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

tweakabelle -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/6/2010 6:34:09 AM)
I would have thought that the reason why rational people are concerned about the influence of religion on everyday life was pretty obvious in the country that suffered 9/11. 9/11 was carried out by a group of self appointed religious loonies who happened to be Muslim. A glance at history will tell you similar acts have been carried out by similar groups in all the main religions. So often and with such regularity that a case could be made that such crimes against humanity are a feature of religions universally. And it is merely sloppy to put the Religious Right and the New Atheists (or any freethinkers) on equal footing. There are no atheist versions of 9/11, no atheists enforcing their views on non-believers, no atheist suicide bombers. Atheists don't deny condoms or contraception or abortion to women or to prevent disease. Atheists don't systematically abuse young children and then protect the abusers a la Catholic Church (and other Churches too) It is not a principle of atheism or freethinking that those who express diverse sexualities or genders are persecuted/exterminated, that women are lesser human beings or that the "Truth" is contained in some romantic two thousand year old translated text. It is perfectly appropriate that people who insist that the world lives according to the dictates of their delusions have those delusions challenged, that the influence of those delusions on everyday life and particularly the lives of non-believers is questioned, challenged and resisted. Especially when, according to the people who carry out such acts, those beliefs mandate/justify their crimes against humanity. Quite reasonably, we resist the influence of Marxists and Nazis for this reason. Why should 'believers' be beyond questioning or criticism, no matter how absurd their claims, no matter how bloodthirsty their behaviour, history and actions? If religion was a private matter carried on by consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes then I, as an agnostic, would have no issue with it. Nor, I suspect, would almost all freethinkers. But please don't for a moment place me on the same footing as those who choose to lives their lives subject to a relationship with an imaginary friend and then enforce that relationship on the rest of the world murderously. For me the kind of absolutist thinking that permeates all religions, that licenses the 9/11s of history ("My God is Right and everyone else is false/wrong") is the very anathema of freethinking and tolerance.

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/6/2010 6:45:06 AM)
But atheism has become a pseudo-religion for many people, tweakabelle. They have their own rituals and priesthood, their own bigoted belief that they, and they alone are the 'chosen ones' who have been given access to some sort of truth about the world. I absolutely agree with you that extremist religion-heads need to be avoided. But atheism has more than its fair share of idiocy as well. Here's a thought. How many people do you think the soviets killed under Stalin? What was the religion of the Stalinist state? What about Pol Pot? How many did his regime kill, and what was the religion of the Khmer Rouge? Some atheists are serious fucking nut-jobs - there's no escaping it.

FullCircle -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/6/2010 6:50:25 AM)
A common argument but don't you think there is a slight difference between atheists that kill and religious people that kill in god's name? I doubt Stalin ever said to himself "Humm my inexistent god thinks I should kill people to not get a place in a paradise that doesn't exist." He and Pot killed for the realisation of other social dreams. The tragedy of religion is that it make people believe life is a practice run or test.

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/6/2010 7:02:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle A common argument but don't you think there is a slight difference between atheists that kill and religious people that kill in god's name? I doubt Stalin ever said to himself "Humm my inexistent god thinks I should kill people to not get a place in a paradise that doesn't exist." He and Pot killed for the realisation of other social dreams. The argument being put forward is that we need to be wary of religious extremists because history tells us they can do us some serious damage. I agree with this thesis - they surely can. But history also tells us that extremists of the atheist variety can also do us a whole lot of damage. The reasons these nut-jobs give for their crimes are many and various, but the point is, just because the person across the table from you is an atheist, doesn't make you safe. All zealots are dangerous. 9/11 was mentioned specifically. The truth of the matter is that Al Qaida say their 9/11 hijackers were sent to attack the US because of its political interference in the Middle East. This was not, primarily, a religiously predicated attack. But, the fact that Al Qaida takes an extremist view of Islam is nonetheless, important. In the same way, Stalin destroyed millions of people for reasons which were about protecting his power. His genocides were not, primarily, about his atheism. But the fact that he was an atheist is nonetheless, important. Both cases look pretty similar from where I stand. Although clearly, Stalin won when you look at the numbers of bodies.

thishereboi -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/6/2010 7:05:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I would have thought that the reason why rational people are concerned about the influence of religion on everyday life was pretty obvious in the country that suffered 9/11. 9/11 was carried out by a group of self appointed religious loonies who happened to be Muslim. Well this group http://www.atheists.org/about has been around Since 1963, AMERICAN ATHEISTS has been the premier organization laboring for the civil liberties of Atheists. So I am guessing it had nothing to do with 9/11 unless of course atheists are also physics. A glance at history will tell you similar acts have been carried out by similar groups in all the main religions. So often and with such regularity that a case could be made that such crimes against humanity are a feature of religions universally. Only if you are the type who blames a whole group on the actions of some of the others. And it is merely sloppy to put the Religious Right and the New Atheists (or any freethinkers) on equal footing. Well it totally ignores all the religious ones on the left, that's for sure. And New Atheists? Is that like neo con? There are no atheist versions of 9/11, no atheists enforcing their views on non-believers, no atheist suicide bombers. Atheists don't deny condoms or contraception or abortion to women or to prevent disease. Atheists don't systematically abuse young children and then protect the abusers a la Catholic Church (and other Churches too) Does this mean you are ok with the abuse as long as they don't do it through a catholic church? Do you honestly believe that there has never been an atheist who abused a child? Several years ago, in Detroit we had some police who were sexually abusing young girls in the Explorer program. Does this mean we should do away with police also? It is not a principle of atheism or freethinking that those who express diverse sexualities or genders are persecuted/exterminated, that women are lesser human beings or that the "Truth" is contained in some romantic two thousand year old translated text. I have been in a lot of churches, but I never visited one who believed that someone who expressed diverse sexualities or genders should be persecuted or exterminated. Most have used the bible as a basis of their beliefs, but it you have a problem with the book, feel free to not read it. I am sure no one will care either way. It is perfectly appropriate that people who insist that the world lives according to the dictates of their delusions have those delusions challenged, that the influence of those delusions on everyday life and particularly the lives of non-believers is questioned, challenged and resisted. Yea, that is the impression I got when I cruised through the atheist sites I found. So maybe you can answer this...Why are atheists so worried about what everyone else believes. Do they really have to make others look stupid in order to feel better about themselves? Especially when, according to the people who carry out such acts, those beliefs mandate/justify their crimes against humanity. Quite reasonably, we resist the influence of Marxists and Nazis for this reason. Why should 'believers' be beyond questioning or criticism, no matter how absurd their claims, no matter how bloodthirsty their behaviour, history and actions? If religion was a private matter carried on by consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes then I, as an agnostic, would have no issue with it. Nor, I suspect, would almost all freethinkers. That's right, if they don't agree with you, make them hide in the closet. Then you won't have to have their lifestyle pushed into your face. (yes, I know that is usually what the homophobes say about gays, but I thought it really fit in well here also) But please don't for a moment place me on the same footing as those who choose to lives their lives subject to a relationship with an imaginary friend and then enforce that relationship on the rest of the world murderously. For me the kind of absolutist thinking that permeates all religions, that licenses the 9/11s of history ("My God is Right and everyone else is false/wrong") is the very anathema of freethinking and tolerance. Don't worry sunshine, I don't think anyone will mistake you for anything but what you are.

FullCircle -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/6/2010 7:14:03 AM)
The beliefs of the pawns on the planes are what count not the puppet masters living in caves. The reality is religious zealots are fundamentally different from atheist zealots in terms of how they justify their actions. Yes both exist but whilst most can easily argue and demonstrate that atheist zealots are mad such demonstrability of insanity with religious zealots is often more subtle. So they more easily inspire others through convenient mysticism that can't be definitively argued against. Therefore my view is that religious zealots are inherently more dangerous due to the gullibility of the average person willing to suspend their disbelief.

DomKen -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/6/2010 8:51:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hertz quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: hertz Science has a long and undignified history of being utterly wrong about everything. You can't say that for Religion. You can't? You're saying the universe was made in 7 literal days, pi = 3, showing sheep differently painted sticks can effect their offsprings coat patterns or all the rest of the absolutely positively wrong stuff religions have said over the centuries. What can be said is science improves its answers over time and religion is simply always wrong on all counts. Religion doesn't say the universe was made in three literal days. Some of the people who believe in it do. Religion does not say pi = 3, unless my reading of the Qu'ran is very flawed. I'm not sure about the sticks thing - can you suggest which verses in the bible I should be looking for? I've a funny feeling the sticks thing might be an example of science getting it wrong. Someone looked at the evidence, came up with a hypothesis, and guess what? That's right! Wrong! What can be said about science is that it is very good at doing science. 'Science improves its answers over time' is pretty much exactly what I said - 'Science has a long and undignified history of being wrong about everything'. PS Did I say I am an atheist? I'll just say it again - I am an atheist. Actually a religion does say everything I said. Other religions say equally wrong crap. as to the sheep and sticks thing, Genesis 30:37 to 41.

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/6/2010 9:36:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dom Ken as to the sheep and sticks thing, Genesis 30:37 to 41. Sure looks like early science to me. Or it might be a miracle? What do you think?

tweakabelle -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/6/2010 9:48:15 AM)
A delightful series of evasions and obfuscations thishereboi congratulations! :) Just one example out of many: I pointed out that atheism doesn't involve the persecution/extermination of those who express themselves differently in terms of sexuality and/or gender. Your response was: quote: I have been in a lot of churches, but I never visited one who believed that someone who expressed diverse sexualities or genders should be persecuted or exterminated. Most have used the bible as a basis of their beliefs, but it you have a problem with the book, feel free to not read it. I am sure no one will care either way. Am i to understand that you are denying that Religions have not been responsible for the abuse, discrimination, hatred of gays lesbians and other people who have non-normative sexualities or genders? Everyday i hear people "of the cloth' railing against the sins of 'deviant' sexualities. They quote the Bible/Koran/Torah to support their hatred. They resolutely oppose every legislative and social advance minority sexual groups have made since the year dot and continue to do so. As I write this the radio tells me the Pope has condemned the Spanish Govt for having the temerity to legislate for gay marriage, divorce and abortion! It amazes me that i have to point out something this obvious on this website. Your suggested solution is "feel free not to read [the Bible/koran/torah]" Is that going to stop them persecuting me? If only it would - i would devoutly not read the bible/koran/torah all day every day. But we both know that won't stop them for a second. I will leave them to their fantasies when they offer me the same privilege. I would be only too happy to leave them to their fantasies forever - if only they would offer me the same. But we both know that's not going to happen is it? Agnostics and atheists all share one thing - we decline to believe in the existence of imaginary friends. That is it. It is not an ideology - it is a convergence of perspectives on a single issue. Beyond that single point of agreement you will find that freethinkers share the diversity of views beliefs politics behaviours merits and flaws that characterise humans generally. I accept the right of religions to exist and for their adherents to practice their beliefs, ie i believe in freedom of religion. Equally i believe in freedom from religion for those who decline to share in the delusions. For as long as religions oppose my right to live my life as i choose, for as long as they actively oppose and incite hate and violence against my perfectly legal and legitimate life choices, i will resist and contest their hate, and continue to point out their delusions hypocrisies and shortcomings. When religions finally accept that it's live, love and let live, they will become irrelevant to my life and i wont have anything further to say to them or about them. I cannot convey how much i look forward to that day happening.

tweakabelle -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/6/2010 10:22:29 AM)
I do agree that people like Dawkins over state the case for both atheism and science. But that doesn't in any way diminish the case for atheism or science does it? Some individuals will always take any given idea or ideology to extremes. On an individual basis, imho, it has more to do with them as individuals than anything else. Dawkins, again imho, could properly be described as a 'scientific fundamentalist', who incidentally breaks some of science's more basic rules with promiscuous regularity. The only thing that unites all atheists and agnostics is we decline to believe in the existence of deities. We can, and do disagree or are free to disagree on any other question. There are no atheist priests, no institutions, no set of beliefs, no universally agreed texts. Atheism and agnosticism have no relevance or impact beyond this single issue. It is no more an ideology or pseudo-religion that a rejection of the belief in the Flat Earth theory is an ideology or pseudo-religion. When people persistently, consistently, over millenia and across cultures, use a phenomenon like religion as the justification for mass murders and crimes against humanity, then we are entitled to point out that a pattern exists and ask if the pattern is related to the nature of the belief. I would suggest that the absolutist nature of religion - its claim to be the absolute Truth and that all other views are false/wrong - provides a basis for such consistent atrocities. And to ask if we will ever see the day when religion ceases to be associated with butchery? And if the answer is in the negative, then surely we are entitled to question the value and contribution of organised religion.

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/6/2010 10:51:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I do agree that people like Dawkins over state the case for both atheism and science. But that doesn't in any way diminish the case for atheism or science does it? Some individuals will always take any given idea or ideology to extremes. On an individual basis, imho, it has more to do with them as individuals than anything else. Dawkins, again imho, could properly be described as a 'scientific fundamentalist', who incidentally breaks some of science's more basic rules with promiscuous regularity. I absolutely agree. This being the case, though, why does the reverse not apply? Why do fundamentalist/terroristic religious beliefs, which often break the rules of their own religious root, have to undermine a more moderate view of spirituality? quote: The only thing that unites all atheists and agnostics is we decline to believe in the existence of deities. We can, and do disagree or are free to disagree on any other question. There are no atheist priests, no institutions, no set of beliefs, no universally agreed texts. Atheism and agnosticism have no relevance or impact beyond this single issue. It is no more an ideology or pseudo-religion that a rejection of the belief in the Flat Earth theory is an ideology or pseudo-religion. quote: When people persistently, consistently, over millenia and across cultures, use a phenomenon like religion as the justification for mass murders and crimes against humanity, then we are entitled to point out that a pattern exists and ask if the pattern is related to the nature of the belief. I would suggest that the absolutist nature of religion - its claim to be the absolute Truth and that all other views are false/wrong - provides a basis for such consistent atrocities. And to ask if we will ever see the day when religion ceases to be associated with butchery? And if the answer is in the negative, then surely we are entitled to question the value and contribution of organised religion. I'm reminded here of the claims of the gun lobby in the US. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Religion is a tool, every bit as powerful as a handgun, in the wrong hands. In the right hands, it offers security and safety in an uncertain world. All established belief systems are guilty of justifying mass murder. Even our own beloved democratic ideal is stained in blood. Religion has done much good in the world, although it is true that it has also been employed as a force for ill.

thishereboi -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/6/2010 2:56:28 PM)
quote: Am i to understand that you are denying that Religions have not been responsible for the abuse, discrimination, hatred of gays lesbians and other people who have non-normative sexualities or genders? That's right, but I don't deny that people use religion to achieve those ends. See the difference?

DomKen -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/6/2010 3:33:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hertz quote: ORIGINAL: Dom Ken as to the sheep and sticks thing, Genesis 30:37 to 41. Sure looks like early science to me. Or it might be a miracle? What do you think? I take it as written that showing sticks of different patterns to sheep will somehow influence their offspring's appearance. That is simply wrong.

DomKen -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/6/2010 3:48:04 PM)
oops double post

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/6/2010 4:09:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: hertz quote: ORIGINAL: Dom Ken as to the sheep and sticks thing, Genesis 30:37 to 41. Sure looks like early science to me. Or it might be a miracle? What do you think? I take it as written that showing sticks of different patterns to sheep will somehow influence their offspring's appearance. That is simply wrong. Putting aside for one moment the likelihood that this story is rather more than a literal account of Jacob playing with his animals (there's plenty of symbology there), I would suggest that despite being in the Bible, presented as a Bible story, it looks to me very much like an account of a science experiment. My reading of this is that Jacob believed that the sheep, when presented with white striped rods of wood where they were drinking and mating would bear young which would be white striped as a result of the influence of the white striped rods. But it appears that Jacob's thesis was proven wrong when he experimented to prove his theory, and the sheep came out in all sorts of patterns. Is that what you are seeing? Whatever, it doesn't support your suggestion that religion says that coloured sticks can influence the colours of sheep. What you have spotted is that the Bible says something about Jacob, Sheep and Rods which may or may not be wrong depending on what the hell is is actually saying. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who says this today. You would be more accurately stating the position if you said that the Bible says this. But that is not the same as saying Religion says it, although once, I guess it would have been thought of as true.

lickenforyou -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/6/2010 4:11:00 PM)
Whether atheist or religious people are more violent is immaterial to the fact that there is not one shred of credible evidence that the supernatural, in any form, exists.

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/6/2010 4:24:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lickenforyou Whether atheist or religious people are more violent is immaterial to the fact that there is not one shred of credible evidence that the supernatural, in any form, exists. There isn't a shred of evidence that you exist either outside of science. And even within the limited confines of science, the evidence that you exist can be challenged quite enough to create serious doubt. Atheists are very fond of challenging religious folk to prove that God exists, and yet, when asked to prove their own existence, they fail miserably. Go on, do it - I dare you. Prove you exist.

FullCircle -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/6/2010 4:25:26 PM)
Whether or not the supernatural exists is immaterial to the fact that when Jupiter aligns with mars peace will guide the planets and love will steer the stars.

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/6/2010 4:28:49 PM)
My favourite song ever...

DomKen -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/6/2010 5:08:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hertz quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: hertz quote: ORIGINAL: Dom Ken as to the sheep and sticks thing, Genesis 30:37 to 41. Sure looks like early science to me. Or it might be a miracle? What do you think? I take it as written that showing sticks of different patterns to sheep will somehow influence their offspring's appearance. That is simply wrong. Putting aside for one moment the likelihood that this story is rather more than a literal account of Jacob playing with his animals (there's plenty of symbology there), I would suggest that despite being in the Bible, presented as a Bible story, it looks to me very much like an account of a science experiment. My reading of this is that Jacob believed that the sheep, when presented with white striped rods of wood where they were drinking and mating would bear young which would be white striped as a result of the influence of the white striped rods. But it appears that Jacob's thesis was proven wrong when he experimented to prove his theory, and the sheep came out in all sorts of patterns. Is that what you are seeing? Whatever, it doesn't support your suggestion that religion says that coloured sticks can influence the colours of sheep. What you have spotted is that the Bible says something about Jacob, Sheep and Rods which may or may not be wrong depending on what the hell is is actually saying. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who says this today. You would be more accurately stating the position if you said that the Bible says this. But that is not the same as saying Religion says it, although once, I guess it would have been thought of as true. Actually if you read the story more carefully, the bible claims the technique works. I invite you to repeat the "experiment" and see if you get the results reported for Jacob. IOW this religious claim is wrong.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875