|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 04/17/2006 : 10:20:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo:
People of all kinds, and I'm not excluding myself, are misinformed and deluded about all kinds of things.
True.
quote:
Gorgo:
I don't see too many fundamentalists that are very involved in politics at all.
You should be kidding here, but I guess your not.
quote:
Gorgo:
I would suspect that many of them have very different ideas about a lot of things.
Meaningless…
quote:
Gorgo:
Not all evangelists are right-wing.
Your right. Some are not extremists. And some evangelists are atheists and skeptics.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2006 : 10:25:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't see too many fundamentalists that are very involved in politics at all.
Actually, they are extremely involved, since they want to re-shape government into a theocracy. Being a fundamentalists almost requires it. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 04/17/2006 10:26:12 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2006 : 10:29:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The "War on Easter" group, though, was actively waging a war on a Christian holiday, giving those news whores and AM radio pundits real life examples of what was, originally, a non-issue. I found the Religious Right's claims of persecution as funny as anyone else when there was no real organized attack on them.
Now, there is. So instead of being able to answer the fundamentalists by saying "what attack?" now these folks have given O'Reilly and company precisely what they wanted. As the Green Knight said on this issue, "Yay team."
I dunno, Dave. The original claim about the "war" on Christmas was that somehow schools, towns, and corporations were bowing to secularist pressure to remove the Christian holidy from the public sphere and replace it with a neutral, non-religious "happy holidays" celebration. However, as Media Matters has shown, the Right Wing claim about this is laughable.
The "war on Easter" thing, from what I can tell, seems quite different. At its core is the argument that Jesus was never a real person. The War on Easter people appear to be going around churches leaving a DVD promoting said argument for happless church-goers to find and, presumably, watch.
There is no attempt, as near as I can tell, to, for example, convince Target to stop selling Easter chocolate (witness this search), or communities to stop putting on Easter egg hunts, or any such. Indeed, some Christian groups seem more loathe to use the term than secularly-minded individuals.
And none of this changes the fact that several good Christians wished me a happy holiday this weekend, doubtless not knowing that they're helping to marginalize their own religion! Ah, the irony! MMhwawawaaa!
 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2006 : 10:40:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Actually, they are extremely involved, since they want to re-shape government into a theocracy. Being a fundamentalists almost requires it.
Don't see much evidence of that. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2006 : 11:57:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Actually, they are extremely involved, since they want to re-shape government into a theocracy. Being a fundamentalists almost requires it.
The extreme right-wing fundamentalist is a minority, and they don't vote in especially greater numbers than anyone else. They have been mobilized in somewhat greater numbers of course, but if everyone else saw voting as something positive to do, they would be seen as the fringe group that they are. The problem isn't the fundamentalists, the problem is that government is not "of by and for the people." |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2006 : 12:16:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Marfknox
dglas wrote:
quote:(1)The targeting of children with materials intended to influence their thinking - most especially if it contradicts the will of their parents; and
(2) The degree of literalism (for want of a better term) of the religious person is the measure of whether public (specifically skeptical) criticism is warranted against their viewpoint.
The first point is correct, but it isn't the one I've been focusing on. Half and Kil more concentrated on that.
As for the second, I don't agree at all. To use the example of Rev. William Sloan Coffin again – he literally believed in God and Jesus as the savior of mankind. But his literal beliefs in those things were different from those of fundamentalists because Coffin never allowed his literal beliefs to conflict with what is evident in the natural world. Fundamentalists do that, and they should be criticized for it because they are having, as Gorgo put it, “a war on reality” and they are trying to push their views on the whole of society.
Okay. So it's not the degree of literal interpretation, it's the degree of activism which also contradicts the evidence of the natural world. Is that more akin to the point then?
Hmmm. Quoting system is not the same here as it is in other places.
Edit: Thanks to Ricky for clearing up the method for me. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
| Edited by - dglas on 04/17/2006 13:20:42 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2006 : 12:58:38 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo said:
quote:
if everyone else saw voting as something positive to do, they would be seen as the fringe group that they are
which is why they are more involved. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2006 : 13:07:12 [Permalink]
|
| They are slightly more mobilized than other groups, that is what I said. But there are not that many involved very much in all aspects of politics. There aren't that many of them. They're a fluke as Bush knew how to play certain groups, yes, but they're only a factor at all because so many other people are not involved. So many other people are not involved because they see voting as useless. They see it as useless, because it largely is useless. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2006 : 17:13:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I dunno, Dave. The original claim about the "war" on Christmas was that somehow schools, towns, and corporations were bowing to secularist pressure to remove the Christian holidy from the public sphere and replace it with a neutral, non-religious "happy holidays" celebration. However, as Media Matters has shown, the Right Wing claim about this is laughable.
It was laughable, back when the punditocracy was framing the "War on Christmas" as just the first battle in a secular war on religion which would see good Christians forbidden from even so much as silently praying on a public street. But it was laughable because the "War on Christmas" didn't exist, much less the evil atheist conspiracy allegedly organizing the whole thing.quote:
The "war on Easter" thing, from what I can tell, seems quite different. At its core is the argument that Jesus was never a real person. The War on Easter people appear to be going around churches leaving a DVD promoting said argument for happless church-goers to find and, presumably, watch.
There is no attempt, as near as I can tell, to, for example, convince Target to stop selling Easter chocolate (witness this search), or communities to stop putting on Easter egg hunts, or any such. Indeed, some Christian groups seem more loathe to use the term than secularly-minded individuals.
Come on, Cune: the "War on Easter" thing seems, by the words of its advocates and participants, to be aimed at bringing about a secular "revolution," demolishing religion one child at a time. The fact that they're going about it a different way than O'Reilly (et al) would have had us believe the atheists were going after Christmas is inconsequential when their spin machine is so good. This whole campaign, whatever minimal impact it has historically, will be used as ammunition by the very folks these atheists call "enemies."quote:
And none of this changes the fact that several good Christians wished me a happy holiday this weekend, doubtless not knowing that they're helping to marginalize their own religion! Ah, the irony! MMhwawawaaa!
Yeah, it was funny - and still is to some extent - but after the O'Reillys of the world get ramped up in response to the "War on Easter," I bet you'll hear a lot fewer "happy holidays" next year. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2006 : 18:08:26 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo wrote: quote:
Fundamentalists are not any more likely to have irrational ideas that affect politics than anyone else.
Fundamentalism itself is a collection of rigid and extremely irrational ideas, and so fundamentalists are, by definition, more prone than average to - at least the more extreme type of - irrational ideas.
You have no adaquately answered Kil's post that included the clip about the deist at the conference. The point is that there is a difference between the level of irrationality of religious belief that doesn't contradict with the natural world, and that of religious belief that does contradict with the natural world. You are acting like they are all the same.
It is clear that beliefs which conflict with the natural world are dangerous. They have led to discrimination against women, racial minorities, gay, and peoples of other ethnicities. They have also led to pseudo-scientific practices that are often damaging to people.
But religious beliefs that do not contradict with the natural world are not dangerous at all. If you think they are, please explain and give examples. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2006 : 18:30:49 [Permalink]
|
But Dave, these guys are rinky-dink small time! Haven't there always been fringe groups who wanted to bring down Christianity (or its various sects)? That some people can put together a website and DVD isn't a big deal. Hell, anyone with even a half-way decent computer can do that nowadays.
The question is, are these clowns able to convince Target or Wal-Mart to shift from "Easter goodies" to "Holiday goodies". The answer is that they aren't. Wal-Mart and Target market things because they want to make a buck. Not because some third-rate anti-Christian group has a website and a DVD.
At least, that's what I'm getting out of this. If that amounts to a credible "war" on Christianity, then Christianity is doomed anyhow... |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2006 : 18:43:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
If that amounts to a credible "war" on Christianity, then Christianity is doomed anyhow...
Cune, the fact that there are plenty of people who consider Bill O'Reilly to be credible all by himself means that it doesn't matter one bit how small the "War on Easter" was or what they were able to do (or not do). If he decides to reinvigorate his secular-vs-theist war cries, nobody will be able to say that the War on Easter happened only in Bill's masturbatory fantasies (like the alleged War on Christmas). People with ethics enough to avoid lying will be reduced to "well, yeah, it happened, but nobody really noticed," which doesn't have nearly the rhetorical impact of "you're just making that crap up." (Not that the anti-Bill side is successful rhetorically, either, but that's beside the point.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2006 : 21:17:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
It is clear that beliefs which conflict with the natural world are dangerous. They have led to discrimination against women, racial minorities, gay, and peoples of other ethnicities. They have also led to pseudo-scientific practices that are often damaging to people.
But religious beliefs that do not contradict with the natural world are not dangerous at all. If you think they are, please explain and give examples.
The mind boggles....
I am not intrinsically evil, and neither are you. Hatred of humanity is dangerous. I don't need metaphysical band-aids to help alleviate guilt for sin I am not responsible for. And I sure don't need to be told that I somehow innately enjoy being "evil" - whatever that means. That hurting others is fun and I like it. Not buying.
My mortal life is not expendable because there is an afterlife and neither is yours. I don't need my non-existent soul saved - killing me is not better for me. I suspect you might think the same about yourself. Hey, while we're at it, let's refuse medical treatment (for ourselves and for children) on religious grounds. No harm there, right?
Better yet, how about the belief (sometimes seen as a religious one) that because one will go to heaven (or some equivalent divine reward) for a violent act of faith, that the violent act itself is a righteous one. Therefore, it is Right to kill. I don't suppose Americans would have any experience with that one, eh?
Not having an absolute moral authority does not make one an advocate of evil, lawlessness and crime. No, anything does not go without God. Never heard this one before? Slander, libel and defamation are not harmful?
Refusing to affirm a dogmatic point does not necessarily mean denying that point. Doubt does not equal denial. Even our best skeptical thinkers can't seem to get over this bit of nonsense. This is about language and meaning - so pervasive, most don't even think to question it.
Absolutist moralities are inflexible, maladaptive and represent a determination to turn humans into cogs in a dogmatic machine, rather than seeing philosophies as tools for humans. In the face of the needs of the dogma, humans are expendible. Bull's-hit!
Many beliefs about the nature of the human animal (and in all these cases neither verifiable nor refutable beacuse they often refer to "spiritual" or "soul" aspects presumed to exist) are incredibly harmful, even if just from the perspective of the person's concept of self. Often they involve jaundicing or distorting the attitudes of persons against others - oft times with tragic results.
Discriminatory practices against women (and, yes, even men sometimes), racial, ethnic or other groups or on the basis of sexual preference are not based on naturalistic claims, as you seem to think. They are based on attitudinal stances - the most extreme versions being matters of absolutist dogma and sometimes wrapped in "morality." Sometimes claims of fact, verified or not, are made in support or refutation, but claims of inferiority, superiority or innate wrongness have little to do with factual claims and are themselves non-verifiable/non-refutable.
I'm sorry, Marfknox, but a claim like that - I can't let that one go.... |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
| Edited by - dglas on 04/17/2006 21:49:36 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2006 : 21:25:16 [Permalink]
|
I would argue that it is immoral to believe in anything for which there is no evidence.
For instance, suppose you are selling a car and a buyer asks you if the brakes are in good enough condition to hold up over a cross-country trip. You think about and respond "yes." After all, they've never given you any trouble. So you sell the car and the person later dies in a collision caused by brake failure.
In this case, it doesn't matter if you "believed" the brakes to be safe. Even if you were legitimately and honestly convinced the brakes were in good shape, without accquiring the neccesary evidence to support that claim, you had no right to believe it. Unevidenced beliefs are immoral beliefs.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/17/2006 21:36:10 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2006 : 21:58:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
I would argue that it is immoral to believe in anything for which there is no evidence.
For instance, suppose you are selling a car and a buyer asks you if the brakes are in good enough condition to hold up over a cross-country trip. You think about and respond "yes." After all, they've never given you any trouble. So you sell the car and the person later dies in a collision caused by brake failure.
In this case, it doesn't matter if you "believed" the brakes to be safe. Even if you were litigimately honestly convinced the brakes were in good shape, without accquiring the neccesary evidence to support that claim, you had no right to believe it. Unevidenced beliefs are immoral beliefs.
I'm with H. on this one. I honestly believe the world would be better off without religion. I also realise that this state is unlikely to be achieved in the lifetime of anyone posting on SFN.  (Major medical breakthroughs notwithstanding, but even then, I have my doubts).
Sure there are plenty of "nice" religious people, I'd be an idiot to pretend otherwise. I doubt however, that religion alone is the motivation for their behaviour, and even if it were, in it's absence, it's likely that something else could achieve the same result.
I disagree with the methodology of distributing poorly-composed brochures to children. if it were a considered, honest attempt, like say standing out front of the church and engaging the (adult) attendees in a civil debate, I'd say more power to 'em. Using their method however, I imagine that for every child that might be swayed to thinking more seriously about their religion, there'd be many more parents (and perhaps some children too) incensed by the method itself, to thoughts in the opposite direction.
The ends don't justify the means, and, as Dave pointed out, I'm not sure they much care about the ends anyway. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
