Skip to main content

Taking Up Steve's Challenge: Part 2 (A Day Late)

Now, some unsolicited advice for unbelievers:

1) Stop being so sanctimonious. So a lack of belief constitutes "common sense" for many of us, including you. Common sense is, by definition, common. Your decision to reject religious belief doesn't make you extraordinarily intelligent, gifted, or really all that unique, especially these days. Stop pretending you're a font of intellect that all others should drink copiously from.

2) Drop the absolutism about the evils of all belief. Religious beliefs are diverse, as are the outcomes of them. For every Jim Jones or Catholic pedophilia scandal, there's a Quaker meeting opposing the war or a congregation distributing food to the needy. While anti-common-sense attitudes and beliefs are *often* found in the political and outreach efforts of religious groups, they are not *always* found. Smearing every religious group as equivalent and identical is as stupid as some religionists' insistence to destroy the individuality of people in groups that THEY don't like.

3) Stop lying. All Christians don't want to stone disobedient children. All Christians don't believe in "ritual cannibalism." All Christians are not evangelicals. It's bad enough that "the other side" often tells big lies about its perceived enemies -- by duplicating the practice yourself, you're no "better" than those you claim to oppose.

4) Consider others' points of view. Approaching every believer as though he or she is a superstitious moron in need of being completely trounced is no different than a religious activist approaching a nonbeliever as a hellbound sinner worthy of punishment. If you want to introduce the joys of reason, you don't do it by repeating the same practices that make so many people despise the persistently and obnoxiously evangelical.

5) Depriving others of the ability to believe or say what they want is not liberty nor logic. Calls for bans on belief systems, as Richard Dawkins makes, are as illiberal as efforts to impose belief systems on others. Your lack of belief, and opposition to the tenets of various belief systems, doesn't entitle you to impose upon those who choose those beliefs. Debate in the free market of ideas, but don't use force to impose your ideas on others. For reason to prevail, it must exist in a reality where all ideas exist and succeed based upon their merit rather than a system of unilateral imposition.

Happy Winter Solstice! :)

Comments

Anonymous said…
Does sitting on the top of the Mountain, or on the Fence,

Allow you to see BOTH sides?

Thanks for your insight and balance.
lol
Brian Miller said…
Perhaps. It's just my viewpoint -- with my name attached.

The way to learn is to talk through things and exchange points of view and experiences. Are you doing that? :)
Brian Miller said…
PS -- there's more than "two sides" to most debates. Those who characterize a lack of "choice" between two imposed "sides" typically either want to control others or want to be controlled.

That's just as true in this debate as it is in political debates that get hijacked by "conservatives" and "liberals" (with no room for often-better perspectives).

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...