Apparently, Bush has declared his support for teaching religious psuedoscience, in particular, intelligent design, in public schools. Additionally, we the American taxpayer are funding fundamentalist indoctrination electives in our public schools (though that is generally paid through local property tax, so not so much _our_ money, but still violating the first amendment like a cheap whore on roofies in a back alley in thailand).
I occasionally feel the urge to throw Bible bits back in the face of fundamentalists. Particularly Jesus’s words. Ask ’em how they think Jesus would have felt about taking away from the poor to give to the rich. Ask them what he said about proclaiming one’s faith at high volume, or on the street corners. Perform a bit of religious Judo. Because, fundamentally, I view religion as an arbitrary, ad hoc, internally inconsistent set of explanations for the world which put adherence to doctrine above perceived reality. Basically all religions fall into that categorization for me. Religion also reminds me of the practice of saying what you believe then claiming it’s your religion, regardless of how you came to believe whatever you came to believe, see also north African female genital mutilation.
I’ve been bitten in the ass by this attitude of mine from time to time. Backed myself into a corner, whatever. Using tools I don’t believe in to convince people who do believe in them that they’re wrong seems pretty dumb to me. And yet, how else to get through? I’ve played this game with a Wiccan or two in my time as well as with Fundies. (The Wiccan was trying to say that the 3-fold rule made it okay and safe for him to engage in acts of revenge, he dismissed me as ‘not even a broomrider’ when I started criticizing his actions based on my understanding of it, under which he was smoking crack. Small loss, in retrospect).
So, what are your thoughts on atheists (or adamant agnostics) talking bible with theists? And, for that matter, how should any person deal with whackjobs of other religious persuasions in discussing matters of state? Particularly when the whackjobs can’t even keep their own religion straight?
i never play on their field; i make them play on my field. don’t respond to statements based on religion (e.g., being gay is immoral). my often repeated phrase goes something like ‘i don’t believe in god and my religious beliefs are just as valid as your beliefs–thank you freedom of religion–so you are either going to have to come up with valid, non-religious support for that idea or accept that you have lost this argument’.
of course, if you are the one initiating the conversation it is a little awkward to have my position. i find it works for me because i rarely start that kind of conversation with religious people.
More to the point, the religious assertions underlying “being gay is immoral” are based on misreadings and mistranslations, both in the Old and New Testaments. Paul wasn’t talking about homosexuals, because in his time there was no such thing – he was talking about straight men who adopt a homosexual lifestyle contrary to their nature. That’s something I don’t think anyone would agree with.
Similarly, the OT prohibition against “lying with a male as with a female” actually reads, upon closer examination, as a prohibition against using sex to humiliate anyone, male or female.
Fundamentalism is based entirely on ignorance.
true true. the gay thing was one example and these not-so-little inconsistencies and hypocrisies can be found throughout the bible (e.g., an eye for an eye vs. turn the other cheek). the point i was really trying to drive home was that it is worthless to try to talk bible with bible-thumpers. first, i don’t think anything is accomplished by giving their religion-inspired ideas of state any validity. second, these are people who willingly blind themselves to demonstrable truth because of “god” (e.g., man was created before any other organism … DUMB). why would they be bothered by a passage that disagrees with what they believe when there is another one that they can interpret to mean exactly what they want? i’ve yet to meet a religious person that has a problem with being able to pick and chose the passages of the bible they follow … they simply chose the passages that agree with what they want to believe anyway.
it’s just not worth it.
okay, that offends me.
there is a HUGE difference between “religious” and “fundamentalist”. There are plenty of open-minded but still religious people, myself included, who you’re lumping unfairly into a category they despise as much as you do.
and as I said, fundamentalism is based on ignorance. I believe in both the creation story AND evolution – because one is a spiritual, and the other a scientific, explanation for the same events. The creation story isn’t meant to be taken literally; it’s meant to be a description of the spiritual forces at work while the world was developing. There’s only a contradiction with science if you read the story literally, which is a DUMB thing to do. Reading the Bible literally disrespects the amazing effort that was put into writing it, with all the levels of meaning that it has.
but don’t lump all religious people into the same category as fundies. doing that is just as bad as lumping all gay people into the category of sinners.
sorry, i guess i should have been a little more thorough in my response … by “bible-thumpers” i meant what you call the fundamentalists (the people who take passages of the bible literally, like creation, and pick and chose the passages of the bible they follow) and later when i said “a religious person” i was still referring to the same people (although after reading it again post reading your response i can see how that is far less then clear). i didn’t meant to offend you or say that all religious people are fundamentalists.
otherwise, i still stand by the basics of what i was trying to get across. it is worthless to talk to fundamentalists about matters of state if you allow them to invoke the bible as rationale or basis for law. the two simply do not belong together and i cringe at giving such ideas even one iota of credibility by engaging them on those terms.
okay, that’s fine.
you’re right, the two don’t belong together at all. the problem is that these people are indoctrinated from birth to think that “God’s word” is the only thing that matters in life, and so they think that “God says so” (or rather “My horribly flawed and incorrect interpretation of God says so”) is a valid and logical argument.
See above, about ignorance. Bleh. Fundies make baby Jesus cry.
Could you please explain these in more detail?
I’m not contradicting you, I’d just like further information.
For instance, if I were to use these in an argument I don’t think I’d know enough about these statements to back them up. On what grounds do you make both the Paul and the Old Testament statements?
Paul: In the original Greek, Paul uses the word “arsenokotai”, whose meaning is UNCLEAR. This means that a person who translates it “homosexual” is reaching for a meaning, especially since in Paul’s time, there was no conception of a man who slept with only men. Paul talks only about male prostitutes, and about men who will fuck anything (i.e., straight men who fuck other men even though they have no inclination to do so). He was talking about acting against one’s nature, not about man-on-man sex in general.
OT: This is too complicated to explain quickly, but pick up a copy of the book Wrestling with God and Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition. The gay rabbi who wrote it makes a very convincing argument based on the Hebrew.
If you know the bible, rather you believe it to be the “absolute exact words of GOD” or “a really clever put on” or anything in between, you are certainly able to talk bible with anyone. I don’t know the bible well at all, so I don’t do that. I’ve heard your sister do it at various points in her wandering religions.
As for whackjobs, the only sane thing to do is try to change the subject. You’ll never convince a whackjob that they’re wrong, even in the face of evidence, including biblical evidence. The best thing to do, when a whackjob starts up such a conversation is to be silent for a moment and then say “so how about them Mets?”.
The difficulty, of course, is in determining who is a whackjob and who you can have an actual conversation with.
All my opinions, of course. *g*
What, me?
Well, yes, I am able to quote the bible extensively. Comes of going to Catholic school, Baptist Bible Camp, and Jewish Torah study. So is my brother (though he did miss out on the Torah study and was considerably younger at Bible Camp). I also attended a couple lecture series at the local mosque.
The thing is that I _enjoy_ arguing. I also enjoy talking to people about their beliefs. I don’t have to combine the two activities, but I sometimes do. (See also sitting in a cab and tossing hadith back and forth with a cabbie from Pakistan, or sitting on the green and trading chapter and verse with the street preachers.) It’s a hobby.
The thing is that you’re pretty unlikely to convince anyone of anything in this kind of argument, especially someone who sees themself as a lone point of good, out to save the rest of a sin-laden world from the pit of fire. (I have lots of really bouncy songs about the apocalypse, by the way, and one of them has now taken up residence in my skull.) If you believe that the Rock of Ages is going to hide you when the Lake of Fire swallows the world in the grand culmination of God’s Loving Plan, then there’s not a lot that’s going to sway your opinion, especially from the mouth of someone you believe to be mere lard on the bbq. Especially since everyone knows that the Devil can quote Scripture to suit his purpose.
Re: What, me?
I can quote bits and pieces of the Bible, but I frequently screw it up.
Arguing causes me indigestion. Mathematical proof. Solid evidence to back up claims. I like that. =)
Atheists/agnostics like you and me can and should ‘talk bible’ with theists. However, I doubt the conversation will be productive when you consider it a given that your opponent is a whackjob.
Of course, if your desire is to simply drive away those you would discuss religion with (or perhaps just offend them), considering them whackjobs is an excellent tactic.
i believe that if more atheists and agnostics proselytized like born-again xtians feel forced and compelled to do, the world would be a much better place.
i know there is an organic dislike of using “their” tactics – since their tactics (i.e. proselytizing) are often such an abuse – but at THIS point in time and history i think it would be productive.
i vehemently disagree.
proselytizing, no matter who by, is a fundamentally disrespectful act. just let other people have their beliefs and leave them alone.
you know what? it’s a totally cool thing to do. hypocrites deserve to have their hypocrisy shoved in their small-minded little faces, regardless of the context.
and using christianity against hypocritical christians is something i do all the times, besides.
troll
I like to get people riled up by telling them that atheism is an untenable position.
My reasoning is that “god” is too ill-defined for (its/his/her) existence to be denied in any meaningful way.
I may as well go around telling people I don’t believe in the existence of any thing that someone, somewhere, might choose to call a “quebja”
That having been said, it is quite easy to assign meaning to the statement “Catholicism is false”. I suspect that what most atheists actually believe is something in between “the religion I grew up with is patently wrong” and “all concepts of god stemming from organized religions I have heard of and know something about are patently false”
It is interesting, btw, that judeo-christian religions don’t go around trying to define what “a god” would be, if more than one of such a thing were to exist. Instead they go around defining what their particular God is. While this may seem like a moot point, it does have ramifications for the first commandment. If I run around saying “Zeus is not a god, he is just an extremely powerful immortal being” am I allowed to simultaneously practice greek paganism and judaism?
Re: troll
Well, atheism is no more supported a position than theism. The absence of proof is not proof of absence. Or, as I put it to myself in high school, if god wants to stay in heaven and jerk off there, he may very well exist, but we’d never know. Agnosticism, the stance of the true skeptic may be the best supported option.
Re: troll
My version of atheism is that any particular completely unsubstantiated idea is probably more or less completely and utterly wrong. Religions included.
Some may see this as agnostic, because I don’t suggest that necessarily all of them are in fact wrong. Some may see it as atheistic because I find the chances of any of them being correct to be ignorably small.
I see it as realistic.
I think it’s great when a non-beliver talks bible with a believer, but only if the non-beliver knows his stuff. My main problem with religions are the belivers…. they use their faith as a crutch and a hiding place rather than for what it’s really meant to be… a cornerstone. Like a cornerstone it’s supposed to support and be intrisic to the building, yet a well designed building draws little to no attention to something like a cornerstone. But I’m weird. I appreciate the thought and the meaning behind religion, but can never be sure if it’s actually true. I do, however, see the need for it in most societies as it forms the backbone of moral codes. Most people just don’t play nice unless there’s a risk of eternal damnation. People suck in this way.
As for what to do with religious nuts, as someone who’s lived in the Bible belt most of his life and roomed with an evangelic southern baptist, the best thing to do is ignore them. Nothing you say will likely change their mind as arguments of that nature usually lead both participants to close off their minds.
Feel free to talk beliefs or bible with this theist. Hell, challenge my beliefs. It’s nice when people I actually respect do that. Even better when the person in question actually knows their bible. I found myself challenging a Christian last summer in the hopes that he’d put up a good conversation. Luckily, he did – knew his bible, and even some Hebrew. I love it when that happens, but rarely can I get a good fix of conversation with someone who knows their stuff.
Misplaced my KJV a bit back and I’ve been missing the handy portability. I’m seriously pondering where I’m most likely to get an interesting conversation when I go to buy a replacement. (Peeve: I can’t believe I misplaced the bible I won for memorizing all those verses back when I was a kid.)
Feel free to talk bible or beliefs to this theist. It’s nice when folks I respect do that.
The thing is that I can usually get them to talk reasonably to me, because I seem like the right kind of person. And they’re always looking for religious seekers. (Mind you, I have a habit of not doubling back, and I’ve already been there…) And then, when they’re feeling that they’ve led my poor misguided soul home, I ask them why they’re so concerned with the political realm. After all, their god told them to drop the world and follow the kingdom of heaven. (I found an interesting essay on that subject on one of the plain and modest dress sites.)