I honestly do not believe that one can be knowledgeable about any one religion and be a follower of it at the same time. That is unless there are some screws loose as well.
I dunno... I find many DO really know their religion, yet believe the magical-ness of it anyway. Many can just recite tons and tons of verses and examples and stuff (probably due to years of training beaten into their heads as kids). Like you said, there may be a bunch of people with loose screws, or maybe they all just lack rational thought because they were never taught how to use it. My boss is one of those super christian crazy people, and he is always reading his bible and doing mission trips and stuff. Even when we are really busy and he is complaining about how much work he has, he is constantly reading his bible. He seems like a normal smart-ish person on the outside, but I always have to wonder...
I misspoke a little. I shouldn't have said "be knowledgeable about religion" but "be critically thinking about religion".
they were indoctrinated into the faith as children by their parents or caretakers.
Some people reach a point where religion becomes more of a passive hobby then an active belief in a higher power. We Atheists need to work on the indoctrination part. It's hard to indoctrinate someone into not believing something without first having to explain what said something is.
No, we absolutely do not!
Atheism, just like any other conviction or belief, shouldn't be acquired or forced onto people by others through pressure. It should be taken upon because it was rationally weighed against the alternatives and a decision should be made about it on the merits of it. Indoctrination is one of the very problems with religion as religion can not demonstrate to have any merit at all, yet indoctrination extorts people into following it anyway.
Atheism, just like any other conviction or belief, shouldn't be acquired or forced onto people by others through pressure. It should be taken upon because it was rationally weighed against the alternatives and a decision should be made about it on the merits of it. Indoctrination is one of the very problems with religion as religion can not demonstrate to have any merit at all, yet indoctrination extorts people into following it anyway.
We can always indoctrinate them with critical thinking skills :-p
He doesn't need evidence. He needs specificity. Morals are relative. If you have Christian morals, of course any non-Christian is going to have fewer of YOUR morals than others who subscribe to your beliefs. Durrr.
When someone says something or someone is immoral or lacks morals, what they really mean is that it doesn't fit into their own morals. Hitler had morals. They may not have matched our own, but he had them. What is immoral by our standards may be moral by some other belief system. And that is why we have the freedom of religion clause in the first amendment.
In his speech at Oberlin College on Wednesday night, Karl Rove said atheists are not as moral as religious folk.
Why on Earth did he get invited to Oberlin? That is one of the more leftist liberal colleges.
Karl Rove said atheists are not as moral as religious folk.
Like Nuri said, a super Christian person would view my lifestyle (living with unmarried boyfriend, etc.) as highly immoral, whereas my Secular Humanist beliefs are like "Sex is good and fun! You are only immoral if you hurt things and are mean!"
Why on Earth did he get invited to Oberlin? That is one of the more leftist liberal colleges.
Even though the college is known for being very liberal, there is still a college Republicans club. Also, many students there want to hear all sides of the political argument, regardless of their personal beliefs.
Also, many students there want to hear all sides of the political argument, regardless of their personal beliefs.
Yes, they are smart. It's really important to hear all of the pertinent arguments. How can you make an informed decision if you don't know the relevant information? Even after making an initial decision, you should remain open to hearing new arguments so that your view doesn't become obsolete.
A web programmer who goes to college to learn all of the state-of-the-art stuff, gets a job, and then doesn't keep up with new code development will one day find himself completely irrelevant to his field. Nobody wants to hire someone who can only program in HTML for web development anymore! This is the same concept. Every now and then, a conservative comes up with a really good new idea. It's very closed-minded to refuse to hear it simply because of your current assessment of past ideas.
I should care about Rove's opinion... why? He's begging the question - there's an unstated major premise. There's nothing to argue with.
It's good to have an ear to the ground in terms of what the crazies actually believe.
Unrelatedly, I read a long article yesterday about the "New World Order" conspiracy theories, and I realized something hilarious. By and large, if these fictitious "secret cabals" got what they want in most of the nutjob narratives, it would be awesome. In fact, many of the things they're so afraid of are things I would actively work toward.
In a way, these crazies are right. There is a vast conspiracy that goes against everything they believe...
If you consider simple secular progressivism to be a conspiracy.
He's an important player, but that doesn't mean that when he's just repeating the same empty assertions that religionists have been making for centuries he gets any more credit for them.
He's an important player, but that doesn't mean that when he's just repeating the same empty assertions that religionists have been making for centuries he gets any more credit for them.
The other funny thing is that it is most likely that Karl Rove is an Atheist.
He's an important player, but that doesn't mean that when he's just repeating the same empty assertions that religionists have been making for centuries he gets any more credit for them.
The other funny thing is that it is most likely that Karl Rove is an Atheist.
Atheism has a lot less relation to political affiliation that people seem to think. For example, I'm pretty sure Christopher Hitchens, a famous atheist, is anti-abortion. Just one example.
Atheism has a lot less relation to political affiliation that people seem to think. For example, I'm pretty sure Christopher Hitchens, a famous atheist, is anti-abortion. Just one example.
But it's rare for an Atheist to say they are inferior to others :-p
Atheism has a lot less relation to political affiliation that people seem to think. For example, I'm pretty sure Christopher Hitchens, a famous atheist, is anti-abortion. Just one example.
But it's rare for an Atheist to say they are inferior to others :-p
Comments
Atheism, just like any other conviction or belief, shouldn't be acquired or forced onto people by others through pressure. It should be taken upon because it was rationally weighed against the alternatives and a decision should be made about it on the merits of it. Indoctrination is one of the very problems with religion as religion can not demonstrate to have any merit at all, yet indoctrination extorts people into following it anyway.
Go!
When someone says something or someone is immoral or lacks morals, what they really mean is that it doesn't fit into their own morals. Hitler had morals. They may not have matched our own, but he had them. What is immoral by our standards may be moral by some other belief system. And that is why we have the freedom of religion clause in the first amendment.
Unless you are a communist :-p
A web programmer who goes to college to learn all of the state-of-the-art stuff, gets a job, and then doesn't keep up with new code development will one day find himself completely irrelevant to his field. Nobody wants to hire someone who can only program in HTML for web development anymore! This is the same concept. Every now and then, a conservative comes up with a really good new idea. It's very closed-minded to refuse to hear it simply because of your current assessment of past ideas.
Unrelatedly, I read a long article yesterday about the "New World Order" conspiracy theories, and I realized something hilarious. By and large, if these fictitious "secret cabals" got what they want in most of the nutjob narratives, it would be awesome. In fact, many of the things they're so afraid of are things I would actively work toward.
In a way, these crazies are right. There is a vast conspiracy that goes against everything they believe...
If you consider simple secular progressivism to be a conspiracy.