scumble on 17/1/2007 at 10:23
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
I'd happily see an end to religion, but if you think for one moment I'd wage war to see those ideologies purged from the planet, then you clearly don't understand atheism/humanism, or liberalism for that matter. Purging rival ideologies from the world through force is something that is associated with the religious, not the non-religious.
This really shows how little you pay attention to what other people are saying, which is why almost everyone finds you frustrating to debate with. To claim that I don't understand atheism or "liberalism" is somewhat ludicrous given my overall posting history.
For a start, atheism doesn't actually imply any overall worldview or mode of behaviour, which is why atheists don't tend to get organised given the lack of anything like a "creed". The only thing athiests are guaranteed to have in common is a lack of belief in God. This does not eliminate to tendency to habitual modes of living bordering on the religious, or the tendency to employ violence to acheive ends.
Consider the most famous atheist dictator so far: Stalin. Not religious, sent millions of russians to the gulag and death, tried to spread communism across the globe by force, with limited success of course. His decidedly non-religious associates abused their power in similar ways. Mao essentially did the same thing, giving North Korean and Vietmamese people large numbers of AK-47 rifles.
How on earth do you plan to explain that one away? I mean, you could possibly say communism was elevated to the status of a religion, but only as a means of control. The leaders remained Marxist/Leninist and by implication atheist.
It's not a bad demonstration of what any man could do with (near) absolute power. Even then none of them could make religion go away. You can imagine what Bush and his pals could get up to with similar levels of power and a rather more substantial economy.
jay pettitt on 17/1/2007 at 11:20
Quote Posted by fett
Explain the problem to me like I'm five.Ok. Dawkins was content that reasoned liberal values had been making good headway and society was becoming a nicer place for it...
Hence all the abortions and gay rights and division of church and state.
...but now worries that a redoubling of efforts by the fundies threatens the continued good headway being made in society and religion is being used (and religion is a tool for the using) as a divisive force instead of a liberalising force.
Liberals don't like divisive. Though obviously we don't mind too much if that's what you really want.
Also, don't come all over with the 'christian community' isn't just like and extra cliquey version of the masons. Discrimination is far more innocuous these days than "I don't like your [insert attribute here], you're fired"
SD on 17/1/2007 at 11:48
Quote Posted by Illuminatus
StD, many of the people arguing against you are atheists. Does that say something about your mode of reasoning?
It tells me that they are slaves to received wisdom. Which isn't necessarily something to be ashamed of, even the great and the good suffer from it (it was Steven Jay Gould who even invented the concept of (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould#Non-Overlapping_Magisteria_.28NOMA.29) Non-Overlapping Magisteria in the first place).
Quote:
So you’re not telling anyone to drop their religion? You’re not peddling Dawkins, using his views to “try and enlighten people with science”?
You're saying I'm dogmatic. I'm not, because my arguments are rooted in scientific fact, not ghosts and goblins.
Quote:
You’re telling people their beliefs are wrong, and refusing to accept their difference of opinion. That’s called preaching. Lecturing. Sermonizing even. Is it so hard to understand why this puts you on the same level as the people who refuse to acknowledge atheists?
If I tell people not to jump under the wheels of a moving truck because they'll get killed, I suppose you'd call that "preaching" or "sermonizing" too?
Like I say, it's not remotely the same thing as telling people to believe in God or they'll go to Hell. Surely to goodness you don't need me to explain why.
Quote:
Regarding someone’s spiritual belief as a threat to your well-being is mighty liberal of you.
Well I think you're putting words in my mouth. Please don't do that - they sound dumb enough coming out of yours.
Quote:
Religion has no place in a Science classroom, because it is not related to the subject matter being discussed. Science has no place in a Church, because it is not related to the subject matter being discussed. Both parties who break this rule are equally stupid.
So you're saying it's okay to teach people that 2 + 2 = 5, simply because it doesn't appear in a science class? I find that dangerously misguided.
Quote Posted by fett
As to America being held hostage by fundies, lets review:
1) Abortion is still legal in U.S. and shows no signs of being made illegal in the near future. Most Christians are pro-life btw.
Now, you know as well as I do that several states have passed laws prohibiting abortion, and it's only the tiny thread of Roe vs Wade that stops those laws being binding.
Quote:
4) 10 Commandments are removed from courtrooms across the U.S. in an incredibly fucked-up misinterpretation of separation of church and state. Christians are 100% in favor of the ten commandments btw.
The 10 Commandments has no place in the courtroom of a secular nation. And so far as Christians being 100% in favour of the 10 Commandments, I do wonder if they would say that if they knew that the commandments only applied to Jews!
Quote Posted by Uncle Bacon
What's with this 'we' business? Are you a part of a research team investigating the evolution of human sexual behaviour?
I was talking about only scratching the surface as in the depth of discussion in this thread. For my own part, I've never researched the evolution of human sexual behaviour; most of my university field research was (don't laugh) done on earthworms.
Quote Posted by scumble
This really shows how little you pay attention to what other people are saying, which is why almost everyone finds you frustrating to debate with.
Well, I saw it as you accusing me of being as potentially bad as the people who wage war in the name of religion. I'm telling you that even with the apparatus at my fingerprints, I wouldn't be using force to remove religion from the world.
Quote:
For a start, atheism doesn't actually imply any overall worldview or mode of behaviour, which is why atheists don't tend to get organised given the lack of anything like a "creed". The only thing athiests are guaranteed to have in common is a lack of belief in God. This does not eliminate to tendency to habitual modes of living bordering on the religious, or the tendency to employ violence to acheive ends.
No, but when was the last time a war was fought in order to spread atheism across the planet? Sure, there have been "atheist dictators" (so far as that term has any meaning at least), but they weren't trying to eliminate religion, except maybe to impose a pseudo-religious political philosophy over the top of it (say, Communism).
Chimpy Chompy on 17/1/2007 at 12:24
Actually I quite like the sound of that Non-Overlapping Magisteria bit. Seems rather petty to try and kick it over on some kind of burning desire to argue with every little bit of faith that might possibly exist.
Convict on 17/1/2007 at 12:25
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
I'm a liberal politician for crying out loud
This is why atheists should not be allowed to hold public office! :mad:
Quote Posted by fett
As to America being held hostage by fundies, lets review:
1) Abortion is still legal in U.S. and shows no signs of being made illegal in the near future. Most Christians are pro-life btw.
Ironically abortion is illegal in many Australian states. :p
A NEW ENEMY APPROACHES STD!!!
st.patrick on 17/1/2007 at 12:58
Quote Posted by Convict
This is why atheists should not be allowed to hold pubic orifice! :mad:
fix'd
Thirith on 17/1/2007 at 13:03
I'm going to withdraw from active participation in this thread for now, simply because it takes up too much time. Having read the Gary Wolf article on Dawkins and the new Atheists (can be read (
http://richarddawkins.net/article,228,Battle-of-the-New-Atheism,Gary-Wolf--Wiredcom) here), I think that Daniel Dennett's take on religion and atheism would not only be closer to my intellectual position (even though I do believe, but many of his points make sense to me). Has anyone here read any of his books?
P.S.: Wikipedia has a fairly long (and, in my opinion, good) article on
The God Delusion - click (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion) here.
fett on 17/1/2007 at 13:13
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Okay, you need to distinguish between fundamentalist U.S. Christianity and the rest of U.S. Christianity
every single time you reference U.S. Christianity, because right now you're using them so interchangeably as to completely butcher every argument you're making.
Then to be clear let me just say that there are ALOT of Christians in the U.S. - conservative, 'real', fundamentalist or otherwise, and I don't see any realistic, impending threat on the freedoms of atheists. Did I miss something or has anyone yet to give a single example of how this is the case? Also - what argument was I making? My 'list' was the first one IIRC, and it wasn't meant as an argument - merely pointing out the many 'anti-christian' features of the U.S. Are any of those points untrue? Say what you will about abortion law, I guarantee you that this very day in pretty much every state in the U.S., an abortion will be performed somewhere by someone. I very much doubt that genie is ever going back in the bottle.
Quote Posted by Stronts
The 10 Commandments has no place in the courtroom of a secular nation. And so far as Christians being 100% in favour of the 10 Commandments, I do wonder if they would say that if they knew that the commandments only applied to Jews!
You're very very very wrong. Levitical law only applies to Jews as it has to do with their identification as a nation, but the civil, social, and moral law is meant to apply to everyone who will live by them. The stated purpose of the Messiah was to embody and fulfill the Law, not abolish it. You've got the economy of law and grace mixed up with the dispensation of Israel and the church. Regardless, christians on the whole disagree with the 10 commandments being absent from the courtroom because they see it as a lost foothold on the countries lawmaking process.
AR Master on 17/1/2007 at 13:29
Religious TTLG threads are the best threads, aside from Sypha threads and music threads. PROLIFIC POSTER vs. EVERYONE ELSE is always fun
Ps STD you big stupid
jay pettitt on 17/1/2007 at 17:38
Quote Posted by TheAntiDog
...I don't see any realistic, impending threat on the freedoms of atheists. Did I miss something or has anyone yet to give a single example of how this is the case?
To be honest I've sort of lost what the hell you're arguing about somewhere along the way, but here goes...
How about American atheists not being allowed to conduct research on stem cells. Or the state recognising atheist gay unions as equal in stately terms to christian heterosexual marriage, or the threat of undermining science classes with religious twaddle.
Huzzah that the US is as liberal as it is. Boo, that the fundies want to undo that good liberalness and behave like cunts.
Closer to home - oh look at the onward christian soldiers marching against a ruling that gays ought to be allowed to stay in hotels. Admittedly they were smacked down and rightly so. But there
is an increasingly vocal movement claiming that the state should back the fuck off when it comes to christian sensibilities (though not muslim sensibilities obviously, that would be wrong and not divisive).
And there in lies the threat. It's a chipping away thing. Some of it's small stuff, it's not very often especially successful, but without question there's an organised campaignathon of fundies who want us to live in a religious state be it achieved by political or cultural pressure.
...On the other hand, if you're arguing on the more personal level...
God, Christmas is a fucking tiresome chore. Must we? Oh, and christians (like lots of other closed groups) don't look after their own all of a sudden? An outsider won't be overlooked in favor of a fellow church goer in meetings, interviews and promotions? Christians do strong community very well.
And despite all that - golly you're missing the point. It's not an Atheists vs Religious Freaks thing. It's about expectations of a modern liberal society and whether religion is helping much. How is religion helping by the way?
