DISQUS

.:webmaster:. · 1 year ago

Hear, hear!


I absolutely love this and couldn't agree with you more.

Mark · 1 year ago

You've come back from your absence with quite a bang! I've followed the Cafe as a lurker for sometime now; of all your posts, this is my favorite to date. To echo the webmaster: excellent!


A thing like religion only possesses as much intellectual power over us as we give it. One can be an atheist and, in many ways, still be enthralled by religion. Some never seem to break completely free.



It would seem that the mastermind of the Freethought Cafe is free indeed.



Well done.

Lee · 1 year ago

Hi JC,


Excellent post... you have sold it to me – well, almost.



Since atheism and religion will form less on the agenda here on your blog, it’s probably best I get my nonsense out of the way on this thread so not to clutter up other posts.



As you may agree, atheism is about nothing really – it is a label to highlight the non-belief in gods, that’s all.



This means it is a pretty empty topic, and isn’t what is normally discussed – what is discussed on atheist/religious blogs are beliefs and their effects.



An individual’s belief in fairies at the bottom of the garden seems to have no affect on me whatsoever. It seems pretty harmless right?



Well I’m not so sure, since this individual could also have a vote on the health or education for the community.



Should someone who believes in the power of fairy dust have a vote on the health service?



Also, if this individual finds other like minded people, and organises themselves into a group – then what? Fairy-dust for all? (Cool...)



So maybe the real “problem” is what you touched on in your post, it is more about “freethought and rationalism”.



It is not what someone believes in, it is why they believe – and what is required for them to change their view or how well they can argue and justify their own point of view.



An irrational opinion cannot be changed with reason very easily I find.



Anyway... lunch time.



See ya



Lee

J. C. Samuelson · 1 year ago

Thanks, all! Very kind, although the "mastermind" thing may be a bit over the top. My girlfriend has to give permission for that sort of thing. ;)


Lee,



In spite of the tone of the post, there will still be posts related to religion more frequently here than they might be on a blog about, say, deep sea diving. I mean, it is a Freethought/Atheist blog. Mostly, I'm going to focus on science and such things though. Try to educate instead of deprecate, you know?



Doubtful it will succeed, but hey, it's worth trying.



About the rest of your post, there's one thing in particular that caught my attention:



"Should someone who believes in the power of fairy dust have a vote on the health service?"



I don't think they should have some sort of controlling interest or o'erweaning influence, no. Assuming this is a service run by government and/or health professionals, one would hope that these folks would be disinclined to vote the same way. In all probability, the person would be overruled. However, your point is well-taken in that we're really talking about religious people who DO have influence.



That's a tough one in the sense that I don't believe in absolute censorship of ideas, no matter how absurd. But the context matters a great deal. I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea that someone like this would have some sort of power over important decisions regarding health care (among other things). Thus, I'm sure we're of the same opinion.



In terms of having an equal voice, I think it's quite alright (albeit frustrating) that people who believe in weird things can talk about them, even in public. My main concern is the degree to which they find acceptance and expression through organizational action, particularly governmental organizations.



It is not what someone believes in, it is why they believe – and what is required for them to change their view or how well they can argue and justify their own point of view.



Well said! As the back of the one issue of the CSER review reads (in part):



"There's nothing wrong with believing in things.



We just happen to think you should have reasons for believing them."



An irrational opinion cannot be changed with reason very easily I find.



My experience mirrors your own. I still don't think disparaging comments (e.g., your beliefs are those of a complete idiot) are productive, regardless of how rational the source may claim to be. Moreover, I don't think anyone does anyone a service by subcribing to a different idea if it turns out to be nonsense in its own right.



I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not an atheist because I don't like religion and want to be part of a different club. I'm an atheist because I've studied and reached the conclusion that religion is bunk. Even so, being an atheist does not make one immune from irrationality, or grant one utopian insights.



Atheism is not a philosophy in its own right. Nor can it boast of a superior epistemology. The tendency toward critical thinking we atheists frequently claim for our own really doesn't belong to any one intellectual position.



Are we close to disagreeing yet? ;)

Lee · 1 year ago

Hi JC,


In spite of the tone of the post, there will still be posts related to religion more frequently here than they might be on a blog about, say, deep sea diving.



How many religious deep sea divers do you know? Their blogs could be FULL of atheist literature.



I'm going to focus on science and such things though. Try to educate instead of deprecate, you know?



Scary – but it should be fun.



Besides, without a theist in a religious debate it gets a little boring since it becomes too one sided.



About the rest of your post, there's one thing in particular that caught my attention:



I thought it might...



RE: "Should someone who believes in the power of fairy dust have a vote on the health service?"



I don't think they should have some sort of controlling interest or o'erweaning influence, no. Assuming this is a service run by government and/or health professionals, one would hope that these folks would be disinclined to vote the same way. In all probability, the person would be overruled. However, your point is well-taken in that we're really talking about religious people who DO have influence.



I wasn’t just talking about the religious here, but anyone “supporting” pseudoscience nonsense, hence my health care example seemed a good one (rather than the usual education and evolution example – I’m trying to broaden the discussion so we do not stick on the religious/atheist business)



The point is these people DO have a vote – and who am I to take it from them?

(...but when my plan to take over the world kicks in....)



The problem comes down to education I feel, but it will be difficult to pass a bill that stated you have to have the “right” qualification to vote.

(The problem with democracy – the best worse system we have.)



That's a tough one in the sense that I don't believe in absolute censorship of ideas, no matter how absurd.



I can think of some absurd ones... but I think the Mormons and Scientology beat me to the better ones.



But the context matters a great deal. I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea that someone like this would have some sort of power over important decisions regarding health care (among other things).



George Bush and stem-cell research just “popped” into my mind...



There is a catholic priest in the UK at the moment trying to make the MP’s there vote his way – the church way. It can be a dangerous idea this God.



Also, away from religion, I think in the UK you can get some pseudoscience nonsense on the NHS (National Health Service) which means the tax payer is paying for “treatment” that is known not to work. Someone voted that in...



Thus, I'm sure we're of the same opinion.



Oh yes... I’m sure – I try to disagree as you know, but my thoughts are rather fluid and easily changed with a good argument.



In terms of having an equal voice, I think it's quite alright (albeit frustrating) that people who believe in weird things can talk about them, even in public.



No problem with talking... so long as it does not affect me, my taxes and my health care.



My main concern is the degree to which they find acceptance and expression through organizational action, particularly governmental organizations.



As the knowledge in society for the science decreases, the acceptance of nonsense increases... well, that’s my guess.



It is certainly easier to sell nonsense pseudoscience to science illiterate.



I just want people to think and be a little more sceptical.



Well said! As the back of the one issue of the CSER review reads (in part):



Thanks – and I’ve never heard of CSER or know what it stands for.



I still don't think disparaging comments (e.g., your beliefs are those of a complete idiot) are productive, regardless of how rational the source may claim to be.



You cannot win someone over to your argument by calling them an idiot, so I agree.



I try and ask the person to justify their beliefs – if this makes them sound like a complete idiot it is not my fault.



A very subtle difference.



I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not an atheist because I don't like religion and want to be part of a different club. I'm an atheist because I've studied and reached the conclusion that religion is bunk.



I label myself as an atheist merely for online debates, it saves time.



Maybe it is different if you once believed in gods, but I never came to atheism – I was born not believing in gods.



Atheism is “nothing”, it is a negative, and describes only what I am not. Am I also an a-fairyist, and an a-invisible blue unicorn... the list goes on.



So if there were no theists, could I be an atheist? Would there be any point?



Even so, being an atheist does not make one immune from irrationality, or grant one utopian insights.



Someone could call themselves an atheist and still be an idiot. If you cannot justify your position you have a problem in my book.



Are we close to disagreeing yet? ;)



As I say, I try and disagree for the sake of argument :)



Lee

Bruce · 1 year ago

Been a while since I looked at your blog JC, good to see you're still going strong. There's a word that comes to mind to describe your more relaxed approach to views you don't share: mellowing.


As I say quite a lot in discussion with Jonathan, Lee and Billy though, one of the problems I have with a lot of atheist thought I read is its tendency to polarise: science OR religion, God in control OR free will; God's power OR human effort. And I don't deny that religious believers don't sometimes fall into the same trap. In my reading and experience, though, mature Christian thinking has a capacity to reconcile and synthesise, recognising that reality is not one-dimensional but multi-faceted. And this goes right to the nub of the question of God: the epistemological q of whether scientific and rational enquiry are the only ways of knowing, or whether others such as revelation, mysticism, personal knowledge and others have validity too. I think they deserve exploration.



And I for one wouldn't say you were straight off condemned simply for not at present being able intellectually to believe in God. To my mind, salvation is rather broader in its reach and scope than that. God is love according to the Bible, and I think his love is greater and more profound than even some Christians sometimes realise.

Billy · 1 year ago

And I for one wouldn't say you were straight off condemned simply for not at present being able intellectually to believe in God.


The bible disagrees with that (jn 14:6). On what basis do you discard this verse?





God is love according to the Bible



Is that why he sent the flood? Take it metaphorically or literally, it is anot a message of love - "I cant stand people, I'm going to kill them!"

I guess love is different things to different people (you should read my "is god a bastard?" thread again)