What Are Your Religious Beliefs?

[Alyrium Denryle]

I don't believe in gods, life after death, extraterrestrial UFOs, FTL, psychic powers, magic, or 'bad luck'.*

* "oh don't say that, it's bad luck! You'll jinx him!"

I'm a secularist, but not a humanist.

Can you explain that? What issue do you have with humanism?

It suffers from the delusion that humans are special.

[Modax]

If you were forced to choose between a) killing a human, and b) killing a frog, which would you choose? You will absolutely not be punished nor rewarded for your choice. The only effect will be on your conscience.

If it were me, I'd kill the frog. I don't have proof that humans have more of a mind or consciousness than frogs, but I think it's a reasonable assumption. Does that mean that humans are special? If I'm right about the mind, perhaps, though only in a very limited sense.

[Count Chocula]

My wife and I were both raised Catholic (the Jesuits had a greater influence on my (BTW, the Jesuits are the CC's official 'doubters' who raise logical and epistemological objections to Catholic doctrine to do Jesus-fu and prove the doctrine correct (see Thomas Aquinas))). Oddly, my childhood catechism classes didn't make me a skeptic, nor did a decade's worth of Mass at Dahlgren Chapel at Georgetown University (traditional Mass, down to earth morality for the homilies, and donuts and roof-walking after mass!); it was Catholic school and religion class that did me in for blind trust in doctrine. Getting sent to the principal after pissing off your Religion teacher for asking impertinent questions, more than once, does tend to leave an impression!

We have our son in an interfaith (but predominantly Catholic) school, where the principal is a Jamaican nun and GETS RESPECT, primarily because the public schools here suck dead rectum and tend to produce intellects best suited to living in a mobile home park or a van down by the river. Also, despite the warts of the Catholic church, the basic moral guidance is pretty solid, there's a good sense of community that is beneficial, and the standards for conduct and scholarship are high. And attending weekly Mass gives my son a foretaste that there are distasteful things in life that must nevertheless be endured, which will prepare him for any career that has repetitive activity. Last time I looked, that's most careers.

EDIT: BTW, I voted "agnostic." I don't deny the possibility of the existence of an entity we'd call 'God,' but the concrete proof is...lacking. Curse that Western mindset! If I just believed hard enough everything would be great! (reads Bible again) Well, maybe not.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Militant atheist

Militant atheist

I'm assuming you guys have an extensive arsenal of weapons and ammo, an extensive support network of sympathetic revolutionaries, and a plot to overthrow the government for a new antitheist regime? The only alternative I can think of is you thought it sounds badass to call yourself a militant despite not knowing the first thing about actually fighting.

[SCRawl]

Militant atheist

Militant atheist

I'm assuming you guys have an extensive arsenal of weapons and ammo, an extensive support network of sympathetic revolutionaries, and a plot to overthrow the government for a new antitheist regime? The only alternative I can think of is you thought it sounds badass to call yourself a militant despite not knowing the first thing about actually fighting.

It's used in the "active and aggressive" sense of the word, as opposed to "belonging to a military". It's been used fairly extensively, including by that well-known warmonger Richard Dawkins.

[Ritterin Sophia]

It's used in the "active and aggressive" sense of the word, as opposed to "belonging to a military". It's been used fairly extensively, including by that well-known warmonger Richard Dawkins.

And I'm pointing out it's retarded to use it as such. The word militant has a very negative connotation in common parlance, by trying to 'make' the phrase yours you do half the fundies work for them. No one uses the classical definition of the word and to try to make the claim that the classical definition is what they mean is intellectual cowardice, since it's obvious to anyone that they're trying to draw image from actual militants. It's really simple:

Militant

Not Militant


Did you catch that? In case you didn't let's try again:

Militants

Not Militants

[SCRawl]

It's used in the "active and aggressive" sense of the word, as opposed to "belonging to a military". It's been used fairly extensively, including by that well-known warmonger Richard Dawkins.

And I'm pointing out it's retarded to use it as such. The word militant has a very negative connotation in common parlance, by trying to 'make' the phrase yours you do half the fundies work for them. No one uses the classical definition of the word and to try to make the claim that the classical definition is what they mean is intellectual cowardice, since it's obvious to anyone that they're trying to draw image from actual militants.

No. I'm sorry, but you're completely full of shit here. You're using the noun form of the word, which indeed includes among its meanings "a person engaged in combat or warfare". Everyone else, when using the word in this thread and elsewhere in the real world, is using it in the adjective sense, meaning "vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause: militant reformers" the opposite of "passive". It describes the actions of the movement very well, and is (I think) the most appropriate word in this language to use, and it's become well connected with the work of Dawkins and others.

You seem to be put out that there is a possible negative connotation here, since the noun refers to a combatant, and usually a not-very-nice combatant. I submit to you that that's not what most people think of when they hear the term, especially in the full "militant atheist" expression. It's possible that I'm out of touch with what the "man on the street" thinks, but isn't it also possible that you've got it wrong?

[Ritterin Sophia]

You seem to be put out that there is a possible negative connotation here, since the noun refers to a combatant, and usually a not-very-nice combatant. I submit to you that that's not what most people think of when they hear the term, especially in the full "militant atheist" expression. It's possible that I'm out of touch with what the "man on the street" thinks, but isn't it also possible that you've got it wrong?

When was the last time you heard the classical definition outside of a web forum? We are speaking of common use after all, what better than one of them

Let's see what most people classify as militant with the largest search engine.
WikiAnswers, please note the emphasis on the use of force.

[SCRawl]

You seem to be put out that there is a possible negative connotation here, since the noun refers to a combatant, and usually a not-very-nice combatant. I submit to you that that's not what most people think of when they hear the term, especially in the full "militant atheist" expression. It's possible that I'm out of touch with what the "man on the street" thinks, but isn't it also possible that you've got it wrong?

When was the last time you heard the classical definition outside of a web forum?

I'm not sure about the last time, but the time that most stands out is from this video. Start it at the five-minute mark if you don't want to watch it from the beginning. And anyways, I'm not so sure that the description of "militant" as an adjective is the "classical" definition; as a noun it means one thing, and as an adjective it means something different.

We are speaking of common use after all, what better than one of them

Let's see what most people classify as militant with the largest search engine.
WikiAnswers, please note the emphasis on the use of force.

Every one of those definitions uses the noun form of the word, which is, in my opinion, much more likely to be connected with a combatant. If someone is a "militant x" -- the adjective form, which is what we're discussing -- then that person is likely to be an aggressive and active proponent or enthusiast in favour or on behalf of x. Of course, you could use a phrase like "militant anti-zionist", which could refer to someone who would literally take up arms against the existence of the state of Israel, or could (perhaps not as equally) refer to someone who speaks out or organizes nonviolent protests in the same cause.

[Ilya Muromets]

Atheist secularist over here. If you want any sort of "life philosophy" to go with the secularist political philosophy, well, I haven't really bothered to classify myself under any.

EDIT: Although, one of my buddies who was a Philosophy major always liked to label me as a methodological naturalist.

[Coyote]

Schatten's actually right; groups like ELF and ALF are "militant" environmental and animal rights activists in that they are willing to undertake "direct action" in support of their beliefs.

I believe that the "use of force" to support beliefs/philosophies does not necessariyl have to include actual firearms, since ELF typically uses arson, ALF uses break-ins of facilities and red paint vandalism, while other groups like Sea Shepherd use physical blocking/imposition and non-lethal stink bombs, but because all are willing to engage in direct physical confrontation they are "militant" as much as, say, the Red Brigades or Baader-Meinhoff were (although those groups probably would have seen them as "militant-lite").

So, yeah, a militant atheist realistically should be doing things like blockading churches and trying to physically prevent people from going to church (like abortion protesters try to do), or puncturing the tires of church busses, or tracking down pedo-priests and terrorizing/assaulting them... I mean, in order to properly reflect "militant". I actually don't recommend this stuff except at your own risk, and of course you could face serious legal penalties if caught doing some of these, etc.

Maybe "actively atheist" or "determined atheist"? A willingness to argue with someone in a coffeehouse isn't really too "militant". I think it is cool being willing to stand up for your principles, but "militant" does add a certain layer that may or may not really be there.

OTOH, if you actually do carry out direct action on behalf of atheism, well... um, wow.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I'm not sure about the last time, but the time that most stands out is from this video. Start it at the five-minute mark if you don't want to watch it from the beginning. And anyways, I'm not so sure that the description of "militant" as an adjective is the "classical" definition; as a noun it means one thing, and as an adjective it means something different.

I'm sorry, but words change meaning based on the perception of those meanings and the consensus of the meaning. 'Militant', due especially to radical Islam and the myriad of African civil wars, has to the common person come to mean someone who is willing to engage in physically hostile actions in order to promote a cause.

Every one of those definitions uses the noun form of the word, which is, in my opinion, much more likely to be connected with a combatant. If someone is a "militant x" -- the adjective form, which is what we're discussing -- then that person is likely to be an aggressive and active proponent or enthusiast in favour or on behalf of x. Of course, you could use a phrase like "militant anti-zionist", which could refer to someone who would literally take up arms against the existence of the state of Israel, or could (perhaps not as equally) refer to someone who speaks out or organizes nonviolent protests in the same cause.

I apologize, but it's quite clear that you have become disconnected with what the average person thinks if you don't realize that to the average person 'militant' has shifted from merely aggressive to a violently so.

[SCRawl]

I apologize, but it's quite clear that you have become disconnected with what the average person thinks if you don't realize that to the average person 'militant' has shifted from merely aggressive to a violently so.

That's entirely possible, though of course the "average" is different wherever you go. I'll perform some informal experiments on my end, and I'll see what we get.

[Commander Xillian]

OTOH, if you actually do carry out direct action on behalf of atheism, well... um, wow.

For some reason, I'm imagining a bunch of people in Guy Fawkes masks standing outside of a church, hitting people with canes and the like.

[Hamstray]

OTOH, if you actually do carry out direct action on behalf of atheism, well... um, wow.

For some reason, I'm imagining a bunch of people in Guy Fawkes masks standing outside of a church, hitting people with canes and the like.

Quite ironic, since Guy Fawkes himself was a militant Catholic.

[Solauren]

I voted 'Other', as I didn't see Jedi listed.

[Commander Xillian]

OTOH, if you actually do carry out direct action on behalf of atheism, well... um, wow.

For some reason, I'm imagining a bunch of people in Guy Fawkes masks standing outside of a church, hitting people with canes and the like.

Quite ironic, since Guy Fawkes himself was a militant Catholic.

I know right? And with all this talk of what exactly militant means... Yeesh. No wonder, hu?

[Erra]

Someone please explain to me how self-proclaimed "militant atheists" are any better, morally speaking, than extreme religious factions like Westboro Baptist?

[SCRawl]

Someone please explain to me how self-proclaimed "militant atheists" are any better, morally speaking, than extreme religious factions like Westboro Baptist?

There was a thread about this a year or so ago, but I'll sum it up. A person who professes to be a militant atheist is (generally) just an atheist who takes steps to advance the cause of atheism, as opposed to a passive atheist who doesn't believe in any gods and is perfectly happy about that. I use again the example of Richard Dawkins, who rallies the troops in the name of militant atheism: he has created a foundation (with its affiliated website), has written several books, presented documentaries, etc. with the ultimate aims of promoting atheism and debunking nonsense claims, including those of the world's major religions. In contrast, a militant religious person is more likely to be a fanatic, and further to be a dangerous person. The adjective "militant" in this sense proclaims different things depending upon the noun it modifies. It's not fair, I suppose that we have to assign a word like "militant" to atheists for them to be anything other than passive non-believers, but no one ever said that life was fair.

[Rye]

If you were forced to choose between a) killing a human, and b) killing a frog, which would you choose? You will absolutely not be punished nor rewarded for your choice. The only effect will be on your conscience.

If it were me, I'd kill the frog. I don't have proof that humans have more of a mind or consciousness than frogs, but I think it's a reasonable assumption. Does that mean that humans are special? If I'm right about the mind, perhaps, though only in a very limited sense.

Depends on the human and frog in question. There are certain people I would rather be dead hundreds of times instead of endangered tree frogs or whatever in the Amazon.

Similar question to you, if you're a pet owner. How can you justify keeping pets when there are starving people in the world that could eat that animal?

If you don't have a pet, would you rather kill one random person from your own family or 15 LRA members? Would you rather the LRA, Somali pirates and Al Qaeda all die from bubonic plague or one person you like die in their sleep tonight?

Suffice it to say, humanism is a misunderstanding of how human morality actually works; local (i.e. personal) links between the valuer and the valued, not some "humans = best, important and totally invaluable" assumption. It doesn't work out in real life and there are too many people for all to life in sustainable comfort. These unfortunate truths make humanism untenable.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

Suffice it to say, humanism is a misunderstanding of how human morality actually works; local (i.e. personal) links between the valuer and the valued, not some "humans = best, important and totally invaluable" assumption. It doesn't work out in real life and there are too many people for all to life in sustainable comfort. These unfortunate truths make humanism untenable.

Maybe it works like that for selfish assholes who don't care one whit about anything unrelated to themselves, but generally I care about humanity as a species. I don't hold that we're somehow special , but since I am a human, I feel empathy towards my fellow humans more readily than I do towards non-human species, because they're more familiar to me. Your other assertions are misleading. People place more importance in things and people that they have a personal and emotional attachment to, than they do people they don't know, have never met, or dislike. That does not mean that valuing humanity as a species more than you would a less sapient species is somehow an "untenable position". Morality has shades of grey and does not come down to simple black and whites.

Also, you seem to be applying a label to humanism that doesn't necessarily fit in this situation. Most traditional uses of the words humanism are regarding rejection of the supernatural (much like materialism), or regarding how to improve the human condition. It is not generally taken to be some sort of "pro-human fuck everything else" stance, though it can be defined that way in some situations, it is certainly not what the "humanism" in "secular humanism" refers to.

I know wikipedia is generally frowned upon as a source, and I understand the reasons why and believe them legitimate, but never-the-less.

Wikipedia on Secular Humanism:

Secular Humanism is a secular philosophy that espouses reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects supernatural and religious dogma as the basis of morality and decision-making. Secular Humanism is a life stance that focuses on the way human beings can lead good, happy and functional lives.

Secular Humanism (capital "H") is distinguished from various other humanisms. Though Secular Humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion, or God, that is not to say it assumes humans to be inherently or innately good. Nor does it present humans as "above nature" or superior to it; by contrast, the Humanist life stance emphasises the unique responsibility facing humanity and the consequences of our ethical decisions.

Oh my, yeah, that looks like such an utterly unreasonable and thoroughly untenable position to take! I feel silly now! Certainly Secular Humanism is a human-centric philosophy, but it does not propose anything like the sort of "waah humans are all-important and all other animals can all die if it benefits our species even slightly!" crap that you appear to be implying it does.

If you believe I really am being unreasonable in this instance, or that my position is somehow flawed, feel free to correct me. I'm not unfamiliar with being proven wrong, nor am I offended by being corrected. Normally it just makes me feel like an idiot.

[Modax]

Depends on the human and frog in question.

Good dodge. Would you feel better killing a human you don't know, and can't infer very much about, or a frog randomly chosen from the world frog population?

There are certain people I would rather be dead hundreds of times instead of endangered tree frogs or whatever in the Amazon.

Do you simply *wish* them dead or would you be prepared to execute them yourself as per the terms of the thought experiment above. If so, why? Petty revenge? To make an example of them to the rest of us? To prevent them from harming others (then you must care a lot about these "others"). To free up resources for the rest of mankind (then you must value the rest of mankind)

And what makes an endangered tree frog more valuable than a common frog? Does it have more innate value (whatever that is) or does its greater value entirely depend on the existence of human herpetologists to recognize it as endangered.

imilar question to you, if you're a pet owner. How can you justify keeping pets when there are starving people in the world that could eat that animal?

Black/white fallacy. Just because I care about human life, doesn't imply that I consider all other animals to be completely worthless, or that I am entirely selfless.

If you don't have a pet, would you rather kill one random person from your own family or 15 LRA members?

I think that all human lives are basically of equal innate value, except for the rare case of severe brain damage or profound mental retardation.
However, when forced to choose between two people or two sets of people, other factors must come into play. No one in my family is likely to murder anyone, so far as I can tell. The 15 LRA members *are* more likely to murder people if the continue on their course. Now ordinarily I would prefer for them to be sent to prison if they are already murderers/war criminals. But forced to choose, I would kill the 15 LRA members, because there is a significant chance they will kill more than 15 people between them if left on their course.

Would you rather the LRA, Somali pirates and Al Qaeda all die from bubonic plague or one person you like die in their sleep tonight?

Nice projection. Speaking with total sincerity, I can't think of a single person I wish would die in their sleep tonight. EDIT: none that I know personally, anyway. Osama Bin Laden or Kim Jong Il, perhaps. If forced to choose, I use the same selection criteria as above. How likely (so far as I can judge) are they to kill people, and how many?

Suffice it to say, humanism is a misunderstanding of how human morality actually works; local (i.e. personal) links between the valuer and the valued, not some "humans = best, important and totally invaluable" assumption. It doesn't work out in real life and there are too many people for all to life in sustainable comfort. These unfortunate truths make humanism untenable.

Whatever. Nice black/white fallacy, by the way.

[Modax]

Something really ought to be said on the topic of innate value, so here goes.

*I* have innate value because I value myself, even if no one else does. the same cannot be said for the Mona Lisa, the Niagra Falls, or a human corpse. These only have value if someone or something happens to be around to value them.

Things with an instinct for self-preservation, things capable of recognizing themselves in the mirror, things capable of creating a model of themselves, the world around them, their past, and their future. These have innate value. But not all such things are created equal. Something that *fears* death has more innate value than something that simply works to avoid death. And I am talking about populations, not necessarily individuals. Something that wishes to commit suicide is not valueless for that reason. Not if its fellows try to convince it to stay alive, and especially not if that thing sacrifices its existence to save related things. The degree of innate value is proportional to the complexity of its values and goals, the degree of self-modeling ability it has, and the extent to which it has a model of the outside world, its past and its future.

Now, I don't know anything for certain about the contents of other minds, but I am very confident about the people/animals I know personally. But there are general questions to ask in each special case. Are they beings with minds and complex values, or are they automatons operated by comparatively simple neural algorithms and genetic instructions?

And when all that fails, there are consequentialist ethics. We try to predict the behaviour of minds and their effects on other minds, and we select the most favorable situation and attempt to work toward it.

[Rye]

Depends on the human and frog in question.

Good dodge. Would you feel better killing a human you don't know, and can't infer very much about, or a frog randomly chosen from the world frog population?

It wasn't a dodge; it was an example to show the folly of human life being of the maximal value. I'd probably kill a frog based on this limited information.

Do you simply *wish* them dead or would you be prepared to execute them yourself as per the terms of the thought experiment above. If so, why? Petty revenge? To make an example of them to the rest of us? To prevent them from harming others (then you must care a lot about these "others"). To free up resources for the rest of mankind (then you must value the rest of mankind)

I do care about the rest of mankind and other animals. And I would kill them so we would be rid of them, to have a greater chance at flourishing.

And what makes an endangered tree frog more valuable than a common frog? Does it have more innate value (whatever that is) or does its greater value entirely depend on the existence of human herpetologists to recognize it as endangered.

Nothing has innate value, things have value dependent on personal aesthetics, desires and assumptions. As for what makes it more valuable, in this case, it's a desire to keep an ecosystem in a given state of diversity, and because there's simple pleasure to be had in doing good by the world (see: aesthetics).

Black/white fallacy. Just because I care about human life, doesn't imply that I consider all other animals to be completely worthless, or that I am entirely selfless.

So you're saying you can't justify not only keeping an animal alive while human lives die. It's not a "black/white" fallacy, it's just showing that your supposedly humanist ethics value a non-human above undoubtedly millions of humans in practise. Alternatively, you value your personal pleasure from the continued existence of that non-human above millions of lives. Likewise, the same applies to your family and friends; if you had to push a button to kill 90% of the human race or 90% of your family, all your pets and friends... well, you're duty bound under utility and humanism to kill your family, pets and friends.

Could I do that? I don't know. The species could easily survive on 10%.

I think that all human lives are basically of equal innate value, except for the rare case of severe brain damage or profound mental retardation.
However, when forced to choose between two people or two sets of people, other factors must come into play. No one in my family is likely to murder anyone, so far as I can tell. The 15 LRA members *are* more likely to murder people if the continue on their course. Now ordinarily I would prefer for them to be sent to prison if they are already murderers/war criminals. But forced to choose, I would kill the 15 LRA members, because there is a significant chance they will kill more than 15 people between them if left on their course.

Of course you would. They're scumbags, and the world would be better off without them.

Would you rather the LRA, Somali pirates and Al Qaeda all die from bubonic plague or one person you like die in their sleep tonight?

Nice projection. Speaking with total sincerity, I can't think of a single person I wish would die in their sleep tonight. EDIT: none that I know personally, anyway. Osama Bin Laden or Kim Jong Il, perhaps. If forced to choose, I use the same selection criteria as above. How likely (so far as I can judge) are they to kill people, and how many?

No, you're missing the point. Would you rather scumbags die painful deaths, or people you like die painless ones? Of course, you choose scumbags. The fact they're people with their own twisted, scummy hopes and dreams changes nothing. We don't inherently value human life or human suffering over and above anything; things are in a strict hierarchy of who and what we like, and most people are honest enough to admit this after some introspection.

Whatever. Nice black/white fallacy, by the way.

Whatever. Nice failure.

*I* have innate value

No you don't. You have imaginary conscious value. If you were the last man on Earth and you were knocked out, you would have no value at all. What is fundamentally different about the universe when you're conscious? Nothing. You have values to service your genetic lineage by seeking survival and avoiding death no different than those of a chimp, except perhaps to the level that instincts are linguistically abstracted.

It's still absurd, though. There's no "reason" to hold such values, be prudent, stay alive or care about anything, just chemical commands we are bound to obey and are similarly pointless to ignore.

[Modax]

Even my imaginary conscious self-value is greater than that of a rock, which has none. They universe may not care if I exist, but I do.