-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ Homer on Saturday 02 Jul 2011 04:39 : \____
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>> ____/ Homer on Saturday 02 Jul 2011 00:16 : \____
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>>> ____/ Homer on Friday 01 Jul 2011 21:58 : \____
>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>>
>>>> He is hostile toward people who /preach/
>>>
>>> You mean like he preaches atheism?
>>
>>
>> Preaching absence of something?
>
> No, inciting hatred and discrimination towards Christians.
Why name one religion? It's the phenomenon in general, including the "bigger"
religion of Islam (I am not *entirely* sure it's bigger, but it probably
will be).
> There's nothing passive about that.
>
>>> So frankly the only difference is an opinion, where one side has
>>> apparently decided to "debate" their opinion militantly.
>>>
>>> Sound familiar?
>>
>> In an evidence-based debate there are hardly two sides in this case.
>> Arguing about the invisible elephant under my bed might get the
>> audience laughing, but I would lose the debate.
>
> But atheist militancy is not about the preponderance of evidence, or
> even about establishing "fact" at all, it's about discriminating against
> people who simply choose to live a certain way. So what if every
> religious principle contradicts science? What do you care? It's not your
> life, so it's none of your business. Let them live like that if they
> want to. Would you force a farmer to go live in the city because you
> don't like the agrarian lifestyle? So why would you force a Christian to
> give up /his/ lifestyle?
Nobody forces this. In fact, the movement you speak of seeks to remove
indoctrination towards this lifestyle by state institutions like schools.
In the US, education needs to be secular to comply with the Constitution
or amendments (can't recall which), for the same reason teaching just
Microsoft as "computing" is wrong.
>>>> to the gullible
>>>
>>> You presume to know they're all gullible.
>>
>> They are young and impressionable.
>
> Not every Christian is a child, and not every Christian even became a
> Christian at a young age.
>
> But like I said, it's no more predatory to teach children about religion
> than any other unproven theory (like the Big Bang), so it's only your
> opinion that determines which one of those theories you personally
> prefer, and your personal preferences are irrelevant to somebody else's
> education.
We are not talking about the Big Bang. That's a shift from biology to astrophysics now.
>>>> about it (about Santa, Tooth Fairy, or whatever other fiction).
>>>
>>> It's symbolism representative of one's beliefs, a source of joy for
>>> people the world over, and the focal point for teaching ethical values,
>>> regardless of its historical validity. And dismissing it as fictitious
>>> is presumptuous, unless you claim to have unequivocal proof to the
>>> contrary. Even characters like Santa Claus (Sinterklaas) has origins in
>>> historical fact (Saint Nicholas of Myra), and more importantly this
>>> "fiction" teaches children the value of giving ... something I'd have
>>> thought you'd find praiseworthy. There's nothing even remotely insidious
>>> about any of it.
>>
>> People do not derive ethical values from religion.
>
> I did, and so did many other people I know.
>
>> In fact, very often the opposite can be argued.
>
> That's just blatant rhetoric and generalisation.
>
> The fact is you have no idea where others draw their inspiration. How
> could you possibly know unless they tell you, as I just have?
>
> Of course, the mere fact that someone is taught moral values doesn't
> mean they'll follow them, so simply /being/ a Christian is no guarantee
> of moral behaviour, but that doesn't mean religion is of no moral
> benefit. It's just a source of inspiration, like any other. These days I
> get /my/ inspiration from more modern sources, like Stiglitz, Stallman
> and Lessig, but that doesn't mean I've abandoned the moral principles
> expounded by various religions, even if I no longer have "blind faith"
> in their more "supernatural" elements.
>
>> Did people go around murdering and stealing before religious
>> deterrents came about?
>
> Yes of course, and they still do. OTOH we've also seen a lot of altruism
> and compassion as a direct result of religion. Take Mother Teresa and
> Gandhi, for example, two of the most peaceful and compassionate people
> the world has ever known. But militants don't like that sort of thing,
> which is why they assassinated Gandhi, just like militant atheists are
> trying to "assassinate" religion. Apparently it isn't enough for them to
> just live peacefully as atheists, they have to attack religion too.
Name a person who is trying to "assassinate" religion.
>> As for the value inn giving, reciprocity drove it for a very long
>> time. Even animals know how to share. Those who do not share go
>> extinct, it's a meritable survival skill and mammals that work in
>> groups ostracise those who haven't those skills in their upbringing or
>> genetics.
>
> There's also another rule in the animal kingdom, called "survival of the
> fittest", where the weak are abandoned and left to die, or attacked by
> predators without the benefit of rules to protect them, unlike in a
> civilised, compassionate, human society. Generally speaking we don't eat
> our mates whilst copulating, like the praying mantis, or kill our babies
> for nourishment, like gulls. Reciprocity in the animal kingdom has more
> to do with opportunism and coincidence than altruism and compassion.
In religions it is mostly the same, but it is dressed up as something else
for one's fulfilment.
> OTOH, unlike certain humans, animals don't kill each other for sport or
> malice, and they don't persecute each other because of their beliefs.
>
> Are you saying that altruism is /not/ a virtuous thing worth learning?
It is, but it's independent of the notion of something invisible watching everything we do.
And to use the blackmail of Hellfire is not good for one's mental peace.
> I recommend you read "On Aggression" by Nobel Laureate Konrad Lorenz.
>
>>> Would you snatch a toy away from a child on Christmas day, lecture
>>> him about Santa being nothing but creationist propaganda, accuse his
>>> parents of being liars, then call social services and the police to
>>> have them arrested and the child placed in care?
>>
>> Straw man argument.
>
> Not at all. You believe that impressionable children who are taught
> religion are the victims of propaganda designed to whitewash genocide
> and slavery, so naturally you want to stop it somehow, don't you?
>
> So how do you propose to do it?
>
> You'll either need a lot of prisons or a lot of bullets.
*LOL WOT?*
How did we people become civilised enough to let women vote? No bullets and prisons needed.
> You decide.
>
>>> Sounds rather Stalinist to me.
>>
>> Right. The "S" word. At least the "H" word wasn't used here because we
>> know that Hitler was religiously motivated too.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP_iNCGH9kY (parody)
>
> Well you seem to want to impose your ideals on others, just because you
> disagree with their opinions, so naturally I equated that with the
> policies of a dictator. How else would you characterise it?
I don't impose my ideals. I wish not to let others impose their ideals using
public institutions that are obligatory. That's different.
>>> I'm not a Christian, but I celebrate Christmas nonetheless, because I
>>> revere principles that extend beyond mere religion. I certainly don't
>>> feel the urge to attack Christians ... at Christmas or any other time
>>> of year.
>>
>> The holiday celebrating the time days start getting longer has pagan
>> roots, it is not a religious thing. If anything, it celebrates
>> astronomy. :-)
>
> But those pagan roots are not what I celebrate, any more than the
> Christian significance of that festival, as I clearly explained. It's
> just a symbolic reference to something I celebrate for my own personal
> reasons - primarily a celebration of family, compassion and charity.
>
> Didn't you ever read "A Christmas Carol"?
I don't deny that it's a good holiday and even atheists proclaim to celebrate it,
but they can call it something else (Stallman calls it Grav-Mass).
>>>>>> Dawkins was an academic for many years (he is almost 70 now) and
>>>>>> he wrote many technical books. It is the attack on his work and on
>>>>>> himself too
>>>>>
>>>>> The only thing I'm attacking is his militancy. His other activities
>>>>> mean nothing to me.
>>>>
>>>> He is a teacher.
>>>
>>> So was the Unabomber.
>>
>> And we know that only 10 teachers only existed, so that makes 10% of
>> teachers serial killers. :-)
>
> No, it just means your assertion that Dawkins can't be a hostile
> militant because he's a teacher is false.
It *is* false. Dawkins can be rude and abrasive sometimes.
> Of course you already knew that, because he explicitly described himself
> as a hostile militant.
Yup, but not to the same degree of Hitchens, who sells him book being arrogant and pompous.
> So do you support hostile militancy, or not?
No, I never said I did. So... did you stop beating your wife, or not? :-D
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): schestowitz@xxxxxxxxx (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4OybQACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7kpQCcCsW2FmrTlJ6kLvwUUj+eO+gQ
74QAoLGYGLcns2fXUCtRPrVFar7wE/dK
=6FJ+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
