Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
As for my case, you are in no position to know how much influence I have or will have.
Fair enough. I’m hypothesizing about this style of discourse in general, but I can’t argue with you there.
You have already shown what I suspect might be an inclination to make claims beyond the sphere of what you can know for certain, but I’m not nailing you here, some compassion is called for on my part ( ). In corresponding with me, when you make use of the word you, I take that the ‘you’ that you mean, mean is me, (Gila Guerilla). On the other hand, when I say some people I am definitely not referring to you, nor anyone in particular. I am taking special care not to make reference to anyone one in particular, merely a class of people who might or might not exist, and who might - or especially might not include your good self, Speechie. I now take it that you were using the specific word you in a similar way to which I use the term some people. However, such a use of language is ambiguous, or at least it is to me.
Speechie - 25 August 2011 07:50 PM
You’ve been very kind and fair in your responses to me Gila, but on this one point I think you’re being a little unfair. Surely someone who doesn’t agree with posters here on every point can still talk about other points. I’m not qualified to do brain surgery, but I can still tell my neurosurgeon I think he’s being unclear or going over topics too quickly when we’re speaking, if that makes any sense (i.e., one doesn’t directly influence the other). I’d like to think this isn’t a closed society only for people who agree to agree to share viewpoints.
Now I assume that the I to whom you refer is yourself. Since I said some people, and not you, I feel that you are not reading what is put properly, either that or the way you interpret English differs from the way that I do. Perhaps I need to get to understand your idiosyncratic style of writing - and I do appreciate that there are a lot of people who use language much too loosely. Aha, see, I just said; “a lot of people”; does that mean that I mean you, Speechie, or not? Well actually in this case it does, but I am discussing styles of communication by the written word, and standards which I might or might not uphold in such styles. It’s a matter of opinion, and you are entitled to be whatever way you choose in matters of opinion.
On the other hand, when it comes to matters of fact, I am much more severe in what I can accept - namely the truth is vital from my perspective. So on the point of this being a closed society, such a notion is anathema to me – in other words, people with varying points of view are not only welcome, but essential. I don’t want to be part of a closed-minded mutual admiration society! But in addition to that, if someone offers patent untruths or dumb opinions, then they are presumed to here for the drubbing such non-rigorous waffle deserves..
Speechie - 25 August 2011 07:50 PM
I would have thought that compassionate discourse was precisely what I mean by REASON and RATIONAL DEBATE. That word compassionate may be key here. I am well aware that telling someone bluntly that they are wrong, is a waste of time. If you mean that one is best advised to put one’s point of view across with care to recognize that no one else is obliged to agree with me, then I agree. However, there is such a thing as logic, and given valid premises and a good argument, one can prove some points of view.
Let me give this analogy, to put it another way. I get parents all the time who come to me enraged and upset after a neurologist has diagnosed their child with something upsetting (autism, cognitive delay, etc.) Not to stereotype, but neurologists as a rule are not a warm and fuzzy lot and tend to subscribe to the “just say it” style of informing.
So, now I have an angry parent who, probably 7 times out of 10, refuses to believe what they’ve been told. I have a child who needs services. It’s my job to make sure that happens in the most appropriate way possible (i.e., if they are in fact autistic and should be getting intense intervention, I want to make that happen even though I have a parent who doesn’t believe this fact).
I have about three obvious choices, as I see it:
I lie, and say that the neurologist is, as the parent suspects, Evil Incarnate, and I am the nice lady who will give you a normal child in no time for the low low rate of $X an hour.
I am direct, like the neurologist, and odds are good that the parent rejects me as well and runs down the street to some vaguely narcissistic guru who promises them a normal child at the low low rate of $2X an hour.
I submit to a long process of therapeutic acceptance with this parent, where I vow never to say anything patently untrue but do start small and hold back bigger topics until I see the parent showing me signs that they’re ready to hear them. I buffer every negative statement by surrounding it with about three positive ones. I understand that I may never actually change this person’s core belief, but I can change relevant outcomes like the amount of intervention they get for their child.
Well I don’t accept the analogy at all. I agree that compassion in the case you describe is the best approach, in my opinion. I presume that in your experience, some neurologists don’t adopt the compassionate approach. Perhaps it is not in their personality type to be so, or perhaps they don’t agree with the need for compassion. However, I am “talking” in my posts about me, you, and some other (unspecified) people. But I don’t see the theist - atheist divide in anything like the same terms as a medical scenario. And I am assuming that we are discussing things as they might occur here on Project Reason. We are here for debate, surely, and you allude to that yourself, when you say in the quote above: “I can’t argue with you there”. To me that means that in some cases you will argue; in fact that is precisely what I think you are doing - using REASON and RATIONAL debating.
I certainly don’t go round the world like some kind of atheistic Din Quixote putting the dumb people of the world to rights. I keep myself to myself in the larger world, except if somebody chooses to invade my mind with some dumb idea, laying it down as the true and right way. Then I’ll get irritated, and maybe tell them how I think and what I feel about dumbness or inaccuracy, in the place of truth. At other times, I get to chew my wife’s ear, (so to speak), and rant about the idiocy of what a lot of human beings are capable of thinking and saying. She’s a damn fine wife btw.
Speechie - 25 August 2011 07:50 PM
P.S. I thought I might add that I am a NOT prolific poster. And btw, my avatar is an allusion to that - I’ll explain if you ask.
Well of course I’m curious now! Dare I ask? What’s it mean?
When I decided on an avatar, I wanted something with which I could identify. The one I chose is a self-deprecating one. I belong to quite a number of fora, and other posters tend to use witty or tough-guy / (gal) avatars. I went for witty and self-deprecating. The name is a play on McGilla Gorilla, a big dopey clumsy looking character. Now Gila Guerilla rhymes reasonably well with that. Further, a guerrilla is someone who drops in, makes an attack, and then withdraws. In posting terms, that is a sporadic or non-prolific style of posting. As for the Gila, the gila monster sounds like it might be vicious and looks a tad ugly, but when I researched it, I found that despite being poisonous, it is very slow moving, quite unlikely to harm anyone, unless they treat it in such a way as to deserve a good bite. Check also my signature line at the bottom of each post to see this notion supported.
I just thought I’d toss in here, that wit is a matter of taste, and I am being witty to and for myself, in the selection of a user name and avatar. If others can’t see the pun or wit, it doesn’t matter.
In summary, I did not accuse you, dear Speechie, of anything, I merely alluded to the likelihood that anyone, anywhere who will listen to a rigorous disposition, which is based on sound premises, followed by a good argument, and with logical conclusion, and who can see all of that, yet still decides that their original point of view will be unshaken, in spite of any such revelation, then such a person will almost certainly not be swayed by me, no matter how compassionate I might be, nor how much I avoid calling them dumb, or without the due process of explaining the whys and wherefores of how their ideas might be dumb as well.
[ Edited: 28 August 2011 05:12 PM by Gila Guerilla ]
I still come up against the idea that atheism, whether correct or incorrect, has a fatal flaw in its ability to reproduce in a meaningful way. Should I care if someone else is an atheist? In my worldview, no. Should I care about the spread of atheist ideals, as opposed to simple separation of church and state? Despite my best efforts I really can’t come up with an argument here that I don’t find flimsy, so as of now the answer is no, and I’m going to guess that the majority of people out there feel this way.
I suspect most of us in here agree with you to this point, at least for the most part.
Speechie - 27 August 2011 01:19 PM
If you’re asking why I care, let me explain. In terms of atheists’ actual ability to spread the ideas of atheism, well, it is almost uncanny in terms of how a viewpoint that, at its heart, should be quite sensible, has had such limited success. When you look at statistics and tease out people like me who don’t belong to an organized religion but do believe in God, the number varies but tends to be consistently over ninety percent in this country. You can’t get over ninety percent of people to agree on anything, in the usual course of things. It would seem as if those number shouldn’t add up.
Yeah, that’s because they don’t.
You can’t get the 90% to agree on which god they believe in either though. You’re looking at a false monolith that only appears monolithic from a specific angle. If you shift a little the monolith starts to show its fragmentation, and if you look from above you see it’s actually a wide line of many different, rather small monoliths. It’s more about conformity to the monolith notion due to socialization, but I agree that the actual level of conformity is still an interesting psychological and sociological phenomenon. It’s just not as indicative of agreement as religious apologists argue ... not even close.
Speechie - 27 August 2011 01:19 PM
So independent of correctness, theistic ideals will probably be what they’re going to be as needed for society. In my mind, fundamentalism flourishes when cohesiveness is required in emerging or newly combined societies. Atheism flourishes when fundamentalism grows too powerful and needs to be curbed. Maybe in the very long run successful, peaceful, and relatively culturally homogenous societies unite to a degree where no one thinks about it much anymore and everyone agrees to be a nice person. In the context of my own argument, maybe it’s not really useful to see these as anything other than evolutionary adaptations like any other. Granted, Sam Harris still has a point that at this stage of the game we may blow each other up in the process, but really, we could do that just as easily without religion and you probably can’t change religious ideals with that argument any more than you could change other traits like the tendency to be territorial.
Religion is re-defining its key pillars, if you will, to be more and more secular and kind of humanistic. Faith in the standard issue rhetoric is now pretty nearly its own opposite, and believers tend to be very strident in its defense as such. It works fine in a social sense, it just creates a lot of dissonance for believers, which is where the actual faith resides in most cases—it’s now a by-product of its own developing demise. Only the more hard core fundagelical types (fundamentalists in general) manage to really pull off much genuine religious faith. Most believers have too much intellectual integrity.
Speechie - 27 August 2011 01:19 PM
I do think it’s unfortunate that the new atheists have gotten stuck with these claims of aggressiveness and stridency. Richard Dawkins seems like a delightful man and is one hundred times more measured than I will ever be. Daniel Dennett is a lovable hypocrite in criticizing mythology, as he is clearly Santa Claus. Christopher Hitchens seems like an outlandish but charismatic rogue, and Sam Harris, honestly, is just pretty hot all around. I’m not particularly hopeful, but I wish all the new atheists well in their attempts to do good things for the world, wherever we disagree on means I assume we want the same end result, a better world for the people living in it.
Well, when you look at the Pew numbers, the atheist schtick is making serious headway, but for a while yet, I expect, it will still appear as if we’re only at all palatable to a narrow range of theistic “swing voters”. That’s because the atheist appeal is limited to theistic swing voters, but what people don’t seem to be noticing is how much that demographic is growing, largely, I suspect, as a result of the religious Wingnuts showing their true colors so much more of late. Their success is their own undoing because of their nasty, uncooperative, narcissistic, downright anti-neighborly nature, and the fact that most people are generally good, cooperative and social, just as you’d expect from a highly intelligent, highly social species. We’ll take those who are ready and willing to get off of the Kool-Aid, but not a lot of us are big on pushing (not for long, anyway). Overall, when it comes to “recruiting”, we’re far more like Shaolin than the Mormons.
Your “question” is intriguing. It falls into my personal philosophy.
I have a few basic beliefs that make up the basis for my interactions with people of faith (as I am a strong atheist):
1) Asking questions is a good practice. (an alternate would be: Do not take anything on faith)
2) Religion is the detriment not the religious person.
3) Everyone is my equal. I am no better than anyone else.
In my interactions with religious people, I start by showing that I am sincere in the sentiment that the person I am talking to is an equal. I then show that asking questions is a good thing by selecting questions that have answers that would show the questions themselves have value. I then offer what I have learned to be true and accept the person’s opinions and observations of what I hold true. I also listen to what that person holds true and offer my honest opinion and evaluation of what they hold true.
In this way, I think that both parties can benefit from the discourse. Take a look at a religious and an atheist person. Both have jobs. Both have families. Both have dreams. Both have pains. Both have worries. Both think themselves to be smart and rational. They may approach their lives differently, but their goals are mostly equivalent. Some of the things the religious person learned in their life could be beneficial to the atheist and visa versa.
I will offer an observation that I have made in my interactions with religious people (namely priests). A huge portion of the words priests use are ambiguous. First, here is the Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, 11th Edition definition of ambiguous:
Definition of AMBIGUOUS
1
a : doubtful or uncertain especially from obscurity or indistinctness <eyes of an ambiguous color>
b : inexplicable
2
: capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways <an ambiguous smile> <an ambiguous term> <a >
As a test, I would like to get you to think about all the ambiguous words your priest uses. I’ll start you out with a few: Love, Hate, Faith, Kindness, Duty, Guilt, Fear, Pain, and so on.
Now I offer you the definition of science from Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, 11th Edition
Definition of SCIENCE
1
: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2
a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>
b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3
a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4
: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
5
capitalized : christian science
Very ambiguous, isn’t it!
But the definition of scientific method from Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, 11th Edition is this:
Definition of SCIENTIFIC METHOD
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
Very precise!
And what do you get from implementing the scientific method? The best (but not perfect) view of the real world we humans have come up with in the thousands of years of learning about the world we live in.
Does that leave room for God? In my world view, no, but for others, yes.
I would like to end this commentary by expressing my idea of how people should treat each other:
Mutual respect not only will allow the exchange of ideas, but it will foster good will.
Here is an example of questions that the answers to show that the questions themselves have value:
My mom told me a story of the building of a new church in a village in Macedonia. I don’t remember exactly how she told it, but here is the gist of it:
The village decided to build a church near a bridge where a pious woman died. They started building the church during the day, but when they left for the night, somehow, their work was demolished overnight so that the workers would see the devastaion in the morning. This went on for several days. Then someone suggested a new place for the church. It took some doing, but they finally agreed on the new location for the new church. The church was built in the new location with no real problems.
My question to my mom was: Was there a store, hotel, or any other kind of business near the new location of the church?
This led to other questions, but I had made my point.
If you do not see my point, just ask me and I will explain it to you the best that I can.
Your “question” is intriguing. It falls into my personal philosophy.
I have a few basic beliefs that make up the basis for my interactions with people of faith (as I am a strong atheist):
1) Asking questions is a good practice. (an alternate would be: Do not take anything on faith)
2) Religion is the detriment not the religious person.
3) Everyone is my equal. I am no better than anyone else.
Treating everyone as an equal is noble, but in the world we live in, I find it to be laughably unrealistic. Take the example of a robbery. Try having a civil discourse with a person who is trying to rob you. If you consider them your equal, it is only in your mind that it is so. In reality, they are your superior, because they are holding a gun or a knife on you. Until or unless you disarm them, no equality exists. If you attempt a rational conversation with someone who is in a hurry to take your money, and holding a gun on you, you may wind up dead, or worse. This same principle of inequality exists through all strata of human discourse.
Humans are not created equal, nor do they live their lives with equal chances for success or failure. Each of us is affected by genetic and environmental circumstances wholly outside of our control. Certainly most of us can each have a dramatic impact on our own chances of survival and prosperity in this world, and also on the lives of others, as well. But to speak of true equality in this world seems a bit naïve to me. True equality is not something we can reasonably argue for, because it would mean making everyone the same, and this is not possible, nor desirable. Diversity is what drives our very existence. Moral equality for humanity might be a worthy goal, but it has eluded mankind for the relativley brief span of our existence, and changing this seems to require an evolutionarly leap of a signifigant magnitude. I am hopeful that our science will guide us closer to this path, and I am encouraged by the research and developments taking place now.
However, when you find yourself in the midst of a conversation about religion with a person of religious faith, then as a fellow atheist, I wholeheartedly support any attempt you make to let them know that you personally consider their point of view to be incorrect. As I’m sure you know, though, changing people’s minds about their beliefs in the area of religion and faith is quite difficult. In my experience these conversations lead to strife more often than to agreement. (Except of course to the agreement to disagree) Keeping things civil is certainly a key element of not devolving into useless argument, and you seem to grasp this well. I would recommend you don’t fool youself into arguing that we are all equal too much, though. It is patently absurd.
So in keeping with your idea about the value of questions, here is my question for the day:
Is it better to have lived a full life and never reached your goals, or to have your life cut short while doing something you truely loved?
-FFR
[ Edited: 20 November 2011 03:45 PM by Fool4Reason ]
Your “question” is intriguing. It falls into my personal philosophy.
I have a few basic beliefs that make up the basis for my interactions with people of faith (as I am a strong atheist):
1) Asking questions is a good practice. (an alternate would be: Do not take anything on faith)
2) Religion is the detriment not the religious person.
3) Everyone is my equal. I am no better than anyone else.
Treating everyone as an equal is noble, but in the world we live in, I find it to be laughably unrealistic. Take the example of a robbery. Try having a civil discourse with a person who is trying to rob you. If you consider them your equal, it is only in your mind that it is so. In reality, they are your superior, because they are holding a gun or a knife on you. Until or unless you disarm them, no equality exists. If you attempt a rational conversation with someone who is in a hurry to take your money, and holding a gun on you, you may wind up dead, or worse. This same principle of inequality exists through all strata of human discourse.
Humans are not created equal, nor do they live their lives with equal chances for success or failure. Each of us is affected by genetic and environmental circumstances wholly outside of our control. Certainly most of us can each have a dramatic impact on our own chances of survival and prosperity in this world, and also on the lives of others, as well. But to speak of true equality in this world seems a bit naïve to me. True equality is not something we can reasonably argue for, because it would mean making everyone the same, and this is not possible, nor desirable. Diversity is what drives our very existence. Moral equality for humanity might be a worthy goal, but it has eluded mankind for the relativley brief span of our existence, and changing this seems to require an evolutionarly leap of a signifigant magnitude. I am hopeful that our science will guide us closer to this path, and I am encouraged by the research and developments taking place now.
However, when you find yourself in the midst of a conversation about religion with a person of religious faith, then as a fellow atheist, I wholeheartedly support any attempt you make to let them know that you personally consider their point of view to be incorrect. As I’m sure you know, though, changing people’s minds about their beliefs in the area of religion and faith is quite difficult. In my experience these conversations lead to strife more often than to agreement. (Except of course to the agreement to disagree) Keeping things civil is certainly a key element of not devolving into useless argument, and you seem to grasp this well. I would recommend you don’t fool youself into arguing that we are all equal too much, though. It is patently absurd.
So in keeping with your idea about the value of questions, here is my question for the day:
Is it better to have lived a full life and never reached your goals, or to have your life cut short while doing something you truely loved?
-FFR
I wonder what sort of success you have when interacting with a religious person and they are aware of your superior attitude? From your short reply, I gather you do not have much success at all. And from that you consider my approach to be just as fruitful.
I am grateful that you have considered my approach. I would, though, ask that you try my method before passing judgement.
I am not advocating that you follow my example exactly. I merely suggest that you give the respect to the religious person that you expect to receive from them. Is that too much to ask?
I still come up against the idea that atheism, whether correct or incorrect, has a fatal flaw in its ability to reproduce in a meaningful way. Should I care if someone else is an atheist? In my worldview, no. Should I care about the spread of atheist ideals, as opposed to simple separation of church and state? Despite my best efforts I really can’t come up with an argument here that I don’t find flimsy, so as of now the answer is no, and I’m going to guess that the majority of people out there feel this way.
I suspect most of us in here agree with you to this point, at least for the most part.
I don’t agree. It would be more comforting to know or live in a world where more people have a firmer grasp of reality rather than the other way around. I would expect that science would be more greatly valued and there would be less violence if for nothing else than one less excuse. It would be less expensive and less tiring than to have to defend secularism in the courts and on the streets at every turn as a matter of accepted social rules and discourse, especially with the tendency to exploit and mistreat minorities in spite of our constitutional separation of church and state. Not only is primacy of a specific religion a source of the problem in this regard, but religion in general, as non-religionists and freedom from religion are mainly ignored. One of the main problems is that religion is very much married to politics. Conservative-religionists are more likely to be the greatest source of the problem while liberal-religionists are more likely to adhere to the principle of separation of church and state. Atheism doesn’t purport to be a replacement of religion nor to serve the same purpose. It is, however, a sound basis for which to build a scientific, reasoned and humanistic worldview absent the influence of religion and its concomitant dogma. I don’t see any of this as flimsy even though it may be mostly tied to the idea of separation of church and state. If not for religion, there would be no challenge nor need of separation to begin with, and one less need to escape a continent and attack another for the sake of freedom.
I don’t agree. It would be more comforting to know or live in a world where more people have a firmer grasp of reality rather than the other way around. I would expect that science would be more greatly valued and there would be less violence if for nothing else than one less excuse. It would be less expensive and less tiring than to have to defend secularism in the courts and on the streets at every turn as a matter of accepted social rules and discourse, especially with the tendency to exploit and mistreat minorities in spite of our constitutional separation of church and state. Not only is primacy of a specific religion a source of the problem in this regard, but religion in general, as non-religionists and freedom from religion are mainly ignored. One of the main problems is that religion is very much married to politics. Conservative-religionists are more likely to be the greatest source of the problem while liberal-religionists are more likely to adhere to the principle of separation of church and state.
None of that is inherently or necessarily even predominately about atheism vs. theism.
Answerer - 26 November 2011 04:20 PM
Atheism doesn’t purport to be a replacement of religion nor to serve the same purpose. It is, however, a sound basis for which to build a scientific, reasoned and humanistic worldview absent the influence of religion and its concomitant dogma. I don’t see any of this as flimsy even though it may be mostly tied to the idea of separation of church and state. If not for religion, there would be no challenge nor need of separation to begin with, and one less need to escape a continent and attack another for the sake of freedom.
I think without religion distracting our focus and misdirecting it we might be much more inclined to think more inclusively, and maybe get over tribalism and ethnocentrism to a much more significant degree than we have. This is one of the key aspects of religion that I think we’d be best served by managing far better, like we’ve managed violence. Violence isn’t gone by any means, obviously, but most forms of violence are pretty universally considered unacceptable.
Treating everyone as an equal is noble, but in the world we live in, I find it to be laughably unrealistic.
Note: TrekJ did not suggest that you provide anyone with evidence that everyone is equal. I would argue that something about being human is identically the same for every human born. But even if I’m mistaken and some people are “better” than others, all he’s saying is that it makes sense to treat others as equals. No need to prove it.
I would argue that something about being human is identically the same for every human born.
burt’s argument on the “Moral Claims” thread seeks, in part, to make this point. At the level of fundamental consciousness we find some ground for unity/equality, despite the obvious distinctions that exist in all of us.
I would argue that something about being human is identically the same for every human born.
burt’s argument on the “Moral Claims” thread seeks, in part, to make this point. At the level of fundamental consciousness we find some ground for unity/equality, despite the obvious distinctions that exist in all of us.
I agree with Burt about quite a bit, Bruce. The writers of the U.S. Constitution seem to have been in agreement with all three of us, though the Constitution authors somehow disregarded half the population by using the word “men.” It’s an important philosophical stance to make because it’s so easy to discriminate between groups of people. The divine right of kings falls apart along with harrowing and horrifying enslavement of the other. That ameliorative process is still playing itself out, I suspect. It seems to be part of our nature to categorize and discriminate in all we encounter, including ourselves, and a strong philosophical stance such as Burt’s is essential.
I don’t agree. It would be more comforting to know or live in a world where more people have a firmer grasp of reality rather than the other way around. I would expect that science would be more greatly valued and there would be less violence if for nothing else than one less excuse. It would be less expensive and less tiring than to have to defend secularism in the courts and on the streets at every turn as a matter of accepted social rules and discourse, especially with the tendency to exploit and mistreat minorities in spite of our constitutional separation of church and state. Not only is primacy of a specific religion a source of the problem in this regard, but religion in general, as non-religionists and freedom from religion are mainly ignored. One of the main problems is that religion is very much married to politics. Conservative-religionists are more likely to be the greatest source of the problem while liberal-religionists are more likely to adhere to the principle of separation of church and state.
None of that is inherently or necessarily even predominately about atheism vs. theism.
I fail to see how you arrive at such an interpretation: believing in a non-existent supernatural supreme being is not grounded in reality, therefore no behaviorial aspects nor worldview resultant of it would be a factor; scientific facts wouldn’t be distorted, challenged and/or rejected based on religious belief; laws wouldn’t be enacted and resultant court cases wouldn’t be brought with religion as the only foundation for its justification (eg, Amend 8 suit and appeal, anti-abortion, etc); belief vs non-belief would not be a matter of discourse with respect to social norms (eg, Atheists as a minority - majority of Christians perceive Atheists as greatest threat to American values, Christians comprise approximately 76% of the population, approximately 83% of Americans are religionists, we wouldn’t be bantering around the differences on this forum, presently an Atheist couldn’t be elected president, etc); politically conservative religionists are more fundamentalist and dogmatic than liberal, etc, etc, etc. These all are inherently and predominantly about atheism vs theism, it is a variable that would be non-existent if this one factor were controlled for (ie, removed as an influence). Much of this, but not all, has to do with separation of church and state, and, in my view, separation of church and state is basically, but not exclusively, a theist vs atheist conflict as much a religion vs religion one (eg, eliminating the religion factor and/or dominant religion factor from governance), with spillover effects that can permeate society beyond mere law.
Perhaps you meant to say exclusively, as many of the same type of conflicts could be based on criteria other than religion, and particular religious belief does not necessarily assume non-separation from governance. However, we see in reality that it does pose an active threat for which active lobbying, court challenges, etc are necessary, especially by non-religionists where religionists have no conflicts between them but non-religionists do. This is exactly the state of today’s atheism for which many religionists and even some non-religionists are grappling with for understanding in terms of a new influential factor, we have become recognizably political as a group. We have many outspoken groups and lobbyists defending and protecting our interests based exclusively on theist vs atheist concerns, especially on matters of separation of church and state, whereas in the past, we would have to rely mostly on the good graces of principled liberal religionist activists alone. Perhaps you’d like to explain to me what atheism vs theism is about - and I’m talking about its implications, not just the simple canned answer of, “Theism is a belief in god, atheism is a lack of belief in god.”
SkepticX - 26 November 2011 04:36 PM
Answerer - 26 November 2011 04:20 PM
Atheism doesn’t purport to be a replacement of religion nor to serve the same purpose. It is, however, a sound basis for which to build a scientific, reasoned and humanistic worldview absent the influence of religion and its concomitant dogma. I don’t see any of this as flimsy even though it may be mostly tied to the idea of separation of church and state. If not for religion, there would be no challenge nor need of separation to begin with, and one less need to escape a continent and attack another for the sake of freedom.
I think without religion distracting our focus and misdirecting it we might be much more inclined to think more inclusively, and maybe get over tribalism and ethnocentrism to a much more significant degree than we have. This is one of the key aspects of religion that I think we’d be best served by managing far better, like we’ve managed violence. Violence isn’t gone by any means, obviously, but most forms of violence are pretty universally considered unacceptable.
I think this whole statement reiterates what I’ve said and supports it. Basically, you’re talking about changing the nature of religion, even if just to be more accepting of non-religion, and even one religion of another. The major religions may have their differences between them, but they have have in common the belief in a supreme being whose tenets, in writing and through various individual and group interpretation transmitted orally, should guide and direct our lives, and for many, their view of non-believers and science as posing the greatest dual threat to the dominance of this worldview.
). In corresponding with me, when you make use of the word you, I take that the ‘you’ that you mean, mean is me, (Gila Guerilla). On the other hand, when I say some people I am definitely not referring to you, nor anyone in particular. I am taking special care not to make reference to anyone one in particular, merely a class of people who might or might not exist, and who might - or especially might not include your good self, Speechie. I now take it that you were using the specific word you in a similar way to which I use the term some people. However, such a use of language is ambiguous, or at least it is to me.
