“Something that is intrinsically evil should only have evil effects, by the very definition of the word intrinsic. ”

I’m not too sure about this. And I don’t see anything in the definition of “intrinsic” that’s nearly that specific about the point you are arguing.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that torture does sometimes produce useful information that could be used to stop terrorist attacks. Assuming that this is true, does that mean that torture is not intrinsically evil?

As I understand it, a refrigerator works partly by using heat, and dissipating heat in order to selectively cool the inside of the fridge. And yet, I don’t think that this makes heat any less “intrinsically hot”.

As far as why in the case of religion there would be deception/lying (even if unintentional) involved, I can’t speak for Nomad/others, but…

It seems clear to me that many, if not most, Christians take much/all of the Bible literally, as an empirical truth, and do not interpret it as a “mythical truth”/metaphor/allegory. And that is the way it is usually presented by religious authority figures, as well. If you believe that they should not be doing that, that’s a valid position, but “religion” as it is currently practiced by most people does not subscribe to that position, and so is not excused from the deception criticism. (As a newbie to this forum, I may be misinterpreting how far you want to take the “mythical truth” thing.)

I’m also skeptical about whether the abolitionists really acted the way they did because of religion, any more than the the slavers acted the way they did because of religion–I suspect that they would have felt that slavery was wrong without religion, and religion just gave them arguments that seemed more persuasive in their cultural context, both to others and themselves. But none of us can get inside the abolitionists’ heads, so there’s not much of an argument to be made on either side.

A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

So, you see, I meant it in the sense of someone who thinks he’s right and everyone else wrong – but not necessarily is utterly intolerant of others.

That makes sense, and I really didn’t intend to throw us into a semantic tango, although in this case, it looks like it produced some fruitful results.

That’s OK, I love languages and the study thereof.

A bigot is someone who: “A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.” When I hear “bigot,” the word denotes hate and intolerance.

Aye, I can see that, hence why I try to separate the “weak” sense from the “strong” sense.

The lingering question for me then is, can you disapprove of something without being bigoted against that thing?

Within the context of utter intolerance, sure. It’ll still rankle and get some hackles rising by sheer reason of humanity but intolerance goes beyond that.

So, in the context of our conversation, would it be possible that the people creating this show don’t “approve” of atheism, in that they don’t think it’s desirable, right, or good, without being bigots.

Sure.

In other words, could they view atheism as undesirable and still tolerate (not begrudgingly, as in “I have to put up with you,” but in the liberal, democratic sense of the term) atheists.

Possibly. Knowing nothing more about them, I’d say it’s possible they are not bigoted in the sense they are utterly intolerant of atheists. However, it does make me wonder what other measures they might take if they feel it bad enough they have a game show to convert people in mind; possibly it’s all in good faith (hah). Possibly not. Would these people discriminate other people on faith alone? I don’t know. I’d like to think they don’t.

Kind of brings to mind those people who think homosexuals need to be cured and have the gay beat out of them, y’know? I’m sure lots of those people act in good faith, bringing what they think is best for their peers, but it does rankle of intolerance towards the different. Maybe not outright “kill ye filthy worms” intolerance, but a seedling? I don’t know. I’d love to understand what goes on those people’s brains.

The opening post seems to assume that isn’t possible, and perhaps it’s not for the people creating the show. I don’t know.

Me neither. But I surely can see the hackles rising ;p

But I would like to think that it’s possible to “disapprove” a particular ideology and still be tolerant of it.

Sure. Live and let live and all that jazz.

I’m not an atheist. You’re not a Christian. So by definition, each of us doesn’t “approve” of the other’s worldview with respect to religion. But as bast as I can tell, there is mutual respect, which is in my view, the first step toward tolerance.

Quite. I do respect you, mind, and your views. How could I not? It harms no one. Tolerance is indeed a wonderful thing.

That makes sense, and I really didn’t intend to throw us into a semantic tango, although in this case, it looks like it produced some fruitful results.

When I hear the word “approve” I really do hear it as it’s defined, at least most of the time. In this context, I would agree with you in that there is some condescension going on.

A bigot is someone who: “A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.” When I hear “bigot,” the word denotes hate and intolerance.

The lingering question for me then is, can you disapprove of something without being bigoted against that thing? So, in the context of our conversation, would it be possible that the people creating this show don’t “approve” of atheism, in that they don’t think it’s desirable, right, or good, without being bigots. In other words, could they view atheism as undesirable and still tolerate (not begrudgingly, as in “I have to put up with you,” but in the liberal, democratic sense of the term) atheists.

The opening post seems to assume that isn’t possible, and perhaps it’s not for the people creating the show. I don’t know.

But I would like to think that it’s possible to “disapprove” a particular ideology and still be tolerant of it.

I’m not an atheist. You’re not a Christian. So by definition, each of us doesn’t “approve” of the other’s worldview with respect to religion. But as bast as I can tell, there is mutual respect, which is in my view, the first step toward tolerance.

Do you think a statement like this crosses the line? “Not believing is more desirable than believing in an invisible sky daddy, the flying spaghetti monster, and pink unicorns.”

By itself? Not really, no, much like the example before, by itself, would not (though the word ‘approve’ also has a connotation of condescendence, methinks. Or maybe it’s just me envisioning snobbish rich people saying “I don’t approve of you… way too many old movies and sitcoms). Desire does not imply need, after all. It would depend on the context and the implied motivation of the person in question.

In the case in hand, imagine:

“We offer the greatest gift, the gift of atheism. We don’t think belief is desirable. It’s important for one to not-believe.”

Would that statement (as a whole) jive of bigotry? To me – in context – it does, even if I agree with the sentiment. Why is it important not to believe? Why is religion undesirable? Who are you to say such a thing? Why a gift? Again, I don’t think it’s quite that common for people to not be bigoted (or biased) about certain things, just as I don’t think anyone is perfectly tolerant.

Which, as long as they don’t try to force their views on other people or cause harm of any kind to the dissenter, is perfectly alright for me: we’re each and all entitled to our opinions, no?

I suppose that, in the end, it devolves to the actual humans being humans and, as we’ve both agreed, how we identify with the ideologies we espouse and are relevant to us – whether communism, Christianity, atheism, fascism, whatever. I can grok where Daniel is coming from in the subject post, even if, analyzing things on a purely semantical level, it does not come off as bigoted. I can see why some religious people – not all – could see our own statements as close to anti-religion bigotry (even my own; I can be quite vocal – or, well… writely? – at times!). We’re each, after all, convinced we’re right – maybe not unshakeably so, maybe we’ve reasons to believe what we believe (or don’t), but we are.

My (admittedly rambly) point is: yes, sometimes I see comments that, to me, jive as bigoted or quite close to it. That isn’t necessarily bad. It isn’t necessarily good, either. More like humans being human…

Yes, hence a statement like, “I am a Christian.” Or, “I am an atheist.” Statements like that reveal that ideologies can and do become part of identity. Which is at least partly why conversations on blogs like this one get personal so quickly.

Nonetheless, I stand from the principle nobody is absolutely un-bigoted (is that even a word? Eh).

Let’s make it a word. I think I mostly agree with that, although I might substitute the word biased for bigoted. At the very least, we are all inevitably biased.

I do, however, see someone who thinks belief is a great gift and that believing anything is better than non-believing is crossing the line into bigotry – in that it makes clear (subjectively, of course) that atheism is wicked, wrong. Maybe not crossed, but close.

Do you think a statement like this crosses the line? “Not believing is more desirable than believing in an invisible sky daddy, the flying spaghetti monster, and pink unicorns.”

To me, the latter statement is just the other side of the same coin as the former statement. And in my view, if the former comes close to or crosses the line, so does the other.

(I’m not saying that is in fact what you think, you’ve stated your neutrality to moderate religious belief, but I think it does accurately reflect a lot of the comments here).

That’s a good point, Siberia. I would agree with you that someone who makes that claim is racially prejudiced in some way (either against black or white).

I do see one flaw in your analogy though, namely, that black/white is a biological determination. Atheism/Theism is an ideology that is chosen. There’s a big difference, I think, between saying, “I don’t approve of what you think.” And, “I don’t approve of what you are.” Would you agree?

Quite true. But to some people, being this or that is quite intrinsic (here’s that word again) to what they are. Humans being humans and what not.

I’m curious what your perspective might be on my claim that Daniel and this blog don’t approve of religion, even if that’s not the specific language that gets used. As a religious person, that’s the tone I hear on an almost daily basis, both in the opening posts by Daniel and in the comments. But I don’t understand that tone to be bigoted. What do you think of that?

Depends. Bigotry as a word has a bad connotation, so I would hesitate in saying anyone is bigoted. Nonetheless, I stand from the principle nobody is absolutely un-bigoted (is that even a word? Eh).

The definition of “bigotry” is the unquestionable belief one’s ideology is right (and contrary views are wicked, wrong). I can say I am bigoted against fascism. I see no way where fascism is good. I am bigoted against misogyny, against so many other things. You see where I’m going?

I can’t say I am bigoted against religion because I am mostly neutral about it. I can say I am bigoted against fundamentalism, because I see that as inherently detrimental to society. I don’t know about Daniel or the rest, because I don’t see them as particularly convinced of their own righteousness. Methinks many of us would change our minds if we had the convincing evidence.

I do, however, see someone who thinks belief is a great gift and that believing anything is better than non-believing is crossing the line into bigotry – in that it makes clear (subjectively, of course) that atheism is wicked, wrong. Maybe not crossed, but close.

You have accused me being manipulative, specifically changing the terms that people are using to make my argument look better.

In fact, just the opposite is the case. nomad DID in fact use the word “evil,” and just like the use of the word “intrinsic,” nomad introduced the word into the conversation. I didn’t introduce any new terms, and I most certainly did not change any of nomad’s words.

You’re dead wrong, and here’s proof:

Here’s where the phrase “intrinsically bad” first entered the conversation: http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/07/04/tv-gameshow-looks-to-convert-atheists/#comment-52042

nomad is using the words “bad” and “evil” interchangeably (and he introduced them both into the conversation). I’m using the same words for simplicity and for the sake of conversation and attempting to clarify what the word means in the context of the specific conversation.

Here, nomad seems to be fine with using bad/evil interchangeably: http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/07/04/tv-gameshow-looks-to-convert-atheists/#comment-52116

And you’ve also accused me of putting words in nomad’s mouth, that is, I’m accusing him of making absolute claims when he’s not. Yet, here he is acknowledging that he meant his claim to be an absolute claim.

Check it out for yourself: http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/07/04/tv-gameshow-looks-to-convert-atheists/#comment-52116

It’s even more ironic to me, because nomad and I are getting along in our conversation just fine. He doesn’t think I’m putting words in his mouth or manipulating the him or the conversation. You, an outside observer to the conversation who’s yet to offer one argument relevant to the conversation, paint me as a stereotype who argues from exhaustion.

This was your best attempt at an argument,

then ignoring nomad’s original statement to leave aside whether it *does* good for the moment, and evading the original rhetorical question of whether religion is intrinsically bad because it’s based on a lie, and going back to repeating that it *does* good, is brgulker’s manipulative tricks, devices, ploys and evasion

but it’s really not an argument; it’s just an attack.

I’ve cleary demonstrated that there are no “tricks, devices, ploys, or evasions,” in my and I’ve provided links to make it crystal clear.

Nomad originally said “bad” not “evil”.

DUH!