RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (Full Version)

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



Message

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/19/2011 9:44:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

No. You carefully tap-dance around the issue without committing to a position, apparently preferring instead to take potshots at those who are either passive Atheists, or are opposed to Deism as a destructive ideology.


So, what should we do with this "destructive ideology"?

Personally, I think Deism should be accorded the same status as racism, or sexism, or anti-gay hysteria.



juliaoceania -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/19/2011 9:45:53 PM)

quote:

Personally, I think Deism should be accorded the same status as racism, or sexism, or anti-gay hysteria.


Let me just ask this directly, should it be outlawed? Should it be stopped?



Hippiekinkster -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/19/2011 9:51:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

Personally, I think Deism should be accorded the same status as racism, or sexism, or anti-gay hysteria.


Let me just ask this directly, should it be outlawed? Should it be stopped?
How does one outlaw belief? Whether it be belief in the superiority of one particular "race" (no such thing as race, btw), or in the superiority of one sex over another, or the belief in an invisible supernatural being?

I think the path to rationality starts with education.



juliaoceania -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/19/2011 9:53:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster


quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

Personally, I think Deism should be accorded the same status as racism, or sexism, or anti-gay hysteria.


Let me just ask this directly, should it be outlawed? Should it be stopped?
How does one outlaw belief? Whether it be belief in the superiority of one particular "race" (no such thing as race, btw), or in the superiority of one sex over another, or the belief in an invisible supernatural being?

I think the path to rationality starts with education.



So we get at it, you would win people to your belief system because you believe another is destructive, gotcha[;)]



Kirata -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/19/2011 10:07:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

No. You carefully tap-dance around the issue without committing to a position, apparently preferring instead to take potshots at those who are either passive Atheists, or are opposed to Deism as a destructive ideology.

My goodness, you do have a droll sense of humor. Do you really think I'm going to take a position on something I can't possibly know? That's your department. And even more amusing, is your complaint that branding imbecilic claims as imbecilic constitutes taking pot-shots at Atheists. I can't say that I follow your line of reasoning there, but whatever it is the Atheists that I know would certainly have a quibble with it.

K.



tazzygirl -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/19/2011 10:10:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster


quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

No. You carefully tap-dance around the issue without committing to a position, apparently preferring instead to take potshots at those who are either passive Atheists, or are opposed to Deism as a destructive ideology.


So, what should we do with this "destructive ideology"?

Personally, I think Deism should be accorded the same status as racism, or sexism, or anti-gay hysteria.


And yet deists are being attacked... interesting.



rawtape -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/19/2011 10:16:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Science doesn`t start with faith.

Science is based on the unprovable assumption that the cosmos is ordered rationally according to universal, discoverable laws.  So you could say that science does start with faith.

I think it's important to note two closely related points.

First, we are talking about science, not mathematics. One doesn't really "prove" assumptions in science.

Second, most of us practicing scientists are philosophically Popperians. In other words, for a statement to be considered "scientific", it has to falsifiable, not provable, i.e. it should be theoretically possible to design experiments to show that a statement, hypothesis, or theory in science is wrong, if it is truly false (Note that the god thesis is not falsifiable either, and thus most of us consider it outside the purview of science). Let me reiterate: most of us scientists believe that one cannot prove any statement in science, one can merely gather data supporting it, or find a result that disproves it. Thus, all statements, hypotheses, theories, and laws in science are by both definition and their very nature provisional. Nothing is set in stone.

Now, why is this relevant? It is because eihwaz's assertion is partly correct. "Science is" indeed "based on the unprovable assumption that the cosmos is ordered rationally according to universal, discoverable laws." But that's neither here nor there. What matters to scientists is not whether the statement is provable; no statements in science are. It is whether the statement is falsifiable. And that it certainly is (unlike the god thesis): it is tested every day, in myriads of labs, with thousands of experiments. So far, we haven't found the statement that the cosmos is ordered rationally according to universal, discoverable laws to be false. Our experiments haven't suddenly stopped making sense, which they would, if the statement was false. If, however, all our experiments did stop making sense say tomorrow, then yes, being good little Popperians, we would just shake our heads and say, well science did give us a good run, but now we know it's wrong -- and head back to the drawing-board.

Now, I might be mistaken, but it appears to me that eihwaz's goal in his/her post was to equate the basis of science with that of religion -- on blind faith. Unfortunately, as I have tried to show here, even the core statement that eihwaz suggests science begins with remains one that most scientists consider provisional, one that is tested for being false every day. The same cannot be said for the god thesis -- if it was indeed false, could you design an experiment to show it?

I present these arguments not because I think theists or atheists are in any way "better" than the other, but because it appears to me that some of the rhetoric being tossed around here might leave people with an erroneous notion of how scientists and philosophers of science think about science.



Kirata -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/19/2011 10:32:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rawtape

I present these arguments not because I think theists or atheists are in any way "better" than the other, but because it appears to me that some of the rhetoric being tossed around here might leave people with an erroneous notion of how scientists and philosophers of science think about science.

In my opinion, the issue isn't really between religion and science at all. That whole notion is a red-herring, introduced and religiously maintained by a cadre of committed Materialists seeking to propagate their faith at the expense of both science and religion.

K.



Hippiekinkster -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/19/2011 10:37:19 PM)

----> Julia: once again, Tell me, what is "somthing bigger than one's self"?

----> Tazzy: Point out where I attacked deists.




Hippiekinkster -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/19/2011 10:46:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: rawtape

I present these arguments not because I think theists or atheists are in any way "better" than the other, but because it appears to me that some of the rhetoric being tossed around here might leave people with an erroneous notion of how scientists and philosophers of science think about science.

In my opinion, the issue isn't really between religion and science at all. That whole notion is a red-herring, introduced and religiously maintained by a cadre of committed Materialists seeking to propagate their faith at the expense of both science and religion.

K.
Once again you come down (but oh-so-subtly) on the side of faith, even as you protest in a previous post that " I have never even claimed that there is one (a god), let alone tried to convince anyone else of such a thing."

You indicate implicitly that stance when you call those who seek to further their understanding of the universe by means of logic, and the scientific method, a "cadre of committed Materialists seeking to propagate their faith..."

In this instance, you very much remind me of Richard Gere in "Chicago".






Kirata -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/19/2011 11:04:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

you call those who seek to further their understanding of the universe by means of logic, and the scientific method, a "cadre of committed Materialists seeking to propagate their faith..."

It is always gratifying when someone is kind enough to so promptly step forward and prove my point, in the present case by baldly equating science with Materialism... which is precisely what I did not do.

Thank you.

K.



Hippiekinkster -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/19/2011 11:29:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

you call those who seek to further their understanding of the universe by means of logic, and the scientific method, a "cadre of committed Materialists seeking to propagate their faith..."

It is always gratifying when someone is kind enough to so promptly step forward and confirm what I've said, in the present case by baldly equating science with Materialism.

Thank you.

K.
I prefer the term "Physicalism". I regard Materialism as antiquated in the same way that "Narcotic" is used by some to refer to all illegal drugs, and by others to refer to Opioid Analgesics.

Science is the method by which Physicalism is confirmed. The two are hardly unrelated. While they are not directly equivalent, since one is a methodology and the other is a statement about the nature of the universe, they are more closely related than religion and science, which you seem to be equating in your statement.

Now, all that remains is for you to stop tap-dancing, and come clean about your preference for faith over rationalism.

My position is obvious, even if the nuances are still explicitly unstated.



Kirata -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/19/2011 11:30:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

I prefer the term "Physicalism".

Different shovel, same hole.

To many philosophers, not only is 'physicalism' synonymous with 'materialism', but they use both words to describe a position that supports ideas from physics which may not be matter in the traditional sense...

Physicalism is also called "materialism", but the term "physicalism" is preferable because it has evolved with the physical sciences to incorporate far more sophisticated notions of physicality than matter...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

Science is the method by which Physicalism is confirmed

Yeah right. You are just using science as a prostitute for your faith. Which makes my point again, thank you.

K.



tazzygirl -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/19/2011 11:37:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

----> Julia: once again, Tell me, what is "somthing bigger than one's self"?

----> Tazzy: Point out where I attacked deists.




Did I say you attacked deists? I said they were being attacked... and they are from their own perspective. And before you start saying how their own perspective is skewed, consider that in relation to how blacks were treated and how some whites felt the treatment was perfectly reasonable.



Hippiekinkster -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/19/2011 11:55:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

----> Julia: once again, Tell me, what is "somthing bigger than one's self"?

----> Tazzy: Point out where I attacked deists.




Did I say you attacked deists? I said they were being attacked... and they are from their own perspective. And before you start saying how their own perspective is skewed, consider that in relation to how blacks were treated and how some whites felt the treatment was perfectly reasonable.
You are right. You did say that. Mea Culpa.

Theism (because I used a term which has a different meaning; that is my fault) is the predominant religious belief in the US, and most Americans identify as Theists of the Christian persuasion. To equate the wholesale discrimination against blacks, by law in the South prior to 1964, with a few atheists being vocal about their antitheism is, oh, what's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah, ludicrous.



tazzygirl -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/20/2011 12:08:53 AM)

quote:

Theism (because I used a term which has a different meaning; that is my fault) is the predominant religious belief in the US, and most Americans identify as Theists of the Christian persuasion. To equate the wholesale discrimination against blacks, by law in the South prior to 1964, with a few atheists being vocal about their antitheism is, oh, what's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah, ludicrous.


How so? Was the south not predominantly black when slavery started?

From the 1820s through the 1850s, more than one million enslaved African Americans were transported to the Deep South

The United States Census of 1840 was the sixth census of the United States. Conducted by the Bureau of the Census on June 1, 1840, it determined the resident population of the United States to be 17,069,453 — an increase of 32.7 percent over the 12,866,020 persons enumerated during the 1830 Census. The total population included 2,487,355 slaves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1840_United_States_Census

To understand the thought process behind that census, you may want to browse the following.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080328222623/http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/458/27/

But, I am not here to make this a racial debate. Saying the comparison is ludicrous is a slippery slope.



Hippiekinkster -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/20/2011 12:21:53 AM)

What do census numbers from the 1800s have to do with Theists feeling attacked? This is bizarre.



tazzygirl -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/20/2011 12:36:34 AM)

How is it bizarre?

Let me break it down for you. The south was predominatly black. I gave you the census numbers. But, to make it clear...

I think its safe to agree that the following were southern states that held the most slaves..

North Carolina ----Slaves - 100,572
South Carolina --- Slaves - 107,094
Georgia ----------- Slaves - 29,264
Virginia ------------Slaves - 292,627

Compare that to the White males at the time over 16 in the same areas.

North Carolina ---- 69,988
South Carolina --- 35,576
Georgia ----------- 13,103
Virginia ----------- 110,936

The point in relating the two is that a much smaller group, then the white owners, now the atheists, are making decisions for a much larger group, then the slaves, now religion. Is the discrimination on the same level? Hardly. But tthe correlation I am making still exists.

You can hope that one day, your beliefs will reign supreme. But how is that any different? Telling someone what they can or cannot believe in is very much like telling a slave they can never be free.



Hippiekinkster -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/20/2011 12:48:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

How is it bizarre?
>snip<

The point in relating the two is that a much smaller group, then the white owners, now the atheists, are making decisions for a much larger group, then the slaves, now religion.
Except Atheists aren't making decisions for anybody.

quote:

Is the discrimination on the same level? Hardly. But tthe correlation I am making still exists.
Yeah, and once upon a time, the DJIA performance once correlated with whether the AFC or NFC won the Superbowl. Bizarre.

quote:

You can hope that one day, your beliefs will reign supreme. But how is that any different? Telling someone what they can or cannot believe in is very much like telling a slave they can never be free.

Except I don't know any Atheists trying to make Theism illegal. Perhaps there is one out there, but there are also quite a few Theists who want to deport or imprison people who don't share their views.

I've watched "Jesus Camp". I've never heard of the equivalent "Atheist Camp".







tazzygirl -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/20/2011 1:03:23 AM)

Didnt you say ...

quote:

Personally, I think Deism should be accorded the same status as racism, or sexism, or anti-gay hysteria.


Only thats not a personal desire, but a desire by most atheists, true?

An atheist sneezes, someone says "god bless you" and they are ready to rip into the person for saying something that has been around since the plague. And lets not forget about the Merry Christmas issue. Saying that to some is tantamount to a face punch.

Whether you know it or not, or just wish to try and kid others that you dont knowm atheists are very much changing how people interact in this country. Someone sneezes on the bus, no one says a word. No one knows what to say without getting their heads ripped off for the kind gesture.

I dont blame all atheists, I do blame the militant ones. Something you tend to come across as, Hippie. To say that someone who believes in god, or gods, should be viewed as someone who is racist, is extremely wrong.

Let those who believe, believe. Let those who dont, dont.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875