-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ Homer on Saturday 02 Jul 2011 19:43 : \____
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>> ____/ 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?
>
> Because you did, when you singled out the problems in Texas as generally
> representative of all religion.
>
>> It's the phenomenon in general
>
> What you failed to mention in your anti-religion diatribe is that this
> "phenomenon" has more to do with political extremism than religion,
> specifically the political extremism of people like Cynthia Dunbar, who
> peddles her extremist neocon ideologies under the guise and protection
> of religious freedom.
>
> Instead you chose to equate the harmless belief in a benevolent deity
> with genocide and slavery, whilst conveniently ignoring the real
> political motives.
Yup, I'm totally with you on this.
> If you choose to not believe in God (as I have) then that's your
> business, but please don't use a minority of political extremists as an
> excuse to attack all religion. There's a whole world out there filled
> with religious people who are not political extremists, and their
> beliefs and activates are entirely benign, so the fact that they happen
> to believe in something you find preposterous is none of your business,
> if that mere fact by itself has no detrimental impact on you or anyone
> else.
>
>> including the "bigger" religion of Islam (I am not *entirely* sure
>> it's bigger, but it probably will be).
>
> That's that sort of bigoted thinking that caused America to declare its
> bogus "War on Terror" as a pretext for foreign invasion and annexation.
>
> Not all Muslims are fundamentalists, just as not all Christians are
> neocon extremists.
>
>>> 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.
>
> Do you or do you not see religion as a "problem" that must be solved?
I view the the teaching of falsehoods as facts as a problem. It is possible to have
religions that do not contradict facts. Or... disclaimers can be added.
> If so, then how exactly do you propose to solve it?
>
> AFAICT the only possible solution is to revoke the freedom to pursue
> religious beliefs.
>
> Isn't that what you want?
>
> If not, then what other possible solution is there?
>
> Can you give me a straight answer?
The solution is not easy as it would insult people. That's where we
are today...
>> In fact, the movement you speak of seeks to remove indoctrination
>> towards this lifestyle by state institutions like schools.
>
> The "movement" in question is a bunch of militant atheists using the
> threat posed by a minority of political extremists to attack religion,
> because those political extremists are hiding behind a religious banner.
>
> Intervening in political extremism, that palpably does harm to others,
> and interfering with benign religious expression, which does /no harm/
> to others, are two entirely different affairs.
>
> So either you've been naively caught up in reactionary politics, or
> you're one of the militant atheists jumping at any excuse to attack
> religion.
Some of them sell books.
>> In the US, education needs to be secular to comply with the
>> Constitution or amendments (can't recall which)
>
> That's not what it says. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make
> no law respecting an establishment of religion" and in Article VI,
> Section 3, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification
> to any office or public trust under the United States."
>
> Allowing people to teach and learn religion does not contradict either
> of those tenets.
Indeed. But what's legal is not always ethical. Slavery too used to be
a-OK (and I'm not intending to draw a comparison, just to point out
that law changes over time). To give a better example, think of
lending and tax evasion...
>> for the same reason teaching just Microsoft as "computing" is wrong.
>
> But nobody is proposing to only teach religion.
Some people do. Maybe not in the West, but...
> Indeed the dÃbÃcle in Texas has nothing to do with religion, except as a
> pretext to something more sinister.
>
>>> 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.
>
> You believe religious beliefs are preposterous because they contradict
> scientific facts, regardless of whether those facts are about
> astrophysics or evolution. So don't pretend one of those facts is
> irrelevant just because it's less certain, and thus fails to support the
> idea that religion is preposterous. It is still nonetheless part of
> /your/ "belief system", which is what you're using to justify your
> attack on religion.
I do not attack religion, I oppose having my future children having neurons wasted on things
that are untrue and may prove to be confusing.
> But as I pointed out earlier, militant atheism is not about a
> preponderance of facts, or any sort of civilised academic debate, it's
> about attacking religion for altogether more political reasons.
> Suggesting that teaching children about religion is predatory is one
> very clear indication of that, especially when you fail to elucidate the
> true political threat responsible for your concerns. You're really just
> making religion a scapegoat for political extremism, and you're doing so
> deliberately and in full knowledge of that fact, simply to serve your
> own bigotry.
The same can be said about some of the more assertive religious leaders.
>> Name a person who is trying to "assassinate" religion.
>
> Anyone who's a militant atheist, since that is its stated agenda:
>
> [quote]
> Militant atheism, is a term which refers to hostility towards religion.
> British philosopher Julian Baggini defines militant atheism as "atheism
> which is actively hostile to religion", which "requires more than strong
> disagreement with religion â it requires something verging on hatred and
> is characterised by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious belief.
> [/quote]
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_atheism
>
> That includes Richard Dawkins, a self-confessed militant atheist,
> Christopher Hitchens, A. C. Grayling and, from what I've seen in this
> thread so far, you.
Yes. They are them.
>>> 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.
>
> Not if people adopt moral principles specifically as a result of their
> religious education, as many people do, including me.
>
>> And to use the blackmail of Hellfire is not good for one's mental
>> peace.
>
> I don't recall any priest ever threatening me with damnation. What I do
> recall is being taught that principles like altruism and compassion are
> their own reward, because they build trust and friendship.
>
> I think your opinions have been tainted by extremists.
Influenced maybe.
>>> 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 don't know your history:
>
> [quote]
> 1912 was a turning point for the Suffragettes in the UK as they turned
> to using more militant tactics such as chaining themselves to railings,
> setting fire to mailbox contents, smashing windows and occasionally
> detonating bombs.
>
> ...
>
> One suffragette, Emily Davison, died after she tried to throw a
> suffragette banner over the King's horse, Anmer at the Epsom Derby of
> June 5 1913... Many of her fellow suffragettes were imprisoned and
> went on a hunger strike as a scare tactic against the government.
> [/quote]
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette
>
> Moreover, women winning the right to vote had more to do with the
> practical conditions of WWI than "civilised" debate:
>
> [quote]
> During World War I there was a serious shortage of able-bodied men, and
> women were required to take on many of the traditional male roles â this
> led to a new view of what a woman was capable of doing. The war also
> caused a split in the British suffragette movement, with the mainstream,
> represented by Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst's WSPU calling a
> 'ceasefire' in their campaign for the duration of the war, while more
> radical suffragettes, represented by Sylvia Pankhurst's Women's Suffrage
> Federation continued the struggle.
>
> Political movement towards women's suffrage began during the war, and in
> 1918 Parliament passed the Representation of the People Act 1918
> granting the vote to women
> [/quote]
>
> But then equating the suffragette movement to militant atheism is
> somewhat disingenuous. Suffragettes were merely fighting for equality
> for women. Militant atheists are fighting /against/ equality for
> religious freedom, with the explicitly stated goal of destroying it.
> The former was an entirely noble and praiseworthy cause, the latter most
> certainly isn't.
Thanks for this lesson in history.
>>> 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.
>
> By imposing regulations that prohibit religious education.
Not prohibit. I think it just needs to come with the 'warning labels', e.g.
"this is a history lesson about culture", this is "how people used to
think before we discovered germs, etc."
That's the way Greek mythology is taught these days.
>> That's different.
>
> Yes, the difference is that religious education is not "imposing
> ideals", any more than teaching mathematics forces people to become
> mathematicians. /I/ was taught religious studies at school, and yet /I/
> didn't become a priest ... or even a believer in God. What I did become
> is someone who believes in virtuous principles like altruism and
> compassion.
>
> OTOH the /true/ motives behind the dÃbÃcle in Texas /are/ insidious,
> because they're /political/ ideologies that promote "patriotism and the
> free enterprise system" ... i.e. neocon extremism. Unlike
> neo-conservatism , simply believing in God does not subjugate anyone, as
> millions of Christians outside Texas could no doubt confirm.
Religion is sometimes being used to rally the masses, not just intimidate them. In the case of Texas,
one might even argues that religion is being used against the state.
> Political extremists may have hijacked Christianity for their cause,
> but that doesn't mean you need to play along and use religion as a
> scapegoat to support your own bigotry. You're basically just advocating
> censorship and oppression to suppress an alternative opinion, where that
> alternative opinion is completely benign, using a minority of extremists
> as an excuse.
>
>>> 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).
>
> Yes, and I can and will call it Christmas, because that's what it is. I
> won't allow others to censor that word because of their bigotry.
>
>>> No, it just means your assertion that Dawkins can't be a hostile
>>> militant because he's a teacher is false.
>>
>> It *is* false.
>
> What part of "self-described militant atheist" don't you understand?
>
> Once again, in his own words:
>
> [quote]
> I am a fairly militant atheist, with a fair degree of active hostility
> toward religion. I certainly was hostile toward it at school, from the
> age of about sixteen onwards. I mellowed a bit in my twenties and
> thirties. But I'm getting more militant again now.
> [/quote]
>
> Reinventing the future: conversations with the world's leading
> scientists, by Thomas A. Bass.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/68o3lf4 (Google Books)
>
> Have you become a denialist now?
I don't see how this contradicts what I said, but it's interesting nonetheless.
>>> Of course you already knew that, because he explicitly described
>>> himself as a hostile militant.
>>
>> Yup, but not to the same degree of Hitchens
>
> What does "degrees" have to do with it?
>
> Dawkins is a hostile militant atheist. Period.
That's his choice then; moreover, I think he's foolish to label himself
like this.
>>> So do you support hostile militancy, or not?
>>
>> No, I never said I did.
>
> And yet you support and defend hostile militant atheists like Dawkins,
> and demand legislation to deny religious freedom.
>
> [snip juvenile ad hominem attack]
>
> Really, if you can't defend your argument then you should just concede
> the point, and not resort to childish insults.
The "beating your wife" joke was intended as a bit of humour to lighten things up.
I assume everyone knows the phrase... "so, when did you stop beating your wife?"
- --
~~ 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)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4Sw9cACgkQU4xAY3RXLo404QCeI+eXv87x6EXs1rWtqXL5KTAv
BSUAniblyRwxfOMxF36XxRDMWEHo93P0
=IjiR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
