-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ Snit on Saturday 02 Jul 2011 21:12 : \____
> Homer stated in post of54e8-v0l.ln1@xxxxxxxxxx on 7/2/11 11:43 AM:
>
>> 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.
>
> Who is inciting hatred? I have had many Christians tell me I will burn in
> hell. Forever. That I will be damned to go where murderers and rapists and
> the like go... *not* because I do bad things but because I do not accept
> their beliefs.
>
> I have never heard of an atheist telling a theist of any sort they will or
> that they should suffer like that. Never.
>
> Have you? Do you have any examples? I am sure I can find examples of
> Christians making such hateful claims.
That does not generalise well though. You need to judge not based on extreme cases
(like the ones you mentioned or Hitchins on the other hand).
>>> 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.
>
> I am not familiar with her... can you point to some quotes and the like
> which you find offensive or bothersome?
>
>> Instead you chose to equate the harmless belief in a benevolent deity
>> with genocide and slavery, whilst conveniently ignoring the real
>> political motives.
>
> Whose motives? Not wanting myth to be taught as science?
>
>> 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.
>
> What attack?
>
> I have asked you this many times - and you have provided *no* examples. Not
> one. I am not saying none exist - but do you even know of any? And what do
> they have to do with not wanting kids to be taught myths as if they were
> science?
>
>> 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.
>
> Please quote where he has said it is his business?
>
>>> 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?
>
> It is a shame so many people are ignorant of basic science, and to the
> extent that religion pushes that ignorance it is a problem.
>
>> If so, then how exactly do you propose to solve it?
>
> Do not allow religion to be taught as science. And teach science.
>
>> AFAICT the only possible solution is to revoke the freedom to pursue
>> religious beliefs.
>
> Nope.
>
>> Isn't that what you want?
>
> Cannot speak for others, but it is not what I want.
>
>> If not, then what other possible solution is there?
>
> I gave a simple one, above.
>
>> Can you give me a straight answer?
>
> I have... and you run. And I ask you for simple answers and get none in
> return. The fact is you have very little understanding of the issue of
> teaching myths as science. You have shown that well.
>
>>> 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.
>
> What attack? This is one of those simple questions you are asked but you
> run from.
I agree. I've hardly "attacked" religion. I know people who do, though.
>> 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.
>
> And then you make up stories.
>
>>> 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.
>
> But pushing religion as science is absurd... and working against that is not
> working against religion.
>
>>> for the same reason teaching just Microsoft as "computing" is wrong.
>>
>> But nobody is proposing to only teach religion.
>
> People are proposing to teach religion *as* science. And that is wrong to
> do so. Even if they teach actual science along with the religion, the fact
> they are teaching religion as science is absurd.
>
>> Indeed the dÃbÃcle in Texas has nothing to do with religion, except as a
>> pretext to something more sinister.
>
> Teaching religion as science has, in your mind, nothing to do with religion.
>
> Bizarre.
>
>>>> 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.
>
> You did change the topic: but in either case, teaching science as religion
> is absurd. If you disagree with the big bang theory that is fine... it is
> *still* a part of science and to teach it as such is not wrong. Teaching
> religion as science is wrong. This is not hard.
The problem there is that some*one* some*where* might *choose* to feel insulted.
>> It is still nonetheless part of /your/ "belief system", which is what you're
>> using to justify your attack on religion.
>>
>> 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.
>
> You keep saying this but provide *no* examples. None. Again: there might
> be some, but the number of times people try to push the teaching of religion
> as science dwarfs any such examples by likely at least 100 to 1.
>
>> 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.
>
> Oh, you can teach kids about religion... and if you do, teach about multiple
> religions. I am all for it. Just do not teach religious views as if they
> were scientific views. They are not. Do not lie. Is that so hard to
> accept?
>
>>> 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  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.
>
> So show some examples of, say, Dawkins demonstrating hatred toward religion.
>
> Here is a quote of his which contradicts your claims about him:
>
> I oppose fundamentalist religion because it is hell-bent on
> ruining the scientific education of countless eager minds.
>
> And:
>
> As a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion
> because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. It
> teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know
> exciting things that are available to be known. It subverts
> science and saps the intellect.
>
> So where is your evidence that he is as you say?
>
>>>> 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.
>
> One can be religious and have such views... or not. Just as one can be an
> atheist and have such views - or not. Can you show where religion promotes
> "good" behavior more than do atheist views? There is at least some evidence
> that religious folks tend to be *less* moral, though I am not saying there
> is definite causation here. Still, evidence points to atheists being
> somewhere around 100 times *less* likely to go to jail than are believers...
> etc. The idea religion leads to greater morality is a hard one to show...
> good luck.
>
> Oh. You will not even try.
Yes, that is a common defence of atheism. On many criteria in the United States they score
really well. Moreover, among those who wear a "Faith" cloak in the US, many are 'closet
atheists'.
>>> 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.
>
> I have heard that threat many, many times. Believe as I do or be damned
> forever. Eternity. Do you need online examples of such claims?
>
>> What I do recall is being taught that principles like altruism and compassion
>> are their own reward, because they build trust and friendship.
>
> What about the whole heaven and hell thing?
> ...
Not many people play these cards, at least not in Europe (which is rather secular).
- --
~~ 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)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4SxVAACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5d9QCcCIEn6QCHPnT3aZT1Y/mKiJBT
eRsAn1xVSPqIVRMJ9t1KmzOvQd1nLn+8
=GXdZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
