Can a person of faith have courage?
Offline I was having a debate with mannyofmanynames about what is a coward. He believes that athiests are cowards that believe that religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse but don't advocate removing children from the homes of every parents that send their children to Sunday school.
In some cases, I would advocate for this. For example, if the parents refused to allow their children to learn any science. But if this were advocated in all cases, we couldn't win this battle. Plus I think the government would have to invade everyone's privacy to enforce such a law. My goal is to win the war against religous indoctrination. At this point, the best strategy is to argue our point and educate people.
To me, the 'coward' tag is an adolecent attempt to manipulate people. It's social preasure to behave in irrational ways so as not to be seen as weak. It seems that a person that doesn't do what he believes is right for fear of being percieved as a 'coward' would fit the definition of one.
But this issue raises a major flaw with the concept of faith. How is it possible for a Theist/'person of faith' to have any courage? If you really believe that every action you take will eventually lead to God giving you a reward and that you will not die but live forever in paradise, how could you have any courage unless you also have doubt? It seems that 'courage' is only necessary when a person lacks faith. Yet the theists try to tell us the opposite, that their faith gives them courage.
To me, it would seem the level of one's faith and one's courage are inversely proportional. If a 'true believer' runs into a burning building to save someone, why does that take any courage? The worst that could happen is they die and are instantly transported to external paradice. The athiest on the other hand, know if he dies that's probably it.
So theists, how should we define courage and cowardice? What is flawed with my reasoning? Why shouldn't we consider faith as just a crutch for fearful people? If courage really exists, shouldn't only an atheist or a weak theist be considered as possessing it?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
- Login to post comments
Regardless of faith, people are still going to have the aversion to danger instinct and when they overcome it's a couragous act.
I don't see how that is possible to really believe and still have an aversion. The aversion to danger just reveals a lack of faith.
So were the 9/11 highjackers courageous even though they read the verses about their reward in paradise beforehand?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
It's in our nature, I don't think it's possible to NOT have the aversion.
They most certaintly weren't cowards.
Considering Atta ignored the Islamic view on alcohol, I have no idea what was going on in his gerbil wheel.
As to the original point.
Yeah, I see it.
If you think religious indoctirnation is child abuse and you don't advocate, say Child Protective Services in, then it's basically hyporicy at worst.
I've seen people slam Islam for causing terrorism, yet speak out against, say the War in Iraq, or Gitmo Bay. If Islam causes so much violence how could their be collatoral damage in Iraq/Lebanon/Gaza, since the majority of those population [save Lebanon] are Mulsim
It reminds me of a joke
Obama and Bush are sitting in a bar drink beers.
Bush: Ya know Obama, I have this policy recemendation for the Mid East, but 40 million Muslims and one red haired woman will die.
Obama: Why would I impose a policy that will kill a red haired woman?
Bush: See? I told you nobody gives a shit about the Muslims.
If faith is what some theists say, then you're right. Courage and faith are incompatible. Of course, that's not what faith is. EXC, I disagree with you (for a variety of reasons I'm working on getting together in actual print) that most or all believers really don't believe. I'm sure there are some who don't, but I think what's really going on is that most believers are simply highly tolerant of cognitive dissonance.
As a side note, Pineapple, this is why I'm also rethinking my stance on religion, stress, and personal happiness.
For most theists, they have a firm and irrational belief that good things await them when they die, but they also have a firm and rational belief that pain hurts -- a lot. Their belief in pain usually trumps their belief in heaven. After all, pain is a sure thing, and heaven is a gamble no matter how certain you feel.
I also agree that while in theoretical principle, it might be better for a lot of children to be taken out of homes where they would be religiously indoctrinated, there are a host of other problems that would be caused by trying to institute such a policy, and in all probability, the net result would be negative.
That's not to say it's best to leave children in homes with indoctrinating parents. It's to say that although it would be best for children not to be indoctrinated, there's no practical or fair way to force that reality into existence. Most American atheists I know believe in lots of personal freedom, and we stand by that belief even when it is obvious to us that many people are hurting themselves and others by exercising their freedoms.
I agree that it is best to fight irrationality on the intellectual (and legal) front rather than try to force people into anything. That never works.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
No it's the lesser of two bad choices. First of all if I called Child Protective Services, they would just laugh at me. If my goal is to win, (winning is defined by reduced religious indoctrination). This strategy makes no sense. It is analogous to going into battle with few weapons, outnumbered and running in front of the machine guns to prove I'm brave. Plus it would require an invation of privacey, something I'm opposed to.
This is an example of why morality based on some moral principle is wrong. These actions would actually hurt the cause but I would 'feel good' that I did something. Well, I don't believe in moral victories. Results are all that matter.
What is a strategy then that could reduce religious indoctrination?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
For reasons kinda like what I've been saying for two years?
If you are allowing people to harm others, that's not very moral.
How you change any ingroup mentality: From within. Which is where the moderates come in.
Sort of. Mostly it's a study a friend of a friend did that made me rethink cognitive dissonance. I'm not really sure you'll be happy with the final conclusion I reach, but I am definitely feeling less convinced that cognitive dissonance, in and of itself, causes significant personal problems for most people.
Spare me the hyperbole. You know as well as I do that sometimes, you take the best of two bad situations.
What would you say causes the "within" group to change their opinion?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Diversity of that ingroup.
If outgroup attempts to present alternating views, they are more hostile if an ingroup member had said views.
You're bottomfishing.
I'd just like to point out that if a doctor preforms an emergency abortion to save someone's life, think that they'll go to hell for it then they are showing courage. In the example of someone running into a burning building then I would say that the believer stillk has courage because they might endure excruciating pain and it is also possible that they are not killed but disabled for the rest of their life.
If there were a situation where a believer had the choice between pushing a button that would kill themselves in a painless manner and save a bus full of children... then the question is much more complex and I don't know how to answer.
So, a man who runs into a burning building to save an infant is more motivated by "social pressure" than by a love for his life? A man who charges across no-man's-land in the middle of a pitched battle is more afraid of "social pressure" than he is of the enemy's machine guns? This "social pressure" must be some pretty scary stuff.
God has granted me eternity, and I grant him my life in exchange. That includes a willingness to face whatever earthly suffering He requires me to face - and facing that, when I could just as easily stay comfortable and do nothing, requires quite a bit of courage.
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
Only thing is that there are no gods.
I don't have a personal investment in whatever your delusions are, nor do I believe that religiously deluded people are cowards, as GWB does.
On the other hand, that's not to says that a lack of cowardace in religiously deluded people means that they are not the most idiotic and dangerous people on the face of the earth, as well.
For example, there's no difference in your attitude than in Bin Laden's attitude.
In fact, you out to invite
Bin Laden over to dinner.
You've obviously got plenty in common with his group.
And quite a lot of self-congratulatory, sanctimonious, and delusional claptrap as well apparently.
You have not been "granted eternity" and nor have you "granted your life". You have just adopted this construct and applied it to what passes in your own mind for what "living" means. And in any case it does not follow that you are "willing to face whatever earthly suffering He requires you to face". You avoid uninivited earthly suffering when it is in your power to do so and choose to undergo discomfort only when it makes sense to do so according to a rationale which you impose on your own behaviour. That has nothing whatsoever to do with religious conviction and everything to do with behaving as a social animal.
Pat yourself on the back for trying to be a good human. Deduct marks for wrong attribution of motive due to delusional thinking.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
This is a bullshit argument.
There is a difference between passionately believing one is right while fighting for that position, and actually being right.
Atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims ect ect are all capable of having courage, just as all humans are capable of falsely backing a lie believing it is real.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
More like bottom scraping.
The " I know what you are but what am I?" type arguments are getting stale with me.
For example, if I say atheists like to dress up in funny hats and punch little kids, the apporiate response would be "No they don't."
Not:
"Oh yeah? Well Theists like to dress up in funny hats and punch little kids!"
Tell that to Hitler's detractors within the Nazi party.
...Oh, wait. You can't.
He had them all killed.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
lolwut.
How is a theist (who still themselves has faith) supposed to change the opinion of another theist, regardless of how fundamental they are or aren't? It never works that way (and necessarily can't, because - after you boil it all down - they still share the same irrational belief). The moderate always just pussies out (just like you do) and insists that the fundamentalist's views are wrong, but still need to be 'respected', just like anyone's.
EDIT: ...Well, anyone except an atheist, of course, because they're all 'militant' and mean and nasty and... and... and wrong. I mean, they've gotta be wrong, 'cuz otherwise you wouldn't be right, and we just can't have that, can we?
'Atheism' is still a dirty word, and people still insist on calling themselves 'Agnostic' because of that. When moderates actually help to change that, maybe then we can have a conversation.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
And Churchill did a much better job.
HINT: He had to use force.
Tell that to Ken Miller [Who blasts Creationists] or Barry Lynn[executive director of the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State], Martin Luther King, Nelson Mendella, etc........
Oh I forgot, it's only atheists that can save the world!!!
What will Canada, Portugal, Greece, Poland, Italy, Romania do without them! Surely they will all collapse into moral anarchy due to the lack of the Godless!
Surely it was the 14% of the atheist US population that elected Obama! They had to of! Since MCcain ran on a fundie platform, I guess all the Fundies/moderates were sick and it was the mighty atheists that swooped in and elected our saviour!!!!
Ken Miller doesn't 'blast' theists. He points-out that their arguments are wrong (just like I said).
Yup, he did. What does that have to do with your argument that ingroup dissent is 'more effective' than outgroup dissent? Can't you even come up with an example?
I mean, Churchill (and the rest of the allies) did manage to stop him, which was a heck of a lot better than Chamberlain managed with his policy of pacifism. I guess you'd have preferred it if the 3rd Reich had amanged to bulldoze Europe, huh?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
I already did. Martin Luther King for example. He changed the churches views on slavery. He was a Baptist minister.
Ken Miller changes people's views on Creationism etc.........
Yeah, that was obviously what I was saying.
The point is that he couldn't CONVINCE them that their views were wrong, because he was an outgroup. Do you have the slighest idea of how group mentality works?
Another one I mentioned, Mccain/Palin ran on a fundie platform, they lost. The moderates want change.
[EDIT]
Oh and Obama is Christian and is moving America foward and trying to change.
Now that's change you can believe in
GI JOE!!!!!!
[EDIT]
Well, anyone that can swallow theism must be a bottomfeeder.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Great way to avoid answering the question. Attack the questioner and his motives, anything but answer the questions.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
I did address the question, in my first two posts.
It's a factor. We give heroes a big social reward for doing such an act.
The definition of war: "Young men dying, old men talking about it".
Why do you think war is so much about bravery, courage, glory, honor, etc...? All this is social pressure. This demonstrates why a theist based morality makes it impossible to solve humanities most deeply rooted problems like war. War is often an irrational decision because it's based on an irrational morality (heaven, honor, courage, 72 virgins). Young men will die in war for these imaginary rewards. If the old men and politicians had to pay well for someone else to fight their battles, we'd a fewer wars waged for irrational reasons.
"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." Patton
So 'courage' to you is just short term pain for long term imaginary payoff. Everyone does that tradeoff. How is that 'courage' if you have such great faith that the net payoff will far exceed temporary pain now? Hedonists and 'cowards' tradeoff short term pain for long term gain they believe they will obtain. How are you any different? Just a different time scale.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Well, judging that the 9/11 hijackers were far from religious, visiting strip clubs, gambling, and drinking alcohol, paradise must not have been all that alluring. They didn't read no verses about paradise and felt some surge of motivation to carry out there acts. So let's not make shit up, when obviously you don't have a clue.
Calling parents who take their children to church "child abuse", isn't an attempt to use a loaded term to manipulate people huh? If you think that a parent taking his child to church is wrong, that's one thing, I mean a theist could say taking children to atheist kid camps is wrong, but it's another thing all together to label these things as "child abuse".
Believers are no more tolerant of cognitive dissonance, than liberals are, republicans are, atheist are. Your post on how religion makes individuals act more immorally than morally, based on a fictional understanding of human nature, is plagued with cognitive dissonance.
You know why this is so? Because the belief that religion is the root of all bad in the world, is a position you're endeared to, that you have an emotional investment in perceiving as true, perhaps because you define your own identity in contrast to that. You don't live independent of a religious worldview, but rather as dependent on seeing yourself in contrast to that. Cognitive dissonance allows you to preserve your identity.
You're no less prone to cognitive dissonance, than someone like Michael Behe is.
But Hamby, as a friendly challenge to you, how about I start a thread where we get to question each others world views, perspectives on life, morality, religion, and see who amongst us two really seems to be struggling with cognitive dissonance?
Curiously, you've overlooked the part where I said my opinions (while obviously subject to change) are based on scientific research. You didn't note that a colleague of a friend is the one who did the research that has made me rethink how humans handle cognitive dissonance.
My understanding of theists' handling of cognitive dissonance is based largely on 40 years of comprehensive study of the authoritarian personality profile as detailed by the preeminent social scientist, Robert Altemeyer -- research that has passed muster in all sociological contexts, and has only been strengthened by research since.
So here's how it works. Either you demonstrate that you know even a smidge about the research I'm talking about, or admit you have no clue what you're talking about and it just makes you feel good to think I'm making shit up.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
That sounds tedious and awful. Most of my views on life can be found in threads here. I make no secret of my views. If you feel like something is dissonant, provide evidence. If your evidence is no stronger than this kind of thing --- Gee, hamby, your views are fictional -- well... put up or shut up. In case you're interested in learning what social science says about authoritarians and cognitive dissonance, you should start with this book:
The Authoritarian Specter
If you haven't taken a college level research methods course, and aren't familiar with the basics of statistical analysis and sociological research methods, you're going to find this book difficult to get through. However, if you want science instead of fiction, this is a good place to start.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Um, wasn't that part of the terrorists overall identity in the U.S.? I thought they were allowed to blend into cultures in order to decieve?
IIRC, alcohol is prohibited in Islam, and I don't think that drinking would be required to blend in.
The phrase I was looking for is called taqiyya (Muslim doctrine of concealment) and I can't find any reference citing that followers of Islam can't drink under its guise.
Edit - glitch/duplicate
Quick google search of "alcohol Islam"
http://www.inter-islam.org/Prohibitions/khmrmk.htm
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/2229/
http://islam.about.com/od/health/f/alcohol.htm
None of those sources say they can't use it under the guise of taqiyya. Most hits that I'm getting say that it's probably allowed because the interpretation of taqiyya is so broad.
Taqiyya is Shia. Atta was Sunni.
Hamby, as you previous suggestion of Robert Wrights Non-Zero reveals, you can read these works, but you hardly comprehend them. And it's pretty moronic for you to believe Robert Altemeyer's work on the authoritarian personality promotes the idea of an inseparable nature of believers and the authoritarian personality type. Or to put it to you, in terms you might better comprehend: believers are inclined to be of an authoritarian personality, as atheist are inclined to be communist.
In fact Altemeyers makes the point: "someone who lived in a country long ruled by Communists and who ardently supported the Communist Party would also be one of my psychological right-wing authoritarians even though we would also say he was a political left-winger. "
As I said believers are no less tolerant of cognitive dissonance than atheist are.
Altermeyers notion of the Authoritarian Personality type is not relegated to believers, but rather "someone who readily submits to the established authorities in society, attacks others in their name, and is highly conventional." This doesn't exclude atheist.
You're tiring Hamy, learn how to connect the dots better. If you want to use Altermeyer to support your own assumptions about believers, you better start drawing some coherent lines. Altermeyers work doesn't support your argument, but you deluded yourself into believing it does.
And yet there are Sunni who support it are there not?
I'm sure there are, but I see no reason why Atta would engage in it.
momn, have you read altemeyer, and did you miss the whole section where I explained in detail that I don't subscribe to Wright's entire worldview, but approve of his explanation of game theory as the model governing human culture?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Uhm, blending in, doesn't require "sinning" to do so. If paradise was Atta's motivation, he wouldn't be committing acts explicitly forbidden by his religion to get there. But besides this, we do know what Atta's motivation for 9/11 was: "German friend Ralph Bodenstein who traveled, worked and talked a lot with Mohamed Atta. Bodenstein said, "He was most imbued [sic] actually about Israeli politics in the region and about U.S. protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that."
Or to examine another 16 year old suicide bomber, Nabeel: "Nabeel had received word that he had received a scholarship to study in England, but the two cousins he most loved were then killed in an Israeli raid, so he went to the Mosque and prepared himself to die. I asked his father, "Do you think your son's sacrifice will make things better?" "No," he said, "this hasn't brought us even one step forward. (the interviewer here is anthropologist Scott Atran)"
Sadly what you're not going to find in all the evidence we have is a sort of fawning over paradise. You don't find kids going "oh shit paradise dude, let's go blow ourselves up", that's a myth spurned by clueless atheist, such as Sam Harris, but contrary to the facts.
Yes, I have, and that's why I can safely say that you've stretched Altemeyer's finding to fit your own assumption about believers, when in fact it doesn't fit. Your usage of Altermeyer as support for your beliefs, is quite revealing that you didn't comprehend his work at all. You selectivity read his work to support your pet beliefs, and ignored the portions of his work that don't support it.
No, what you did was claim that I needed a "full course" on Robert Wrights Non-Zero. And only after being criticized by me on what taking a full course on Wright's work consists of, did you go back and revise your notion of "full course", to a sort of partial course. I was led to assume by that exchange with you, that you didn't really comprehend Wright's work, if you did you would more than likely have provided a disclaimer before endorsing a full course in it.
Imagine a science teacher encouraging his students needed a "full course" on Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box", to understand evolution, but omitting the fact that it was a work in support of intelligent design, either we'd say the teacher was being devious, or ignorant of the book itself.
As a suggestion, next time you attempt to cite a book as support, to save yourself embarrassment in the foreseeable future, take the time to actually summarize what you believe the book claims in support of your views.
I've got the book in front of me. Give me citations.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Read post 40, since I already cut and pasted Altemeyer's own word for you, from "The Authoritarians". You can start there.
So it's not a determinant. Thank you.
That does not follow from anything I wrote. I give God my life after he has given me eternity, out of gratitude. I made it clear that I could "just as easily stay comfortable and do nothing." Nothing I could do on Earth is valuable enough to God that I could use it to buy my way into heaven (after all, anything I can do He can do better).
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
If I remember correctly (you didn't cite a page number, and I'm too lazy to read the whole book again to try to find it) this is from the chapter where Altemeyer was establishing whether or not it was possible for there to be a "left wing authoritarian." He made a point to distinguish between right and left wing political positions and left and right wing psychological personalities by illustrating that the Communist Party, though left wing politically, was custom made for the RWA because of its reliance on the core elements of authoritarianism as a personality type.
Is this all you've got?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I mean.. shit, dude. I just reread your quote. He's saying what I just said. It's sort of like... you know... when the same word describes two different things... like... a "set" in tennis and a "set" of jade figurines.
Talk about irony. You didn't even comprehend that he was going out of his way to make sure you didn't equivocate terms, and you used that very passage to accuse me of your mistake.
You should quit while you're behind.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism