RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism

RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

PatrickG38 -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/26/2010 1:24:34 PM)
Okay, what is the danger you see posed by atheist political action?

PatrickG38 -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/26/2010 1:25:51 PM)
Define this scientism. I did agree some go to far (Hitchens, Dawkins).

kdsub -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/26/2010 1:34:16 PM)
Not disrespectful at all... just my way of saying there is no use arguing with you... Just because I don't think you look at both side of a discussion is not being disrespectful to you. Butch

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/26/2010 1:36:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PatrickG38 Okay, what is the danger you see posed by atheist political action? I'm a European (and an atheist), so I guess my experience may differ from the experience of the US, but I get concerned about stories like these... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4427912/Prayer-nurse-should-keep-job-says-patient.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10611398 I think atheist political action is a little like the Israel lobby. On the surface, it sounds like a reasonable idea, but in practice it hides all sorts of threats to other people's freedom.

Moonhead -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/26/2010 1:37:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Not disrespectful at all... just my way of saying there is no use arguing with you... Just because I don't think you look at both side of a discussion is not being disrespectful to you. Butch A particularly snide and catty way of saying there's no point arguing with somebody. Still, you're obviously incapable of accepting that somebody who doesn't share your neanderthal superstitions is entitled to their own opinion, so I shouldn't expect any better.

Moonhead -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/26/2010 1:38:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hertz quote: ORIGINAL: PatrickG38 Okay, what is the danger you see posed by atheist political action? I'm a European (and an atheist), so I guess my experience may differ from the experience of the US, but I get concerned about stories like these... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4427912/Prayer-nurse-should-keep-job-says-patient.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10611398 I think atheist political action is a little like the Israel lobby. On the surface, it sounds like a reasonable idea, but in practice it hides all sorts of threats to other people's freedom. Quite. It's outrageous that these atheists take issues with people's rights to carry out honour killings or deny children medical attention, isn't it?

kdsub -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/26/2010 1:38:58 PM)
lol... keep it up... you are doing a good job of proving your point Butch

Moonhead -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/26/2010 1:40:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub lol... keep it up... you are doing a good job of proving your point Butch Do they not have irony where you come from?

PatrickG38 -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/26/2010 1:46:15 PM)
The first article is indeed silly and the banning of the burqa would generate a lot of support from religious fundamentalist in the United States (I am of a mixed opinion on the ban). I was speaking of threats to America and apologize for being parochial. I did not mean that unthinking and intolerant atheists cannot cause bad policy decisions through political action, only that the danger in the United States is virtually non-existent and certainly much smaller than that posed by the more numerous and highly organized religious right.

EternalHoH -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/26/2010 1:48:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Your presentation of the atheist argument is solid, but you stray when you try to extend it to the political arena. There are certainly atheist initiatives that have altered society. The banning of the pledge of allegiance in schools, for example, has had farreaching effects on how the US is viewed by different generations. The Courts have been used to enforce a tyranny of the atheist minority. Whoa, whoa, whoa there! Dont confuse your sense of 'athiest tyranny' with the fact that our government is secular by design, and we do not live in a religious country. We may have one particular religion representing a majority of citizens in this country, but unlike politics, that majority doesn't not translate into majority rule. Again, only the fanatics would think so. You don't have to be an atheist to demand de-emphasis of the majority religion in this country. You could be a card carrying member of a minority religion, but work for the religious neutrality our country was designed around to assure the biggest one doesn't run away with the country's legislative agenda. In a country where the biggest religion is on equal footing with the smallest religion, it sure is presumptuous of anyone to think that the pledge of allegiance to a religiously neutral country should refer YOUR God, and nobody else's.

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/26/2010 1:54:05 PM)
The thing about threats is that like forest fires, they often start small and before you know it, you've got a major blaze on your hands. I'm not denying that the religious right is dangerous and unhinged - clearly it is. But atheism is breeding its own brand of dangerous stoopidity, and the US isn't immune. At the moment, all we seem to have is a generalised undercurrent of hatred for all things religious. But give it time. All I am saying really is that your apparent initial claim, that only religion produces dangerous fundamentalists is not really that strong. But I accept that at the moment the religious fundamentalists hold all the cards.

PatrickG38 -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/26/2010 1:58:03 PM)
Fair enough. It is certainly not impossible for atheism to produce fundamentalism.

Kirata -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/26/2010 1:58:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PatrickG38 Define this scientism. Probably most succinctly, from dictionary.com... 2. the belief that the assumptions, methods of research, etc., of the physical and biological sciences are equally appropriate and essential to all other disciplines, including the humanities and the social sciences. For a more expanded discussion, there's a Wiki entry... Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life. The term is used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek, or philosophers of science such as Karl Popper, to describe what they see as the underlying attitudes and beliefs common to many scientists, whereby the study and methods of natural science have risen to the level of ideology. The classic statement of scientism is from the physicist Ernest Rutherford: "there is physics and there is stamp-collecting." K.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/26/2010 2:05:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EternalHoH quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Your presentation of the atheist argument is solid, but you stray when you try to extend it to the political arena. There are certainly atheist initiatives that have altered society. The banning of the pledge of allegiance in schools, for example, has had farreaching effects on how the US is viewed by different generations. The Courts have been used to enforce a tyranny of the atheist minority. Whoa, whoa, whoa there! Dont confuse your sense of 'athiest tyranny' with the fact that our government is secular by design, and we do not live in a religious country. We may have one particular religion representing a majority of citizens in this country, but unlike politics, that majority doesn't not translate into majority rule. Again, only the fanatics would think so. You don't have to be an atheist to demand de-emphasis of the majority religion in this country. You could be a card carrying member of a minority religion, but work for the religious neutrality our country was designed around to assure the biggest one doesn't run away with the country's legislative agenda. In a country where the biggest religion is on equal footing with the smallest religion, it sure is presumptuous of anyone to think that the pledge of allegiance to a religiously neutral country should refer YOUR God, and nobody else's. Misstatements galore. The OPERATION of the government is precluded from establishing a national religion. That is not the same as being "secular by design". Nothing precludes the citizens from voting in policies that are guided by and consistent with their own personal religious/moral beliefs if they can win the majority for those policies. Majority rule is majority rule (filtered through representatives) REGARDLESS of how that majority happens to coalesce, including via religious/moral beliefs. To put it another way, the Constitution provides freedom from imposition of a particular religion, but does not guarantee freedom from all religious influence on government. Not only do you "not have to be an atheist to demand de-emphasis of the majority religion", NO INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP has the right to de-empahsize majority beliefs again regardless of how that majority coalesces. And the PofA does not refer to any particular god, so there is no presumption being made about who's god it refers to. I am as strong an atheist as I have ever met, but I dont believe that gives me or atheists as a group the right to impose our beliefs on the majority of the country that happens to be theists of one brand or another.

PatrickG38 -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/26/2010 2:07:11 PM)
The idea that scientific explainations of the natural world are superior to others is not an ism; it is the sine qua non of emperical investigation. Its methods are much less sucessful when applied to literature, love or, say, poetry. Nevertheless, there is an overly reductive tendency on the part of some scientifically minded individuals and that should be countered. Nevertheless, I think all sane people should agree that emperical observation and testable theories are far superior for explaining planetary orbits than the bible.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/26/2010 2:09:57 PM)
***

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/26/2010 2:12:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PatrickG38 Its methods are much less sucessful when applied to literature, love or, say, poetry. Nevertheless, there is an overly reductive tendency on the part of some scientifically minded individuals and that should be countered. I guess you would consider me "overly reductive", because I disagree that scientism is less succesful when applied to literature, poetry, and most especially love. (And its "empirical" btw)

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/26/2010 2:16:19 PM)
quote: Nevertheless, I think all sane people should agree that emperical observation and testable theories are far superior for explaining planetary orbits than the bible. Hopefully those same sane people might agree that religious texts have much more to say to us about morality than a bunch of carefully measured facts and figures. Personally, I think a world whose people only care about the stuff they can count would be a sad place.

PatrickG38 -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/26/2010 2:18:37 PM)
I guess assuming I understand you to be asserting that the tools of science are superior for the investigation of literature????

EternalHoH -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/26/2010 2:22:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Nothing precludes the citizens from voting in policies that are guided by and consistent with their own personal religious/moral beliefs if they can win the majority for those policies. Majority rule is majority rule (filtered through representatives) REGARDLESS of how that majority happens to coalesce, including via religious/moral beliefs. I agree with you there, nothing precludes the population from using their religious beliefs to tilt the flavor of legislation through their elected representatives. There is no doubt that some legislation comes through with the stink of one particular religion. But that's what checks and balances are for. The legislative branch is only one branch of three. And when the executive branch (in the form of veto) or the judicial branch thinks there is too much religious stink attached to something, they can change it. Abortion being a prime example. The majority of religious people may think abortion is wrong, and demand their representatives draft legislation to stop it based on their religious views. But it is not upheld by one or two of the other branches. Classic checks and balances assure we don't run away and become Jesustan. Sadly, when those checks and balances engage, Mr Sore Loser often mis-characterizes that in a very frenzied way as "legislating from the bench". At the end of the day, majority belief is not necessarily majority rule. Addendum to say that the first "check & balance" should be at the representative level. The job of the elected representative should not merely involve accepting what the people in his district want without filtering it first. Its fine to understand their concerns, weight it against their religious beliefs, weigh it against the representative's own religious beliefs, and then make a decision of what would be in the best interest of all involved, while still maintaining his responsibilities to the nation. Sadly, way too many elected representatives do not filter. Most are afraid that thinking for themselves will come back to bite them in their ass at election time, which really means they aren't right for the job in the first place. This is how we come to create legislation with stink on it. Clearly, filtering at the representative level is the least reliable check and balance there is, but some elected representatives actually do it right. Way too many people think their elected representative is there only to do precisely what they want to see done, like they are supposed to be robots or something. Sort of a garbage-in, garbage-out process. They don't accept that an elected representative is obligated to take garbage in, and change it, filter it, and send out something less garbage oriented. But that's a whole other issue for a whole other thread.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125