Likewise the question of where morality comes from - a variety of fair answers (wherever it came from among atheistic societies, wherever it comes from among social animals from squirrel monkeys to vampire bats, an emergent inevitability in circumstances described by game theory, a scientifically unsettled evolutionary matter currently under serious investigation, etc) exist, but we are to ignore them unless they are explicitly produced by any given atheist?
That last, "but we are to ignore them unless they are explicitly produced by any given atheist", seems to mean
something, else you wouldn't have written it, but what does it mean?
Why would we ignore them? Hey, I've got one: What are you on about?
I mean, look at what is happening, Iceaura: When the question is what people know, why are people running screaming?
Meanwhile, you have nothing but fallacy: "...but we are to ignore them unless they are explicitly produced by any given atheist?" What does that even mean?
Look, if we're firefighters, and the house is on fire, and we saw the atheist set it on fire, we're not going to stop putting it out in order to call the cops because the old lady who plays organ at the church parked her car a little crooked and might be an inch too far from the curb. If the arsonist happens to be an atheist, why go kicking down church doors?
Or try it this way: At some valence, bigotry is bigotry is bigotry; but, for instance, misogyny is not homophobia is not racism. And within that, say, misogyny is ... well, sure, at some point misogyny is misogyny is misogyny, but I can also think of the misogynist who asserts a religious rape cult is a proper human condition and obligation for women; that isn't quite the same as the misogynist who, as near as anyone can tell, is pissed off at all women, everywhere, because he blames his mother for his human frailty, and yes, I have known
at least one of those people before; neither of those types are the same as misogynist troll who is actually just a misanthrope or unenumerated idealogue seeking to destabilize normalized function among people by attacking perceived vulnerability in society; nor is that one the same as the general troll seeking to cause chaos by arbitrarily inflaming existing tensions between people. It's all antisocial. It's all misogyny. At some point, misogyny is misogyny is misogyny. Calling it by its name is important, or so says me, but why? As a general human issue, by pathways both aesthetic and logical, I happen to think it very important to reduce the amount of misogyny in effect; this is part of our human obligation to one another in the societal context of our social and socializing species.
I do believe the critique I might bring in that aspect would be far different if my intention is to combat and reduce misogyny than if I decided I just wanted to call out the dumpiest, ugliest guys because, come on, even if they stop raggin' on the bitches and hos, I mean, really, they're the dumpiest-looking, ugliest, most unfuckable guys we can imagine, so, y'know, something, something, and it actually isn't about anything but calling out assholes in a setting and circumstance when one can expect support.
And, you know, maybe some people disagree. Maybe some people actually think such critiques would read the same. I don't know; I always need to account for the possibility, especially as I'm the one who can be witnessed frequently spreading his hands in exasperation and wondering why they can't seem to tell the difference. And this doesn't even begin to account for those running a pretense of enlightenment trying to parse the difference between what the one dumpy, ugly guy said or did compared to the right time, reason, or way to do it.
I really do think these critiques would read differently. Furthermore, I also believe these critiques read differently unto themselves according to the more or less informed they might be.
And quite honestly, if I intend that my address of misogyny should have any positive effect, I would expect the need for reasonably proper information to be somewhat apparent.
Indeed, I would think the underlying generalization about informed consideration applies to pretty much any endeavor purporting to address or attend circumstances perceived or described as problematic.
More directly, if there is a problem, then it is easier to do something about said problem if one has a clue.
So from a particular to a general and back to a somewhat particular notion: Let us pick a word, just for the fuck of it, like, "Religion is [_____]." No, it's not binding, just a starting point. An example. Okay, what do we want there? Evil? Delusional? Irrational?
(Okay, well, let's pause there long enough to wonder what's wrong with "irrational", because as a political argument, this is where atheism fails and part of what I have never been able to find a way to discuss with atheistic neighbors. It's just irrationality having to do with God. If it has to do with the "law of the jungle", or "just how life goes", or the "way things are"? The functional result is the label becomes useless in politics except for its emotional value. It's kind of a shocking trade, and many just haven't gotten over it. While atheism is what it is what it is, once it engages anything else, it is effective and relative unto that something. Still, though, the idea that atheism can't remain static and untouchable has historically been quite problematic insofar as these evangelical atheists just can't stop objecting that atheism has nothing to do with anything it touches.)
But, seriously, pick a word. So, what are we going to do about it? Nothing? Okay, then why would we discuss it? Something? Okay, what? And this is where the question of what anyone knows about what they criticize becomes important.
Because as near as I can tell,
your answer is
nothing: "... but we are to ignore them unless they are explicitly produced by any given atheist?"
Who the hell said anything about ignoring what? Why do you require a straw man? What is up with the desperate distraction?
If we let people who are
wrong set the terms, then what do we expect of the subsequent discussion?
Like our neighbor, Spidergoat:
What's this ignorance? I read their books, watch their media, listen to their arguments...
So do I pay attention to what they say. And I also study what they claim to be, and that's how I know they're wrong. The historical record tells me about this thing or idea or community they claim to be, and they are not except by the loosest of definitions whereby one is what they say simply because they say so. Consider that we might say there is, historically, a reason why conservative Christians should be distrustful of moral relativism, secular humanism, and liberal Christianity, which was a common thin-edge lament thirty-five years ago; the problem with most simplistic loving-God thesis,
i.e., John 3.16 as the standard—arises when someone would test the boundaries. There are others in the faith community who hold with this simplistic, warm-fuzzy notion of
sola fide, but talk about walking in Christ's footsteps as much as one can, which actually sounds approximately logical within the literary critique. The difference between those two outlooks bears powerful living implications; the problem with the footsteps of Christ argument arises when one presupposes to usurp, and thus defines according to the believer's needs. Or, rather, the problem is precisely the moral relativism of humanist intrusion into a Christianist structure not prepared to receive or facilitate such structures.
Please consider, then: If one is in it simply for the noise and fight, then the basic difference I just described within a significant portion of the American Christian experience is utterly irrelevant. If, however, one participates for the real human stakes that can be on the table, then it really, really helps to know which part of "religion" one is dealing with, and how it functions. And when we let the apparent lowest common denominator and other misinformed arguments set the terms, we are not dealing with the reality driving the behavior, but, rather, participating in religious fancy.
And why would we do that? Well, either we've a mistaken course through the storm, or, we're actually in it for the thunder and flash and rock and roll.
When these questions of God and religious faith become political, all the same issues apply as anything else. In that context, why is this an occasion—
Of course there are deeply reasoned and intellectually respectable theistic points of view. But they are scarce in the big world, and will be vanishingly rare on a science forum - most responses to theistic stuff here will be responding to troll level fundamentalist Christianity being used as a political tool.
Which is something to remember about the shallow-affect smart-Alec brand of public atheist, as well, the Mahers and Dawkins's and so forth: they are dealing with the bulk of theistic belief as it walks and talks and has its being in the big world. They aren't dealing with the .1%.
—we should let the wingnuts, tinfoils, and fakes set the terms of discussion?
I mean, y'know, since it's not just a vain, supremacist identity fight?
But I don't blame you: I am sure I would have been equally annoyed in your place.
