|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2007 : 20:06:27 [Permalink]
|
Matt wrote: | Objectivism would be a good example of a group that praises critical thinking, free inquiry, and the will of the individual to go against conformity yet nonetheless has descended into cultishness. |
Ha! This is funny to me since after I posted my last response to you I thought of Objectivism in this same way. Fortunately, while Rand's philosophy certainly had the potential to do great harm, it has remained a largely marginalized and unknown institution.
The more important point is made very well, however. If we really think about it, we could imagine an atheistic philosophy that promotes reason and science and skepticism and individuality that is also, as a movement with powerful leadership, capable of genocide.
The reasons I use the "Humanist" label is because it fully describes my worldview, which atheism doesn't do. And while many of us Humanists despair over our small numbers and difficulty organizing as a strong political or social force, I find comfort in this. I only want groups for the sake of friendship and community. Movements, even if they start well, seem to always end up too rigidly defined and stifling individuality. It also seems rather confusing and counterproductive to fight for religious freedom under the banner of a single worldview. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
 Posted - 12/22/2007 : 23:36:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
matt....
Your phrasing completely ignores the hypocrisy inherent in this and many other statements by Popes. It is nauseating!
|
Pointing out the hypocrisy in the pope's argument is like pointing out that snow is white. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2007 : 00:13:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Ha! This is funny to me since after I posted my last response to you I thought of Objectivism in this same way. Fortunately, while Rand's philosophy certainly had the potential to do great harm, it has remained a largely marginalized and unknown institution. |
Yeah.
I think one thing many people have been put off by is the extreme emphasis on selfishness as a virture.
The reasons I use the "Humanist" label is because it fully describes my worldview, which atheism doesn't do. And while many of us Humanists despair over our small numbers and difficulty organizing as a strong political or social force, I find comfort in this. I only want groups for the sake of friendship and community. Movements, even if they start well, seem to always end up too rigidly defined and stifling individuality. It also seems rather confusing and counterproductive to fight for religious freedom under the banner of a single worldview.
|
I don't use the humanist label myself. But though I am an atheist atheism isn't a big part of my worldview. It wouldn't be notable at all really except that theism is so prevalent. |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2008 : 10:36:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
Originally posted by leoofno
Indeed. The extent to which the "religious" atrocities were more political than religious can be debated. For example, I think the problems in Northern Ireland (has that been mostly resolved?) were more political and economic than religious.
|
I'd say that the Civil War too was also more political and economic than religious.
| Maybe religion was a convenient way for the protagonists to stir up the populace to get the results they wanted. Or perhaps the religious differences just served as a catalyst that made a bad situation worse, and ultimately became its defining characteristic. Thats where I think a secular, rational society has an advantage over a religious one. Rational folk are less likely to be fooled and manipulated. |
Well I do agree that rational people tend to be less easily deceived. But I don't think that secular society has any particular built-in resistance to extremism or that there is really such a thing as a "rational society".
| For example, most of the religious people I know were taken in by Bush's WMD rational for going to war with Iraq. My skeptic friends, all athiest, were not. We would come into work each day after the war started asking our coworkers "So did they find any WMD yet?". We knew the evidence had been overblown and misrepresented, and we were proven correct. The evidence was always there, but they chose to ignore it, or not look for it. |
Fair enough. But there may have been more than just rationality behind that depending on what information they had at hand when they first "knew" the claims had been overblown. Did they have any biases that might have prejudiced them? It is significant that they did turn out to be correct of course.
|
{Sorry for the lateness of this reply. Been out a while...}
Biased? Perjudiced? Well, we didn't like Bush. But on the issue of WMD, if Iraq had them and were about to give them to terrorists we would have been with Bush. However, while we read the same articles as our religious friends, we noticed the sort of "disclaimers" toward the end of many aritcles (that they missed or ignored) that talked about mid-level analysts being "confused" that so much was being made out of so little, that "cherry picking" was going on, that on balance there was little evidence to support administration claims, that there were doubts about the evidence being used by the administration. Also the fact that the UN already had a team running around Iraq and not finding WMD's, even after being given total access in the weeks before the war began.
Perhaps our bias againt Bush made us look more closely at his evidence, but it didn't take much to see that it was misrepresented and overblown.
| Maybe its more a skeptical thing than a religious/atheist one. We live in such a religious society that most non-skeptics will be religious by default. Those who can break away may be the more skeptically inclined. That would lead to false corrrelations. |
True. And as a non-belief, there is little it can actually be used to motivate people to actually do (other than persecuting theists).
|
Indeed, non-belief in something is a poor motivator. Thats exactly its advantage. (Persecuting theists? Hardly. Pointing out their errors is not persecution. Historically, most theists have been the victims of other theists who had differing theologies. In modern times, places like China may persecute Christians, but the motivating force is not atheism, but politcs. They are seen as a potential political force and a threat to the state.Their actual religious beliefs are inconsequential.)
| I think the point of all my rambling is that blaming atheism for the worst atrocities is ridiculous. And if I read you right, I think you agree. |
Sure. But even though atheism is not usually the proximate cause atheists for whatever reasons do go severely off the rails at times.
|
As do theists.
I guess the bottom line, as I see it, is that religion can be a tool for manipulation, and as such can be used to nefarious ends. As for un-belief, as you noted: "there is little it can actually be used to motivate people to actually do."
Perhaps a better question than "Is atheism the cause of the worst atrocities in history" would be: "Would the political atrocities committed by atheistic governments have happened if the governments had been theistic?". I think the answer would be "yes". |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2008 : 12:15:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Atheism has led to some of the “greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice” known to mankind, the Pope said yesterday.
|
|
Hello Mr. Pot, please meet Mr. Kettle. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Pope Denounces Atheism
