don’t raise your kids in any religion. (Sound familiar? Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one – but don’t force your opinion on others who might not share it.)
You also might be more convincing, however, if you provided an actual scientific study showing that being raised in a religion is damaging to children. I’ve provided two that appear to show the opposite.
“Sound familiar? Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one – but don’t force your opinion on others who might not share it.”
You couldn’t have made our point any better. People who raise their children in a harshly religious atmosphere are forcing their opinions on others who don’t share their opinion because they are too young to have formed any.
So I suppose I’m ‘imposing’ my opinion on my daughter by telling her she should eat her dinner rather than the ice cream she wants desperately.
What would you say to a parent who only fed their child rice? What if they only fed the kid hot dogs?
If we are going to go along with your dinner analogy, then we need to have it go more like this:
Just as good parents gives their children balanced diets at dinner, good parents expose their children to a wide menu of intellectual food. That would include instruction in world religions, the history of religion, and the reasons that many people reject religion.
_That_ would be responsible parenting. Indoctrinating children into a religious cult is not.
Liz
If you exposed her to only broccoli and boiled chicken, only let her hang out with people who eat broccoli and boiled chicken, and either explicitly or implicitly threatened her with eternal torture and damnation for eating, say, chocolate ice cream instead of broccoli and boiled chicken, then yes, that would absolutely be imposing. Notice I didn’t use quotes, because that’s exactly what it is.
As gbjames said, allowing your children to eat broccoli and boiled chicken and a whole host of other things, then allowing them to chose their own foods at an older age is responsible parenting. But we all know that most of the faithful don’t do this. The best among them may inform them there are other dinner options, but strongly encourage them to stick with broccoli and boiled chicken, while the more unethical and abusive take the road mentioned in the previous paragraph. Again, that is absolutely imposing, and there’s a case to be made that it’s abusive.
I’ll worry about one secularhumanist with an opinion when the christofascists stop trying to take over our country and destroy it. There are millions of xian Dominionists who openly hate the USA and want to destroy it.
BTW, Liz any ideas on how to stop the xians from sending me death threats? Like a lot of scientists, I’ve been getting them for at least 12 years now. Mostly I just turn the serious looking ones over to the FBI. They rarely arrest them but it has happened. Death threats are a felony.
And why you are here, any ideas on how to keep the xian terrorists from killing my colleagues? In the last few decades they’ve wounded several hundred and killed 8.
Raise children religiously, but then let them decide for themselves later in life? Doesn’t that conflict with the ever-popular Pentecostal song, “GIVE ME THAT OLD TIME RELIGION: If it’s good enough for grandpa, it’s good enough for me!”?
What question? Who is trying to ban parents from raising kids in a religious faith? Someone in the USSR in 1925?
Srsly?
Look no further: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=narisetti_27_4
“…While some might see it as a matter better left to parents, the negative influence of religion and its subsequent contribution to child abuse from religious beliefs and practices requires us to ask whether organized religion is an institution that needs limits set on how early it should have access to children.”
Interesting. Sounds like a worthwhile debate to be had.
And what if the outcome of the debate was that children from religious households are better adjusted, as the above-mentioned studies I’ve cited appear to show? Should parents be forced to take their kids to a place of worship? (I of course would say no.)
So you admit that the attempt to stop parents from raising their children in a religious faith isn’t just something that happened in the USSR in the 1920s?
I admit that someone in India wants to discuss whether children deserve to be protected from religious indoctrination.
Do you feel better now? Is that supposed to be some kind of balancing argument against centuries of religious proselytizing by countless Xtians?
This happens a lot. It is so common, it rarely makes the newspapers any more.
On a good day, PZ Myers has gotten over one hundred death threats in one day!!!
It’s happened to me so many times in over a decade that it seems normal and expected. Xians toss out death threats like normal people say hello.
I’ll just end the argument with this:
Yes, making death threats to people who teach evolution is wrong. However, I would take issue with the notion that all Christians – particularly liberal Christians – should have to feel guilty about this. That is like saying that all atheists should feel guilty about the murder of clergy members in the USSR and other Communist states (note: I don’t have any sympathy with those who deny, downplay or even condone the persecution of religion in Communist countries). So before you tar all Christians with the same brush, note that the same could be done to you.
OK,
So how about Hitler and the Nazis. You do know that Hitler was a Catholic and the Nazis were all Catholics and Lutherans?
If you look at the history of xianity, it is drenched with blood for 2,000 years.
If you want to count dead bodies, the xians are the world champions. The Pogroms, Crusades, Reformation wars, the takeover of the New World with the genocide of the Amerindians, our current problem with xian terrorism in the USA. It goes on and on and the killing never stops.
One of the bloodiest wars in human history was the Taiping Rebellion which killed 18 million people. Started by…a xian.
BTW, Liz, why in the hell are you here except to drop some hate off on atheists? No one is blaming you for the death threats most of us get routinely or for assassinating MD’s or blowing up family planning clinics. We have no idea who you really are, where you live, or what you really believe. And don’t give a rat’s ass.
That is unless that is what you do for fun.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that all Xtians should feel guilty. What is being demanded is that liberal Xtians recognize that the more repugnant behaviors of the faithful are derived from the religious texts with the same legitimacy as the more liberal “nice” behaviors. When you “nice” Xtians use faith as a justification for your “nice” activities you provide support for your nastier faith-based co-religionists. Repugnant and liberal faith-justifications carry exactly the same amount of moral legitimacy. You “own” your brother’s nasty behavior when you legitimize his rationale.
It has nothing to do with “feeling guilty.” It’s about calling out bad behavior when it happens. Big difference.
Yes, making death threats to people who teach evolution is wrong. However, I would take issue with the notion that all Christians – particularly liberal Christians – should have to feel guilty about this. That is like saying that all atheists should feel guilty about the murder of clergy members in the USSR and other Communist states”
You already made this argument elsewhere, and I already refuted it. And yet you’re not at all acknowledging my counterargument, or giving any indication that you’re willing to engage in a discussion as to why your reasoning is flawed. You’ve used up your benefit of the doubt. Now you’re just being a blatant asshole. Suggesting that I can be blamed for the act of communists is simply not part of a civil dialog.
“It’s not fair to say that every member of the KKK should be feel guilty when a member of the KKK lynches someone. That is like saying that people who refuse to join the KKK should feel guilty about the Stalinist purges. After all, Stalin was also a non-KKK member.” You’re really not getting how absolutely moronic this is? You’ve joined a group that has murdered millions of people, and that should trouble you. I have not-joined a not-group that has also killed millions of people, and that does not trouble me, nor should it. Just what is so hard to understand about the asymmetry between joining a group and not-joining a not-group?
Liz, did you read the HEADLINE of your own link? Do you remember what it was all about? Then think about who was trying to persuade which government to override whose free choices.
Children who attend church are better adjusted because of the brainwashing that goes on in churches. By not questioning, reasoning, or thinking for themselves, they come off better adjusted.
What do you mean by ‘come off?’ What do you make of a study in the journal Pediatrics that showed that children of mothers without a religious affiliation were more aggressive than average? You can’t really ‘come off’ as less aggressive; either you punch, kick, hit, etc., someone or you don’t.
By the way, the correlation between good behaviour and religious attendance doesn’t mean that the finding is the result of the religion itself; there could be other factors at play.
Religiosity is inversely correlated with the well being of a society as measured by indicators like life expectancy, education, income, corruption, income disparity, child mortality, access to medical care, suicide rates etc.
In general the more religious a society is the lower the level of well being. I make no claims as to what direction the causal arrow points in, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it turned out that to a certain extent religion is a cause of a lower standard of well being.
Religion tends to take hold in societies that have low levels of well being and may provide some form of solace.
So it may well be true that children who attend church are better adjusted than their peers but at the cost of living in a society with a low standard of well being.
This is analogous to putting a band-aid on a cancer patient rather than addressing the root causes of the problem.
Religiosity equals lower suicide rates? See this:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108625/more-religious-countries-lower-suicide-rates.aspx
I’m a little wary of saying that these results are due to religion per se. It may very well be that a variable besides religion is behind the lower suicide rates reported.
To end the argument, I’m not sure why it bothers some people that children in religious families are in general better adjusted (and again, this is just a correlation). For example, I’m 100% heterosexual, but I’m not bothered by studies showing that children of same-sex parents might be better off than those with straight parents. At least I don’t send hate mail to the authors of these studies…
I notice that “homicide rates were actually somewhat higher in countries that are more religious”.
Do you think that more religious societies are better off than less religious ones ?
Did you pick suicide rate as an example of a general trend showing that religious societies are better off or is this only indicator from the many used to measure societal well being that you can find to support your position ?
Although I’m not exactly sure what your position is other than you are very, very concerned that people send nasty messages to the authors of studies that you happen to agree with.
And that you are very pleased with yourself that you don’t indulge in such behavior, no doubt due to your religious upbringing.
I didn’t say I don’t send nasty messages to people because of any religious upbringing or present religious practice.
I can’t say that I’m never bothered by the results of studies. For example, a number of studies have shown that women who only have one child (which is the choice I’ve made in my own life) have a lower life expectancy than mothers of two or more children. It kind of bothers me, for obvious reasons. But I don’t shoot off nasty messages to the authors of the studies.
I have to say that whether or not one sends nasty messages to the authors of studies whose results one disagrees with or otherwise finds disturbing is a very odd metric to use to measure ones position on the moral/ethical scale.
Surely there are better ways to measure your worth as a human being.
Come on, I’m hardly saying that I’m more worthy as a human being because I don’t send off nasty messages to the authors of studies with which I disagree.
But really, what would you think of me if I sent off a letter to the authors of ae study showing that children were better off with same-sex parents and said that the authors were glorifying a perverted and immoral lifestyle that was obviously damaging innocent children (remember the refrain ‘Think of the chilll-drun!’)?
So what would you say if there were a study showing that children from religious families were MORE aggressive than those from secular families and some religious fundamentalist sent hate mail to the author of that study?
Religion is inversely correlated with the well being of any society.
The most prosperous societies are the least religious, Europe especially Scandinavia, New Zealand, Australia, Japan.
The most religious societies are basket cases like Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iran. Violence is common and life expectancy is 30 years less than even the USA.
We see the same pattern in the USA. The most religious states are the most backward and lead in any social problem you care to name, teenage pregnancy, abortion, child poverty, etc.. Just compare Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi (the Red states), to the blue states of the Northeast or West Coast.
Religosity is correlated with higher abortion rates. They are all hypocrites. It’s one of their sacraments.
Hey Liz. Do you actually have a coherent point besides the fact that you hate atheists and are a moron.
Another example of the xian ritual of human child sacrifice.
In parts of Asia and Africa, xians kill children as alleged witches. The numbers here are large, maybe a 1,000 a year. The killings are often pretty brutal. One kid who survived had his mother and minister attempt to remove the top of his skull to let the evil spirits out.
So Liz. If you or your cult think your (possibly imaginary) kid is a witch or demon possessed, whatever you do, don’t kill it. In the USA that will be considered homicide.
To Gabrielle Guichard:
“Behaviouring” is not a word
To Liz:
“My moral of the story is: If liberal Christians are obliged to apologize for the bad behaviour of the people mentioned in the story above, atheists should be obliged to apologize for the people who sent hate mail to the science journalist who reported on a study showing positive effects of religion.”
First, it isn’t very informative to post a link to a blog talking ABOUT the study and the alleged hate mail, but not links to the study or the actual mail. You were asked for examples, and you still haven’t done so. Is it “hate mail” as in “I really didn’t like you posting about it” or as in “I’m going to beat you to a bloody pulp for posting that”?
As for your “moral of the story”: it’s simply ridiculous to claim that if members of a group should apologize for the behavior of other members of that group, then people who AREN’T members of that group should apologize for the behavior of other people who aren’t members of that group. That’s just plain absurd, and it’s a tribute to how your critical thinking skills have been dulled by pro-religion society that you are unable to see how illogical that is.
“My personal opinion is individuals shouldn’t be held responsible for bad behaviour on the part of members of their group.”
It depends on the nature of the group. If by “group”, you merely mean “a set of people who share a particular characteristic”, thus including atheists, gays, black people, and people with large earlobes, that’s one thing. But surely you aren’t claiming that a member of the Aryan Nation has no responsibility for what other members of the Aryan Nation do?
“So what would you say if there were a study showing that children from religious families were MORE aggressive than those from secular families and some religious fundamentalist sent hate mail to the author of that study?”
“Secular” is not a synonym for “atheist”. And that hypothetical is not analogous. Religious fundamentalists are responsible for what other religious fundamentalists do, and atheists have a much more valid concern about studies being used to attack atheists than the reverse.
“But if atheists aren’t called to convert others to their belief system”
The claim was “Atheists are not called upon by some shared belief system to be obnoxious.” The claim is NOT that in the entire world, there is no atheist that calls for other atheists to be obnoxious. The claim is that that atheists should be obnoxious is not part of atheism.
“You still haven’t answered my question about the effort to ban parents from raising their children in a religious faith.”
What effort, and what question would that be?
“With regard to militant atheists imposing their opinions on others, read the 16th paragraph of this article by a self-described Jewish agnostic:”
I actually tracked down the paragraph that you talked about, although I think that it was a bit unreasonable for you to ask for that. I don’t see what point you are trying to make by referring to this paragraph:
” Now, the NCC praises Cuba’s commitment to equality and its social programs like universal health care. (Never mind that quality medical care in Cuba is only for communist party bosses and foreigners bearing dollars. As for ordinary folk, the NCC should talk to a friend of mine whose aunt back in Cuba died of cancer recently; the only way she could get any medicines, painkillers or syringes for injections was from relatives in Miami.) When the NCC does acknowledge the economic misery of the Cuban people, it blames solely the U.S. embargo, not Castro’s communism. “
Here is the actual paragraph I was talking about:
‘In a 1978 publication, it praised China’s murderous Cultural Revolution for championing “community interest, anti-elitism, commitment to revolutionary social goals, dignity of manual labor.” An NCC delegation that traveled to the Soviet Union in 1984 declared itself very pleased with the status of religion in that country — at a time when Russian Orthodox worship was barely tolerated and the Baptist faith treated as an outlaw cult.’
So don’t say that religion has never been suppressed.
Regarding the hate mail Melinda Wenner receive, she gives a good example on her site. Regarding the study itself, here goes:
24. Religion and child development: Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study
March 2008
John P. Bartkowski | Xiaohe Xu | Martin L. Levin
‘AbstractAlthough interest in religion among young people has increased markedly, research examining the impact of religion on child development has been sorely lacking. This study is the first of its kind to use nationally representative data to explore the influence of religion on several different dimensions of psychological development and social adjustment in early childhood. Data from the Spring 2000 wave of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS-K) are analyzed to explore how child development is shaped by individual parents’ religiosity, the religious homogamy of couples, and the family’s religious environment. Significant religious effects are observed across a range of child development domains and are manifested for both parents’ ratings and teachers’ ratings of youngsters. Parental, couple, and familial religion are linked with youngsters’ pro-social behavior. However, religion can undermine child development when it is a source of conflict among families. The investigation concludes with a specification of implications and directions for future research.’
Why are you afraid of studies that might contradict the view held by some (note I said ‘some’) militant atheists that religion damages children?
“So don’t say that religion has never been suppressed.”
Where did RF say that? It’s not 1984 and it’s not the USSR, and yes, I’m well aware that many atheists (myself included) hold that children should not be forced into the religion of their parents, that they should be exposed to a range of faiths and to various non-religious points of view and allowed to decide for themselves at some point. If you think that’s “suppression” then we’ve got bigger problems here. So his question “What effort, and what question would that be?” still stands because I have yet to see any individual nation-state take up that position and actively try to put it in place.
Who on this thread (or for that matter anyone taken seriously in the atheist movement[ex. Dawkins, PZ Myers, Dennett, etc.]) is advocating the use of pogroms and other Christian tactics to wipe out faith? That would be suppression, and that person would be smacked down hard and fast for saying such a barbarous thing. I’m not going to speak for all atheists because we’re a diverse lot, but I would never argue that parents CAN’T expose a child to their own religious background, just that they SHOULDN’T and if they do they should expose them to other religious perspectives too.
Religion can and does harm children. It occasionally kills them and I have seen that.
One of the charming customs of the xians is human child sacrifice to their monster god. These xians in Washington state torture murdered their kid. This happens occassionally. More often they kill them by withholding medical care, a ritural called “faith healing” that should be called “human child sacrifice” which is what it is.
The number of xian child sacrifices is ca. 100 a year in the USA.
Liz, why are you here? Other than to drop off some atheist hate. You aren’t coming across as very coherent either. I wouldn’t be surprised if you have serious mental problems and your claimed kid, if it even exists, grows up abused unless the state takes it away.
Another example of xian nonthinking.
This xian minister wants to put all the gays in concentration camps and watch them all die.
This is a common xian solution to any and all problems. It never takes them long to come up with it. It’s called mass murder and genocide. Xians will do it whenever they think they can get away with it.
It’s also really stupid. Gays are born to…heterosexual parents!!! If you kill them all, the next generation will have the same percentage of gays.
I think Liz’s point is that she and other nice Xtians don’t do those kinds of things!
Which is good. I’m glad that there are nice Xtians out there who don’t burn witches or substitute faith healing from actual medical treatment of their children. It is always good when people refrain from such behaviors. Not all variations of religion are equally harmful.
My objection is that they still demand a pass allowing them to use faith as a legitimate substitute for reason. Unfortunately there is no basis for crediting their version over a witch-burner’s.
I’m not seeing that at all and there is a long thread of data on this point by now.
“Liz” is coming across as a fundie xian troll who is incoherent and hates atheists.
Routine, we see them every day.
I was a moderate xian myself for nearly 5 decades and she doesn’t look at all like the people I know from that time. Among the differences is that they could actually think well enough to have a coherent point.
I guess I’m giving the benefit of the doubt and responding to her appeals that liberal Xtians shouldn’t have to feel guilty. I might be wrong.
It’s all there, the usual fundie xian cultist talking points.
Claims that xians at 76% of the US population are a persecuted minority. Stalin and Mao as atheist leaders. Claims that atheists are evil.
The moderate xians are dying out rapidly because they let their religion get taken over by extremists. It was the fundies that drove me out of the religion.
But it isn’t obvious that they could have done anything anyway. What do people expect them to do, fire up the tanks and launch some fighter planes? In times past, that is how religions settled their differences. These days, we won’t let them fight wars among themselves.
If Liz was a nice christian she wouldn’t be at this website bothering us. Additionally, I think nice christians are very very rare. A nice christian would be spending their time fighting against the undeserved preference the government gives to christians; favorable treatment, exalted status, special tax treatment, untaxed real estate, etc.
“Here is the actual paragraph I was talking about:”
So, to summarize: you think that it is somehow legitimate to characterize the suppression of religion by communists as “militant atheists imposing their opinions on others”, and instead of simply saying “Communists suppressed religion, and I think that it’s legitimate to refer to communists as ‘militant atheists’ ” (something, by the way, which by itself would be wildly offensive; they could just as accurately be described as “militant whites”), you instead make same cryptic remark, then refer us to another website, where we then have to click on another link to get to the page you’re talking about, and THEN we have to count the paragraphs because you’re too lazy to actually quote the part you’re talking about, and *THEN* I find out YOU DIDN’T EVEN COUNT THE PARAGRAPHS CORRECTLY. And you seriously expect us to apologize to you for when atheists criticize you? You’re a perfect example for why atheists start getting so pissed off that they start sending hate mail.
“So don’t say that religion has never been suppressed.”
Well, that’s quite a strawman. But you didn’t pick a very good example; the Orthodox Church was deeply intertwined with the Tsarist system and participated in the oppression of the serfs, and the Baptists were seen as being simply agents of the West. This was a political issue, not a religious one. If an atheist group deeply opposed to communism had wanted to start up clubs in the Soviet Union, do you seriously think the Communist Party would just let them be? When Christians are oppressed because of their religious beliefs, it’s by other religious people, often by other Christians. Atheism has never threatened religious freedom. Pointing to suppressors of religion who happen to be atheists no more contradicts the preceding than pointing to black rapists proves that blackness leads to rape.
“Regarding the hate mail Melinda Wenner receive, she gives a good example on her site.”
She cherry picked a single excerpt. And even this, which apparently is the worst she could find, pales in comparison with what Christians say. Furthermore, this is just some unnamed person on the internet. On the other hand, hate speech comes not merely from random Christians, but prominent Christians representing millions of people. People like Pat Robertson, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich. Even Barack Obama reacted to the killing of Osama bin Laden apparently by thinking to himself “You know, this is a perfect opportunity to express contempt towards atheists”. Jerry Brown, the governor of one of the most liberal states in the country, basically said that atheism is incompatible with American Democracy.
“Regarding the study itself, here goes:”
You’re still not presenting what you claim supports you assertion that “children who attended church were better adjusted than their peers who did not”. How was the study conducted? What metric was used to measure “pro-social behavior”? Etc.
“Why are you afraid of studies that might contradict the view held by some (note I said ‘some’) militant atheists that religion damages children?”
Responding to your previous posts, I viewed your arguments as being simply poorly thought out. But now you’re just making up childish attacks, and then asking loaded questions that assume that your accusations are true.
What is it with all these studies, and people who write nasty letters to people who conduct the studies? Studies can prove anything: At hearings on the safety of the Hanford Atomic Works in Washington state a few years ago many people at the public “town hall meetings” regarding the same thing in nearby Kennewick, Washington, wore buttons that said “F*** You! We have graphs and charts, too!” This in response to one government bureaucrat after another babbling on about their latest multi-million dollar study, which usually concluded with the message “don’t worry; be happy!” I googled “Medical Marijuana & Suicide Rates” and got over three pages listing articles with titles like “Suicide Rates Fall in Medical Marijuana Jurisdictions,” such as this one: http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/03/worth_repeating_suicide_rates_fall_in_medical_mari.php No doubt many of the articles cite studies “proving” whichever position the writer has on the use of medical marijuana. The same thing with studies showing the positive or deleterious effects of religion. So what? Constantly referencing studies and the mean spirited treatment the studiers received seems meaningless to me.
I might have told the fellow
“I found Jesus and he’s waiting by the ferris wheel to ask you why you’re bugging my family”.
Seriously, double standards abound. Liberal Republicans would rather criticize a Democrat than a wingnut Republican. Ethnic group A will criticize bad behavior in group Z but not such in their own.
In my experience, liberal religious folk will criticize this privately but not publicly, the occasional exceptions being ex-evangelicals.
In-group, out-group bullshit. “They’re definitely not in my group. They’re an enemy. Attack!”
My well-exercised response is “of course, but have you realized it’s all bullshit?”
Well, that is rather the attitude we would take if you were arguing with a child, someone mentally infirm or a poo-slinging monkey.
When I am by myself and have nowhere urgent to go, I will debate the crazy street preacher until bored.
If my family is with me, he had better back off quick or he will find himself on his ass.
Next time one of these whack jobs approaches you refer him to the church at this URL where the young Pentecostal minister “still worships the old-fashioned way,” i.e., hassling not quite defenseless rattlesnakes, even though he’s been bitten four times, “and almost died.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/48088512#48088512
OK. Then don’t say atheists aren’t hated and discriminated against.
Up until recently, there weren’t many atheists. That is because it was a death penalty offense like it says in the bible. Being an atheist would get you killed.
Seven US states prohibit atheists from holding public office. These laws aren’t enforceable due to a court case in the 1960’s. But no state will remove them from their constitution. Because the xians wouldn’t let them. It’s the thought that counts.
As a Canadian, of course my first impulse is to apologize to anyone subjected to these public Jesus Commandos. If they’re good Canadians then they know better than to push an opinionated conversation in public so – obviously – these folk are not good representatives of the national character. The rest of us attribute such bad behaviour to too much exposure to American media. Even most of our religious Prime Ministers keep their gobs shut when it comes to differences of opinion with a significant religious component. And I figure if they can do that, the rest of us should have an easier time of it in public unless our brains are addled.
Differences aired in private are another matter entirely, of course, and that’s where the really passionate debates take place.
Gods botherers! Feh! I’ve my beliefs, you’ve yours. Fine.
Though I wouldn’t go up to strangers in the street & ask it, the next time I’m hassled by a Christian I will have to ask “Have you heard the bad news about Jesus?” 😀