Just watch the videos. I hope one doesn't have to be an atheist to think that the "discussion group" aspect of this segment (the second video) is utterly ludicrous. A round table on discrimination against atheists that features 0 atheists and 3 theists. 2 of which immediately start attacking atheists and telling them to "just shut up". No one actually discusses the topic introduced at the start.
I mean, I thought CNN at least had some vestiges of professionalism left.
So a couple points of debate- What do you think about atheists being discriminated against, and what is your general reaction to that second clip?
What the hell? People like that should be kept locked in cage, not cause of opinion but because of stupidity. This kind of thing makes me even happier I don't live in the US.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Einstein »
Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -how passionately I hate them!
Quote from Nietzsche »
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
[thread=41221][my extendo sig][/thread] [thread=56664][moderator helpdesk][/thread] [Pen and Paper Inn]
Just add me on msn if you have any questions or just want to talk
I mean, I thought CNN at least had some vestiges of professionalism left.
Poor, misguided child...
Quote from Sibtiger »
So a couple points of debate- What do you think about atheists being discriminated against, and what is your general reaction to that second clip?
It's disgusting. If this sort of thing were in the New York Times or the Washington Post, I might be genuinely worried. But Paula Zahn is like all the things that CNN is wrong about concentrated into one segment, and the fact that she can find idiots and put them on air doesn't really bother me. There will always be idiots, and there will always be regular people who are smarter than taking a Paula Zahn segment seriously.
This is not to say that CNN should not issue a very public apology and be horribly embarassed overall. Anything that embarasses CNN is a good thing.
This kind of thing makes me even happier I don't live in the US.
Where'd that come from?
You might have to live outside it to appreciate. We really don't deal with this stuff. I've never had anyone blink an eye at me mentioning that I was atheist, except for one girl who responded with such doe-eyed amazement that I just had to laugh at her. And I live in what is basically the bible belt of Ontario.
Not to mention I'd like to see that report that had atheists as the #1 most hated group. Was it multiple choice or something? I mean, if I was given something that just asked "Which group do you hate the most?" I would probably respond "racists" "bigots" "child molesters"... you know, something like that. I can't believe more people would put atheists than those choices.
Well, I live in California, which has a pretty concentrated amount of not-care as far as beliefs go. I can see how it'd be a pretty serious problem toward the south, though.
What really surprises me (and I have heard this before) is the extremely low number of atheists.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Possibly the last remaining member of the Banana Clan (+1)
Banana of the Month Feb '05 Cool stuff here.
The presence on national television of the people here criticized is a response to the presence on national television of people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. It is not a measured and helpful response, but it is a necessary and profitable one. Rhetoric for rhetoric, spite for spite, polemic for polemic. The world turns on, the fight keeps going, and the dollars roll in for the media middle men who bring it into your homes.
Stop giving the impression that Dawkins'/Harris' retarded scare-mongering is beneficial or necessary and your media institutions will stop trying to make money by stirring the pot. Until then, maybe atheists can experience, in some small way, the aggravation and disgust that religious people have felt as the media have drooled over those two gentlemen for the last few months.
It's also worth noting that Paula Zahn had scheduled Prof. Dawkins for an interview by way of response, but it was postponed due to the ongoing Anna Nicole Smith coverage. That is itself another sort of horror, but there it is.
Quote from Sibtiger »
And I live in what is basically the bible belt of Ontario.
Describe "the 'Bible Belt' of Ontario."
Quote from Mad Mat »
In my school, which is a catholic school, even several of the teachers are atheist or agnostic.
Isn't that a disgrace rather than a good thing? How would you feel if you had enrolled your child in an academy of the sciences, only to have her come home and tell you that her teachers were young-earth creationists , flat-earthers and scientologists?
I think you'd be scandalized, and with good cause. And you'd likely react with incredulous horror to a person who would have the gall to declare this a good thing.
Quote from Solace »
What really surprises me (and I have heard this before) is the extremely low number of atheists.
There are actually more than the numbers suggest. Many of them present a problem for the identification process, however, because they function on apathy rather than conviction and subsequently do not seek the limelight. Many of them are even nominally religious, and as such are lost forever to the studious eye of the census taker.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Then loom'd his streaming majesty From out that wine-dark fog, And spake he unto all our crew: "Go forth, and read my blog."
On the Catholic school issue, I doubt these teachers are teaching religion, I think it would more likely be something like math, which has no connection with religion that could be brought up.
I've read some stuff about Dawkins, and even though he does use rhetoric at times, he also brings up quite good points, especially when it comes to creationists. So I don't think you can compare him to those guys from the movie.
Oh, I most certainly can. Whatever his points may be, they are drowned in the sort of spiteful nonsense that I'd expect to see from a disenchanted high school student, perhaps, not from a professor at motherloving Oxford. Don't just read about him, Mat. Read him. He's not a considerate man.
Until someone votes with their dollars for the proposition, "jerkish blowhards don't do this debate justice," those blowhards will keep being enthroned by the media, much to the bewildered consternation of all. If atheists want more aggressively-spoken representatives delivering their views in public (as they apparently do, given Mr. Harris' and Prof. Dawkins' book sales), they're going to have to learn to deal with equally aggressive people on the other side. It's what you get for sticking your neck out, and the value of it is appallingly low.
Well, there's a bit of a difference considering our school system. Here, there are two official types of schools: the state schools and the 'free' catholic schools. Both are funded by the government, after there were some fights about it in the past. Just in general the catholic schools have a higher status and have better infrastructure, and religion is a course you'll always have, even though it's, depending on the teacher, more philosophy and sociology.
Long ago, the catholic schools were in fact catholic with the catechismus and forced masses and all. But I haven't been to a mass for more than 6 years and I have only once touched a catechismus, when my teacher showed it as a relic.
But why, as I said, is this a good thing? Extend the metaphor. Long ago, your science academies really were scientific, with the peer reviews and experimentation and all. But they haven't tested an hypothesis for more than six years, and the last time you even saw lab equipment was when your teacher brought it out for nostalgia's sake.
Is this something you would be proud of?
The point I wanted to make is that Belgium, for one, has extremely dereligionized when compared to the US. The only political party (worth mentioning) that can be called religious is the CD&V(the christians, former catholics) and I've never heard one of them (recently) yell out at atheism or preach about god and the bible. You could even say the extreme rightists(Vlaams Belang) are more catholic than the 'catholics'.
Oh, that's certainly true, and I agree with you. The religious atmosphere in Europe at the moment is much more liberal than that of the United States. Whether this is a good thing or not in the long run remains to be seen, but for now it is simply the case.
And you really can't compare my teachers to flat-earthers or creationists: it's not like they're praising atheism or bashing religion all the time. They rarely even talk about it, unless they're religion teachers or the occasional talk during an other class.
Is there not some danger in having teachers teaching something they don't believe? What assurances do you have that the lessons will be accurate and non-editorial? It's nice to think that people are all good at heart and will do a good job even if they themselves think it's all silly, but the world simply doesn't work like that. Would you be happy to let a flat-earther teach your child science - the science that you, specifically, sent him to that school to learn - even if that flat-earther swore up and down that he was doing it according to orthodox principles? How could you know?
Well, I suppose atheists hiding it can be understood, if Dawkins tells the truth about the general opinion of atheists in the US. I suppose you're not a Dawkins-fan, but this movie does support his point.
Prof. Dawkins' (and others like him) comments about religion and religious people do more to foster the bad feeling against atheism that he decries than anything else in play. It's like:
"The Cubans are prejudiced against us Dominicans. In addition, the Cubans are smelly and dumb, and we clever Dominicans know that this is true even if those ignorant Cubans refuse to see it. Also, the Cubans are generally destroying the world; the ones who aren't actively destroying the world are just as bad because they have the same national name as those who do, and the ones who are actually actively helping the world in the name of Cuba can't really be called Cubans in the strictest sense, and are probably actually motivated by something else."
Is this likely to make anything better? Is it even reasonable to begin with? This is Prof. Dawkins' stock in trade. This is what you saw in that video, too.
It's monstrous and it needs to stop.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Then loom'd his streaming majesty From out that wine-dark fog, And spake he unto all our crew: "Go forth, and read my blog."
Yes they should. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion means they have every right to have these opinions, but it's not an excuse for CNN to put people like this on national TV. They way they voiced their opinions doesn't belong in a serious debate. The black dude was a bit better then the others, in actually acknowledging that the atheists should be able to believe what they want without being attacked because of it.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Where'd that come from?
This place is a lot different. We actually have some very similar debates going on here in Norway right now, about how Christianity is integrated in the school laws and such. But the debate is much more civil, politicians from different parties and relevant people from different sides of the case are involved in the debates on TV. Also people here don't get attacked because of their religion.
So yeah, I'm glad that I don't live in the US.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Einstein »
Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -how passionately I hate them!
Quote from Nietzsche »
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
[thread=41221][my extendo sig][/thread] [thread=56664][moderator helpdesk][/thread] [Pen and Paper Inn]
Just add me on msn if you have any questions or just want to talk
The black dude was a bit better then the others, in actually acknowledging that the atheists should be able to believe what they want without being attacked because of it.
That's sorta what I got from it.
"I may not agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to speak your mind."
I don't think CNN has any particular agenda, but they do represent what most Americans think, and what most Americans believe, and that's Christianity. Sadly, this sort of "majority rules" thinking, and what vicious-minded and petty people will do with it, that led people to flee or take up arms against their native Britain in particular, but other examples abound.
While I don't pay any mind to what's printed on money (it's never around for long anyway) I can't fault the agnostics and atheists for wanting to remove it from the national currency and anthem. It's not a problem per se, but it does suggest that the American people have lost sight of one very important reason why their country was founded in the first place: to protect the interests of those who are innocent of any crime, but are being punished for some difference in beliefs.
The presence on national television of the people here criticized is a response to the presence on national television of people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. It is not a measured and helpful response, but it is a necessary and profitable one. Rhetoric for rhetoric, spite for spite, polemic for polemic. The world turns on, the fight keeps going, and the dollars roll in for the media middle men who bring it into your homes.
Stop giving the impression that Dawkins'/Harris' retarded scare-mongering is beneficial or necessary and your media institutions will stop trying to make money by stirring the pot. Until then, maybe atheists can experience, in some small way, the aggravation and disgust that religious people have felt as the media have drooled over those two gentlemen for the last few months.
What does that have to do with... well, anything? Is every atheist suddenly represented by two outspoken individuals, when there is absolutely no orthodoxy or dogma for those who are atheists? Two atheists could have less in common with their belief structure than a Catholic and a Baptist. What connection do these people being discriminated against have with Dawkins? Almost certainly none.
Remember- if atheists are such a small minority as the report said, how could that much money be made off these people's work? Clearly there are not just atheists buying them
Describe "the 'Bible Belt' of Ontario."
A relatively WASPish majority, many catholic high schools (I think there are as many, or even more catholic schools than public high schools in my area) and a Mennonite community that has an indirect, though noticeable, affect on the local culture.
Prof. Dawkins' (and others like him) comments about religion and religious people do more to foster the bad feeling against atheism that he decries than anything else in play.
Are you justifying it? If I were to spew hateful words against all of Christianity, would it be okay if I was spurred to it by Fred Phelps? All Christians are not like Phelps. All atheists are not like Dawkins (In fact, I've never heard of him until recently, through another discussion on this subject.)
Where did Dawkins come from anyways? As I said, what does he have to do with this?
You might have to live outside it to appreciate. We really don't deal with this stuff. I've never had anyone blink an eye at me mentioning that I was atheist, except for one girl who responded with such doe-eyed amazement that I just had to laugh at her. And I live in what is basically the bible belt of Ontario.
Hey, here it comes up so infrequently that I have no idea of the religious views of some of my closest friends. Nor they mine. It's great!
Theists talking about wether atheist are discriminated? Yeah I kinda had to laugh and give a dissapointed sigh when I saw this.
I really do not like the black woman's tone. "We took prayer out of school, what more do you want?" She makes it sound as if she has already made some giant sacrifice and that us "crazy ol'" atheists are making inane demands. Then the remark about athiests having "bad pr and marketing, they need hallmark cards." Riiight. Becuase this issue is about a company having difficulty selling a product??
All in all, I do believe atheists are discriminated against by the extremely religious. I have had no such problems in NJ becuase people don't care, which is how it should be. Nor do I think that most religious people even have a problem with atheist, or agnostics or diests. Unfortuantely some people believe that their religion is the final say on what is right and wrong. Since an atheist doesn't have a "god" to tell them right from wrong, they must be really crazy and evil.
Are atheists discriminated against? I wish I could say, but that report just told me to shut up.
First of all that first quote there is rather scary. It kind of makes the US look like the old Christian crusading nation of europe However, I would be glad to not be called a patriot. I would be offended by being called a patriot.
However, the surveys on that site, even when being sceptical to them is very very scary. I don't like to generalize and such but if that stuff is true it should be quite fitting to say that a very large portion of americans are major idiots/*******s. (No trolling intended)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Einstein »
Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -how passionately I hate them!
Quote from Nietzsche »
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
[thread=41221][my extendo sig][/thread] [thread=56664][moderator helpdesk][/thread] [Pen and Paper Inn]
Just add me on msn if you have any questions or just want to talk
Concerning the videos, I am ashamed of my nation. We put these people on TV and there isn't a MAJOR outcry about it. How sad.
In fact, that black woman was personally offending. Sure, I'm not an atheist, nor am I a Christian, but what she said should offend any free thinking human being. Here's a five second summary of her ideas: "Anyone who isn't strongly Christian, shut up and go away."
I do believe in God (in a way). I do not believe in extreme atheism (ie. bashing Christians or anyone else for believing in God), nor do I believe in putting God into someone else's face (ie evangelical extremists, of any creed). What that woman said goes against everything that I hold dear and true, and makes me ashamed to live here.
The United States of America was founded on the premise of "To each his own." Unfortunately, we've forgotten that it seems. When intolerant bigots are on TV saying that their opinions matter more than others, we've lost track of reality and equality. It is a shame. We should be better than that.
To anyone who in any way supports what that woman was saying, please do not speak to me ever. You'll just confirm my lack of faith in the human race. Thanks.
It kind of puzzles me when Bush says "we're a nation under god". Doesn't the US have a separation of church and state? And if so, isn't that a violation of it then?
There is no formal, sweeping "separation of church and state." The Constitution simply says that congress can't make any laws that respect any religious establishment. Politicians are still permitted to subscribe to and promote their religious beliefs, and even push policy that represents their religious beliefs. Many politicians falsly promise to represent certain popular Evangelical Christian social ideologies in their policies in order to pull votes from their massive base.
I... I couldn't watch all of it. That is so pathetic, people leaning on religion like a crutch will all of their weight. That is all religion is anyhow, a crutch for those who don't want to try and understand. Originally people needed some sort of solace, as we are the only creatures on the planet (supposedly) who are aware of our own death. So why not go to heaven? If you are a good person (bonus points! Get a good moral structure in there as well!) you will live on for eternity, etc. People cannot possibly comprehend what actually happens when you die. It is an impossibility. I have laid awake at night, trying to think of complete and utter non-existence. It is truly the most frightening thing imaginable.
So to discriminate against people who have accepted the truth of things is ludicrous. I went to a Protestant school. It had forced mass, etc. Most of the things in religion are great, like loving thy neighbor and living to be a good person. But others have transformed religion into a mere shell of what it was. People who are extremists believe that they are the sword of god, who need to spread their power or cut down non-believers. I am ashamed to live in a country where this is the case.
Uhm, we don't get crap like that on TV here? Granted, we get other crap, but really not that worse.
I'm an atheist and I've never ever got a negative comment on that in real life.
Nor I.
Quote from Mad Mat »
In fact, most of my class are atheists too or at the very least agnostic. In my school, which is a catholic school, even several of the teachers are atheist or agnostic. From what I've read and seen of the US on religion, I can't really say that of your country.
This place is a lot different. We actually have some very similar debates going on here in Norway right now, about how Christianity is integrated in the school laws and such. But the debate is much more civil, politicians from different parties and relevant people from different sides of the case are involved in the debates on TV. Also people here don't get attacked because of their religion.
Hmmm. Another thing is of course that a politician here would lose next elections if he stated something like that, while over there he gains votes with it. At the very least it's scary how much power religions have in the US. Especially since a lot of those religions have tons of fanatic followers.
Yes, religion plays a larger role in the public discourse in America than it does in Europe. But the speed with which this thread turned to this comparison, with the clear implication that America is unenlightened and inferior, disappoints me. Who cares whether something like this could happen in the Netherlands? You guys have your own problems, like to admit it or not, and we don't unhelpfully say "It could never happen in America."
Yes they should. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion means they have every right to have these opinions, but it's not an excuse for CNN to put people like this on national TV. They way they voiced their opinions doesn't belong in a serious debate. The black dude was a bit better then the others, in actually acknowledging that the atheists should be able to believe what they want without being attacked because of it.
(a) It's freakin' CNN. This Debate forum carries on discussions with more class and substance than that network has been able to manage. Don't make the mistake of assuming this is representative of American media coverage, values, or intellectual capacity.
(b) "The black dude" has a name.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
i feel it is okay for someone to be atheist but that they should be respectful to believers. many ppl tend to be sensitive when someone denies their religion. it is best not to speak about why religion is false in front of these ppl unless they are your close friends or relatives.
the way i see it is that just because you're not christian doesn't neccessarily mean that you have to express it to the world as if it was something shocking. many ppl do not believe and never feel the urge to go in front of media and say "there is no god". atheists on media usually just want publicity and do not truly wish to defend the atheist cause.
most believers are fully aware of the dubious nature of their religion so it is not necessary for mass media to discuss this lest a new breakthrough has been made. it was the believers' choice to ignore the suspicions and it is their right to continue their beliefs.
Hmmm. Another thing is of course that a politician here would lose next elections if he stated something like that, while over there he gains votes with it. At the very least it's scary how much power religions have in the US. Especially since a lot of those religions have tons of fanatic followers.
How do you define "fanatic?" I'd say the "fanatic" Christians in the U.S. have little sway. The major influence comes from relatively moderate Evangelicals.
That is all religion is anyhow, a crutch for those who don't want to try and understand.
Yes, I agree completely. Religious people don't want to "try and understand." I'm particularly guilty of never thinking about things critically. The faculty of reason is anathema, and is explicitly condemned by my Church rather than praised by it, so you'll never find me guilty of such an abomination of the mind. It is good to be a complacent social puppet who fails to even attempt critical thought.
When I said about him, I also meant that I read one book and started in a second. That's mainly the source for my opinion about him.
Very well. I beg your pardon, then.
I don't really think Dawkins and kin are the cause of atheist-hate.
Oh, come on. Of course they cause it. They are not the only cause of it, but cause it they assuredly do. Increasingly, shamefully, and pointlessly.
Do people come down on fundamentalists because there's something hateful in non-fundamentalism? Or do they do it rather because of, say, people like Fred Phelps and Ralph Ovadal?
They may cause agressive answers to their statements, but the majority is simply incited by religion itself, which is intolerant of atheism, as written in the bible.
Quantify "the majority." Do it.
Most don't even know Dawkins. Or is he really such a celebrity over there? I've seen him once on TV, and that was on a Dutch channel in a very late documentary.
His book is a best-seller both in his home country and in North America. He is surprisingly omnipresent for a man with such a limited and witless scope.
You can't compare it to a science school.
I am not comparing it to a science school. "Science school" is just a helpful fiction. I am comparing it to "ideological/methodological school X," where that idea or that method could be whatever you like. The fact remains that to see it hollowed out it is a disgrace, not a virtue, whether you agree with what is being taught there or not. We do not need a world of limp-wristed, half-hearted people who lack convictions. We do not need our children being raised and taught in such environments. What we need - desperately need - is for a sense of passionate care to be instilled in the rising generation for whatever subjects or trades in which they receive instruction. You don't get that from people who don't believe in what they're doing. You just can't.
Even in the past the most important courses were languages and maths, not religion. My catholic school is and was no religious academy. It was a school, founded by catholics and perhaps funded(I don't know). Religion was taught there, unlike state schools, and they were very strict and expensive, so for the elite, the rich. But the religion thing has weakened, the strictness too and with the School Pact of the 50's the expenses did too.
That's fine, anecdotally, but we're dealing with a larger picture here.
Religion lessons usually are inaccurate and editorial.
When they're being entrusted to people with varying (or non-existent) religious convictions, this is not surprising in the least. People complain about the overbearing authority inherent in a rigorous magisterium, but it's nothing if not helpful as an establishment of curriculum.
In fact, I think they've always been here. Memorizing the catechismus out of your head was mainly what religion class was about in the past, now it's philosophy, sociology and sometimes ethics.
That's good, though. Philosophy, sociology and ethics are of prime importance to religion, and any school that's not teaching those things - in fact, that's not focusing on those things consistantly - is in serious trouble.
Truth is: most don't care. It's an unimportant class.
But that, however, is not good. In fact, it's terrible.
I do think you'll agree that knowing what i and e are, who Shakespeare and Brandt are and what happened in Jalta is more important than being able to instantly answer the question "Why do I belief in god?" with the right punctuation marks.
I do not agree, at least in principle. What "i" and "e" are is an interesting but largely trivial matter beyond knowing how to use them to spell words. I can think of a dozen authors, theorists and philosophers that one should be taught about ahead of or even instead of Shakespeare, all of them expressly religious. What happened in Jalta is a matter of near-irrelevance as compared to the history of the world's religions. It is a mote of dust on the tapestry of man.
A Catholic school is welcome (and encouraged, and ought) to teach all of these things and more - and the best Catholic schools do - but not before or above Catholicism, or detached from a sincere Catholic perspective.
That may be, but he usually does have a point.
That's irrelevant, though. The ends do not justify the means. If I "have a point" in a debate, but I got there by insulting and demeaning you, by misrepresenting your positions and being selective in information, by being brash and dismissive and disdainful of counter-argument, I have not really won. My conclusions could be wholly correct, but if they are arrived at poorly they are at best suspicious and at worst meaningless. This isn't just a matter of rhetoric; this is a substantial part of science.
Sure, he makes fun out of religion and offends a lot of gods, people, etc, but if you leave out the rhetoric and the name-calling, I really do feel he's right about a lot of stuff.
So what? How does Richard Dawkins massaging your intuitive sense of what's "right" make it alright for him to carry on in the way he does?
Anyway, I am not going to "leave out" the insults, the rhetoric, and the name-calling. It's a type of special pleading, and no one should stand for it. You'd never let a Christian get away with it, so don't expect similar treatment.
And for reference: I'm namely talking about God the Delusion. Haven't read the others. His description of the OT god makes sense if you read a couple of passages. His analysis of ID arguments is also correct, from what I've seen. His statistic argument is rather rhetorical, though. And so on.
His description of the OT god "makes sense" if you only read those couple of passages and Prof. Dawkins' book. There's this whole two-thousand year civilization's worth of commentary and philosophy that he is actually proud of ignoring in coming to his conclusions. You can do better than that, Mat.
And, to repeat myself, he can never be "right." He may be correct in any number of conclusions he arrives at, but his methods categorically prevent "rightness." Consider the video at the heart of this. The conclusions, "people need to stop crying wolf; much of this hatred is exaggerated; militant atheists sometimes bring it on themselves" are all substantially correct, but they are arrived at so poorly, and with such scorn and malice, that one simply can not take them at face value.
I still fail to see how you can compare Dawkins to die-hard evangelists. Unlike those, Dawkins does use logical arguments and doesn't need to base his views on one single book. But then again, I'm in Dawkins's camp so to speak, so I'm certainly biased.
Again, it's not an issue of the actual position being taken or the conclusions being arrived at. It's a question of approach. Neither the "die-hard evangelists" nor Prof. Dawkins have a good approach to this. What they do have is an angry and entertaining approach to this, and, no matter what damage this does to the debate itself (which is of crucial importance), such people will be promoted and featured by the media because they draw in viewers much as a car accident does.
This is not something the world needs.
Quote from Tanthalas »
The "Dawkins vs religion" issue seems to have gotten worse over time. At first, he was fairly sensible about it all whilst still being anti-religion. Then some inflammatory responses 'forced' him to reply in kind, producing worse criticisms of him, producing more petulant responses... it's all quite childish, really.
Yes, it's a crying shame. It's the cycle I was describing above. Atheists don't have to be "below" putting an end to it, though. There's nothing stopping them from taking the intellectual and ethical high ground they say they occupy.
And yet, Prof. Dawkins' book sells millions of copies.
Quote from Sibtiger »
What does that have to do with... well, anything? Is every atheist suddenly represented by two outspoken individuals, when there is absolutely no orthodoxy or dogma for those who are atheists?
Of course not. That's the whole problem.
The media treats this issue - which is as old as Man and larger than any pissant entertainment industry - as if it really can be adequately discussed by intransigent talking heads. They do this because - apparently - there is some strain of public opinion that makes such things popular even as they are disastrous. It's like watching a wrestling match. The only problem is that it's not being faked, and they're meddling with something exponentially more important to people than large men in colourful outfits.
The reason I am "blaming" this on the likes of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins is because they are the opposite side of the coin that the media feels the "need" to profitably balance out. Of course it's actually the media's fault, but the people in question - on both sides - are also responsible for enabling it. Prof. Dawkins could be using his not inconsiderable position - a chair at Oxford and a respected author! - to offer up mature, measured and above-all objective criticisms of religion; heaven knows they can be made easily enough. He could be engaging in the sort of debate that would be recalled with fondness years hence; the sort of debate that enriches both sides even as it challenges them. But he doesn't do this. He instead chooses to be a petulant douchebag.
Two atheists could have less in common with their belief structure than a Catholic and a Baptist. What connection do these people being discriminated against have with Dawkins? Almost certainly none.
I am not blaming these peoples' discrimination on Richard Dawkins. Their discrimination is another matter altogether, and needs to be addressed by someone other than pundits and ideologues. I am blaming the presence on national television of the two miserable women in the second video on the presence on national television of the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. I am implicating Tweedle-Dee in the sudden appearance of Tweedle-Dum.
That is what I am doing.
Remember- if atheists are such a small minority as the report said, how could that much money be made off these people's work? Clearly there are not just atheists buying them.
Oh, clearly. There are people who don't care about religion all that much, but who buy them because it's popular, or because they just find their curiosity piqued. There are religious people buying them so that they can be informed about something that their opponents will cite. There are literary types buying it to find out what all the fuss is about. There are students of evolutionary science buying it just because Prof. Dawkins wrote it. It goes on and on.
However, I think it would be foolish to suggest that chief consumer base for this book is anything other than atheists.
And atheists are not such a small minority as the report said. Their number is growing all the time, and they also exist in significant quantities under the umbrella of the nominally religious.
A relatively WASPish majority, many catholic high schools (I think there are as many, or even more catholic schools than public high schools in my area) and a Mennonite community that has an indirect, though noticeable, affect on the local culture.
Thanks. I live there myself, as you can see, but I had never thought of describing it thus. Is this a provincially-held conception? Or is it something of your own coinage? This is a genuine question.
Are you justifying it?
Not in the least. I am simply describing it.
I had hoped that the fact that I disapprove of it entirely would have been clear from how I described it as "increasing, shameful and pointless."
If I were to spew hateful words against all of Christianity, would it be okay if I was spurred to it by Fred Phelps?
No, of course it wouldn't. What it would be, however, is wholly understandable.
All Christians are not like Phelps. All atheists are not like Dawkins (In fact, I've never heard of him until recently, through another discussion on this subject.)
This is precisely why the media's tendency to cover this issue as if these people really do speak for someone other than themselves is problematic in the extreme. This is why I am, in fact, against the whole thing, as I hope I have made clear.
Where did Dawkins come from anyways? As I said, what does he have to do with this?
See the above portions of this post. I beg your pardon for not having been as expansive at first as I perhaps ought to have been.
Quote from Bogardan Mage »
Hey, here it comes up so infrequently that I have no idea of the religious views of some of my closest friends. Nor they mine. It's great!
Why is it "great," though? Why is it great to be wholly ignorant of the deepest beliefs of those closest to you?
Quote from Dre2Dee2 »
All in all, I do believe atheists are discriminated against by the extremely religious. I have had no such problems in NJ becuase people don't care, which is how it should be. Nor do I think that most religious people even have a problem with atheist, or agnostics or diests. Unfortuantely some people believe that their religion is the final say on what is right and wrong. Since an atheist doesn't have a "god" to tell them right from wrong, they must be really crazy and evil.
It is worth noting here that many religious people do believe "that their religion is the final say on what is right and wrong," but nevertheless do not go out of their way to come down upon atheists. Some systems of religious thought are better than others :/
And, I have to say, I really love your username if it means what I think it means.
Quote from glurman »
I... I couldn't watch all of it. That is so pathetic, people leaning on religion like a crutch will all of their weight. That is all religion is anyhow, a crutch for those who don't want to try and understand.
And atheism is just a crutch for those who want to be rebels
Way to take the high road there, chief. Way to really teach them a lesson.
Originally people needed some sort of solace, as we are the only creatures on the planet (supposedly) who are aware of our own death. So why not go to heaven? If you are a good person (bonus points! Get a good moral structure in there as well!) you will live on for eternity, etc.
It might be worth noting that the earliest religions did not typically hold these beliefs in any recognizable way. One does not get the idea of a real "Heaven" in the Abrahamic tradition (for example) until Christ, and at that it is mentioned almost as an afterthought to the far more desirable destiny of being able to do what God wants us to do without disappointing him. The idea of an abode of eternal reward is strangely distant in early Jewish thought, wherein "Heaven," insofar as it is mentioned at all, is simply where God lives, while Hell, though only lightly sketched, had greater sway in the form of Sheol than it did as what we think of it as today. The great patriarchs and heroes of the Old Testament are never described as living their lives out of some reward expectation - in fact, the idea is barely, if ever, mentioned. Far greater emphasis is placed on the desirability of doing the good and righteous thing for its own sake; that is, for the honor of the thing.
The vague undesirability or unremarkability of any afterlife for the Hellenistic pagans is also worth noting. The only good destination for the departed was reserved not for people who did good things, but for people who did sensational and heroically good things beyond the ken of mortal man. One did not arrive in the Elysian Fields for simply living a blameless life. More often the afterlife, if not simply spent in the misery of Tartarus, would be spent in Asphodel Meadows, a place of no special character and incredible boredom. And, of course, that's not even taking into account the presence of Lethe, whereby the distinctive elements of the personality and the self are scrubbed away.
Eastern conceptions of "heaven" describe it as a temporary state, as all things are, on the road to a final enlightenment, like bodhi or moksha - states of affairs that could be described almost as a that of oblivion. That is, they are not concerned with the eternal maintenance of the self, but rather with the self's eventual and sought-after dissolution.
It is not so clear-cut as you would have it be.
People cannot possibly comprehend what actually happens when you die. It is an impossibility. I have laid awake at night, trying to think of complete and utter non-existence. It is truly the most frightening thing imaginable.
Perhaps if you stopped lying awake at night you might get some sleep and thereby experience what non-consciousness is like.
Quote from extremestan »
Yes, I agree completely. Religious people don't want to "try and understand." I'm particularly guilty of never thinking about things critically. The faculty of reason is anathema, and is explicitly condemned by my Church rather than praised by it, so you'll never find me guilty of such an abomination of the mind. It is good to be a complacent social puppet who fails to even attempt critical thought.
lol fool it's just reverse psychology. by standing so firmly in favour of reason, your church is actually driving you away from it, just like they drive people away from chastity and whatnot by being too strict about it
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Then loom'd his streaming majesty From out that wine-dark fog, And spake he unto all our crew: "Go forth, and read my blog."
Yes, I agree completely. Religious people don't want to "try and understand." I'm particularly guilty of never thinking about things critically. The faculty of reason is anathema, and is explicitly condemned by my Church rather than praised by it, so you'll never find me guilty of such an abomination of the mind. It is good to be a complacent social puppet who fails to even attempt critical thought.
Let me help you out, stan:
The above quote is written in a sarcastic tone, which is to say it ironically states things directly counter to the truth in an ironic manner for the purposes of humor and/or confrontationalism.
You can never be too careful on the Intarweb.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The media treats this issue - which is as old as Man and larger than any pissant entertainment industry - as if it really can be adequately discussed by intransigent talking heads. They do this because - apparently - there is some strain of public opinion that makes such things popular even as they are disastrous. It's like watching a wrestling match. The only problem is that it's not being faked, and they're meddling with something exponentially more important to people than large men in colourful outfits.
The reason I am "blaming" this on the likes of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins is because they are the opposite side of the coin that the media feels the "need" to profitably balance out. Of course it's actually the media's fault, but the people in question - on both sides - are also responsible for enabling it. Prof. Dawkins could be using his not inconsiderable position - a chair at Oxford and a respected author! - to offer up mature, measured and above-all objective criticisms of religion; heaven knows they can be made easily enough. He could be engaging in the sort of debate that would be recalled with fondness years hence; the sort of debate that enriches both sides even as it challenges them. But he doesn't do this. He instead chooses to be a petulant douchebag.
I am not blaming these peoples' discrimination on Richard Dawkins. Their discrimination is another matter altogether, and needs to be addressed by someone other than pundits and ideologues. I am blaming the presence on national television of the two miserable women in the second video on the presence on national television of the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. I am implicating Tweedle-Dee in the sudden appearance of Tweedle-Dum.
Ah. I misunderstood you somewhat. We agree there. But that video certainly didn't seem to have to intention of countering Dawkins as you said. They said it was to discuss discrimination against atheists, and yet it just featured two women blasting atheists (while, in a marvelous feat of double-think, denying that discrimination is of any importance) and a sportscaster who tries to make the point that they are allowed to speak their minds.
I totally agree with you that everyone who lowers themselves to hurling hateful epithets makes this whole thing worse. But one would hope that after the first segment (which was a bit low on the journalistic standards scale, at least introduced the subject well enough) they would try to have a panel that could offer perspective on things, not propagate the problem.
Thanks. I live there myself, as you can see, but I had never thought of describing it thus. Is this a provincially-held conception? Or is it something of your own coinage? This is a genuine question.
I'm not sure the rest of the province thinks that way, but other than Oktoberfest, the mennonites are one of the more prominent factors in the description of the area. It's something of my own coinage (my friends and I developed the term, as opposed to hearing it from somewhere else). It's based off the observation that, for example, the Toronto Star (which is what they have for free at my school) doesn't have as regular a Faith column as the Waterloo Record does, and the former certainly doesn't get as many letters and editorials that argue from a Christian perspective as the latter.
I mean, it's still Ontario, so it's not like the American bible belt. It's a relative term.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just watch the videos. I hope one doesn't have to be an atheist to think that the "discussion group" aspect of this segment (the second video) is utterly ludicrous. A round table on discrimination against atheists that features 0 atheists and 3 theists. 2 of which immediately start attacking atheists and telling them to "just shut up". No one actually discusses the topic introduced at the start.
I mean, I thought CNN at least had some vestiges of professionalism left.
So a couple points of debate- What do you think about atheists being discriminated against, and what is your general reaction to that second clip?
[thread=41221][my extendo sig][/thread] [thread=56664][moderator helpdesk][/thread] [Pen and Paper Inn]
Just add me on msn if you have any questions or just want to talk
Poor, misguided child...
It's disgusting. If this sort of thing were in the New York Times or the Washington Post, I might be genuinely worried. But Paula Zahn is like all the things that CNN is wrong about concentrated into one segment, and the fact that she can find idiots and put them on air doesn't really bother me. There will always be idiots, and there will always be regular people who are smarter than taking a Paula Zahn segment seriously.
This is not to say that CNN should not issue a very public apology and be horribly embarassed overall. Anything that embarasses CNN is a good thing.
So they should "shut up?"
Where'd that come from?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You might have to live outside it to appreciate. We really don't deal with this stuff. I've never had anyone blink an eye at me mentioning that I was atheist, except for one girl who responded with such doe-eyed amazement that I just had to laugh at her. And I live in what is basically the bible belt of Ontario.
Not to mention I'd like to see that report that had atheists as the #1 most hated group. Was it multiple choice or something? I mean, if I was given something that just asked "Which group do you hate the most?" I would probably respond "racists" "bigots" "child molesters"... you know, something like that. I can't believe more people would put atheists than those choices.
What really surprises me (and I have heard this before) is the extremely low number of atheists.
Possibly the last remaining member of the Banana Clan (+1)
Banana of the Month Feb '05
Cool stuff here.
Stop giving the impression that Dawkins'/Harris' retarded scare-mongering is beneficial or necessary and your media institutions will stop trying to make money by stirring the pot. Until then, maybe atheists can experience, in some small way, the aggravation and disgust that religious people have felt as the media have drooled over those two gentlemen for the last few months.
It's also worth noting that Paula Zahn had scheduled Prof. Dawkins for an interview by way of response, but it was postponed due to the ongoing Anna Nicole Smith coverage. That is itself another sort of horror, but there it is.
Describe "the 'Bible Belt' of Ontario."
Isn't that a disgrace rather than a good thing? How would you feel if you had enrolled your child in an academy of the sciences, only to have her come home and tell you that her teachers were young-earth creationists , flat-earthers and scientologists?
I think you'd be scandalized, and with good cause. And you'd likely react with incredulous horror to a person who would have the gall to declare this a good thing.
There are actually more than the numbers suggest. Many of them present a problem for the identification process, however, because they function on apathy rather than conviction and subsequently do not seek the limelight. Many of them are even nominally religious, and as such are lost forever to the studious eye of the census taker.
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
Oh, I most certainly can. Whatever his points may be, they are drowned in the sort of spiteful nonsense that I'd expect to see from a disenchanted high school student, perhaps, not from a professor at motherloving Oxford. Don't just read about him, Mat. Read him. He's not a considerate man.
Until someone votes with their dollars for the proposition, "jerkish blowhards don't do this debate justice," those blowhards will keep being enthroned by the media, much to the bewildered consternation of all. If atheists want more aggressively-spoken representatives delivering their views in public (as they apparently do, given Mr. Harris' and Prof. Dawkins' book sales), they're going to have to learn to deal with equally aggressive people on the other side. It's what you get for sticking your neck out, and the value of it is appallingly low.
But why, as I said, is this a good thing? Extend the metaphor. Long ago, your science academies really were scientific, with the peer reviews and experimentation and all. But they haven't tested an hypothesis for more than six years, and the last time you even saw lab equipment was when your teacher brought it out for nostalgia's sake.
Is this something you would be proud of?
Oh, that's certainly true, and I agree with you. The religious atmosphere in Europe at the moment is much more liberal than that of the United States. Whether this is a good thing or not in the long run remains to be seen, but for now it is simply the case.
Is there not some danger in having teachers teaching something they don't believe? What assurances do you have that the lessons will be accurate and non-editorial? It's nice to think that people are all good at heart and will do a good job even if they themselves think it's all silly, but the world simply doesn't work like that. Would you be happy to let a flat-earther teach your child science - the science that you, specifically, sent him to that school to learn - even if that flat-earther swore up and down that he was doing it according to orthodox principles? How could you know?
Prof. Dawkins' (and others like him) comments about religion and religious people do more to foster the bad feeling against atheism that he decries than anything else in play. It's like:
"The Cubans are prejudiced against us Dominicans. In addition, the Cubans are smelly and dumb, and we clever Dominicans know that this is true even if those ignorant Cubans refuse to see it. Also, the Cubans are generally destroying the world; the ones who aren't actively destroying the world are just as bad because they have the same national name as those who do, and the ones who are actually actively helping the world in the name of Cuba can't really be called Cubans in the strictest sense, and are probably actually motivated by something else."
Is this likely to make anything better? Is it even reasonable to begin with? This is Prof. Dawkins' stock in trade. This is what you saw in that video, too.
It's monstrous and it needs to stop.
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
Yes they should. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion means they have every right to have these opinions, but it's not an excuse for CNN to put people like this on national TV. They way they voiced their opinions doesn't belong in a serious debate. The black dude was a bit better then the others, in actually acknowledging that the atheists should be able to believe what they want without being attacked because of it.
This place is a lot different. We actually have some very similar debates going on here in Norway right now, about how Christianity is integrated in the school laws and such. But the debate is much more civil, politicians from different parties and relevant people from different sides of the case are involved in the debates on TV. Also people here don't get attacked because of their religion.
So yeah, I'm glad that I don't live in the US.
[thread=41221][my extendo sig][/thread] [thread=56664][moderator helpdesk][/thread] [Pen and Paper Inn]
Just add me on msn if you have any questions or just want to talk
"I may not agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to speak your mind."
I don't think CNN has any particular agenda, but they do represent what most Americans think, and what most Americans believe, and that's Christianity. Sadly, this sort of "majority rules" thinking, and what vicious-minded and petty people will do with it, that led people to flee or take up arms against their native Britain in particular, but other examples abound.
While I don't pay any mind to what's printed on money (it's never around for long anyway) I can't fault the agnostics and atheists for wanting to remove it from the national currency and anthem. It's not a problem per se, but it does suggest that the American people have lost sight of one very important reason why their country was founded in the first place: to protect the interests of those who are innocent of any crime, but are being punished for some difference in beliefs.
What does that have to do with... well, anything? Is every atheist suddenly represented by two outspoken individuals, when there is absolutely no orthodoxy or dogma for those who are atheists? Two atheists could have less in common with their belief structure than a Catholic and a Baptist. What connection do these people being discriminated against have with Dawkins? Almost certainly none.
Remember- if atheists are such a small minority as the report said, how could that much money be made off these people's work? Clearly there are not just atheists buying them
A relatively WASPish majority, many catholic high schools (I think there are as many, or even more catholic schools than public high schools in my area) and a Mennonite community that has an indirect, though noticeable, affect on the local culture.
Are you justifying it? If I were to spew hateful words against all of Christianity, would it be okay if I was spurred to it by Fred Phelps? All Christians are not like Phelps. All atheists are not like Dawkins (In fact, I've never heard of him until recently, through another discussion on this subject.)
Where did Dawkins come from anyways? As I said, what does he have to do with this?
Hey, here it comes up so infrequently that I have no idea of the religious views of some of my closest friends. Nor they mine. It's great!
I really do not like the black woman's tone. "We took prayer out of school, what more do you want?" She makes it sound as if she has already made some giant sacrifice and that us "crazy ol'" atheists are making inane demands. Then the remark about athiests having "bad pr and marketing, they need hallmark cards." Riiight. Becuase this issue is about a company having difficulty selling a product??
All in all, I do believe atheists are discriminated against by the extremely religious. I have had no such problems in NJ becuase people don't care, which is how it should be. Nor do I think that most religious people even have a problem with atheist, or agnostics or diests. Unfortuantely some people believe that their religion is the final say on what is right and wrong. Since an atheist doesn't have a "god" to tell them right from wrong, they must be really crazy and evil.
Are atheists discriminated against? I wish I could say, but that report just told me to shut up.
Yeah, its pretty much the same way here. But I tend to the philosophical side, and so do my friends, so we talk about that stuff on occasion.
The other time was in philosophy class where we had to say, so that's a bit of an extenuating circumstance.
First of all that first quote there is rather scary. It kind of makes the US look like the old Christian crusading nation of europe However, I would be glad to not be called a patriot. I would be offended by being called a patriot.
However, the surveys on that site, even when being sceptical to them is very very scary. I don't like to generalize and such but if that stuff is true it should be quite fitting to say that a very large portion of americans are major idiots/*******s. (No trolling intended)
[thread=41221][my extendo sig][/thread] [thread=56664][moderator helpdesk][/thread] [Pen and Paper Inn]
Just add me on msn if you have any questions or just want to talk
In fact, that black woman was personally offending. Sure, I'm not an atheist, nor am I a Christian, but what she said should offend any free thinking human being. Here's a five second summary of her ideas: "Anyone who isn't strongly Christian, shut up and go away."
I do believe in God (in a way). I do not believe in extreme atheism (ie. bashing Christians or anyone else for believing in God), nor do I believe in putting God into someone else's face (ie evangelical extremists, of any creed). What that woman said goes against everything that I hold dear and true, and makes me ashamed to live here.
The United States of America was founded on the premise of "To each his own." Unfortunately, we've forgotten that it seems. When intolerant bigots are on TV saying that their opinions matter more than others, we've lost track of reality and equality. It is a shame. We should be better than that.
To anyone who in any way supports what that woman was saying, please do not speak to me ever. You'll just confirm my lack of faith in the human race. Thanks.
Radha, Heir to Keld, Vorel of the Hull Clade, Kemba, Kha Regent, Vela the Night-Clad, Kozilek, Butcher of Truth, Barrin, Master Wizard, Slobad, Goblin Tinkerer, Patron of the Orochi, Oloro, Ageless Ascetic, Thraximundar, Roon of the Hidden Realm, Prossh, Skyraider of Kher, Marath, Will of the Wild, Teneb, the Harvester
If you did this, tell me and I'll credit you!
There is no formal, sweeping "separation of church and state." The Constitution simply says that congress can't make any laws that respect any religious establishment. Politicians are still permitted to subscribe to and promote their religious beliefs, and even push policy that represents their religious beliefs. Many politicians falsly promise to represent certain popular Evangelical Christian social ideologies in their policies in order to pull votes from their massive base.
So to discriminate against people who have accepted the truth of things is ludicrous. I went to a Protestant school. It had forced mass, etc. Most of the things in religion are great, like loving thy neighbor and living to be a good person. But others have transformed religion into a mere shell of what it was. People who are extremists believe that they are the sword of god, who need to spread their power or cut down non-believers. I am ashamed to live in a country where this is the case.
But, you know... no hard feelings, eh Jesus?
I bear no hostility toward you, my child
Thanks, Jesus.
Nor I.
Try living here.
Yes, religion plays a larger role in the public discourse in America than it does in Europe. But the speed with which this thread turned to this comparison, with the clear implication that America is unenlightened and inferior, disappoints me. Who cares whether something like this could happen in the Netherlands? You guys have your own problems, like to admit it or not, and we don't unhelpfully say "It could never happen in America."
(a) It's freakin' CNN. This Debate forum carries on discussions with more class and substance than that network has been able to manage. Don't make the mistake of assuming this is representative of American media coverage, values, or intellectual capacity.
(b) "The black dude" has a name.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
the way i see it is that just because you're not christian doesn't neccessarily mean that you have to express it to the world as if it was something shocking. many ppl do not believe and never feel the urge to go in front of media and say "there is no god". atheists on media usually just want publicity and do not truly wish to defend the atheist cause.
most believers are fully aware of the dubious nature of their religion so it is not necessary for mass media to discuss this lest a new breakthrough has been made. it was the believers' choice to ignore the suspicions and it is their right to continue their beliefs.
How do you define "fanatic?" I'd say the "fanatic" Christians in the U.S. have little sway. The major influence comes from relatively moderate Evangelicals.
Yes, I agree completely. Religious people don't want to "try and understand." I'm particularly guilty of never thinking about things critically. The faculty of reason is anathema, and is explicitly condemned by my Church rather than praised by it, so you'll never find me guilty of such an abomination of the mind. It is good to be a complacent social puppet who fails to even attempt critical thought.
Very well. I beg your pardon, then.
Oh, come on. Of course they cause it. They are not the only cause of it, but cause it they assuredly do. Increasingly, shamefully, and pointlessly.
Do people come down on fundamentalists because there's something hateful in non-fundamentalism? Or do they do it rather because of, say, people like Fred Phelps and Ralph Ovadal?
Quantify "the majority." Do it.
His book is a best-seller both in his home country and in North America. He is surprisingly omnipresent for a man with such a limited and witless scope.
I am not comparing it to a science school. "Science school" is just a helpful fiction. I am comparing it to "ideological/methodological school X," where that idea or that method could be whatever you like. The fact remains that to see it hollowed out it is a disgrace, not a virtue, whether you agree with what is being taught there or not. We do not need a world of limp-wristed, half-hearted people who lack convictions. We do not need our children being raised and taught in such environments. What we need - desperately need - is for a sense of passionate care to be instilled in the rising generation for whatever subjects or trades in which they receive instruction. You don't get that from people who don't believe in what they're doing. You just can't.
That's fine, anecdotally, but we're dealing with a larger picture here.
When they're being entrusted to people with varying (or non-existent) religious convictions, this is not surprising in the least. People complain about the overbearing authority inherent in a rigorous magisterium, but it's nothing if not helpful as an establishment of curriculum.
That's good, though. Philosophy, sociology and ethics are of prime importance to religion, and any school that's not teaching those things - in fact, that's not focusing on those things consistantly - is in serious trouble.
But that, however, is not good. In fact, it's terrible.
I do not agree, at least in principle. What "i" and "e" are is an interesting but largely trivial matter beyond knowing how to use them to spell words. I can think of a dozen authors, theorists and philosophers that one should be taught about ahead of or even instead of Shakespeare, all of them expressly religious. What happened in Jalta is a matter of near-irrelevance as compared to the history of the world's religions. It is a mote of dust on the tapestry of man.
A Catholic school is welcome (and encouraged, and ought) to teach all of these things and more - and the best Catholic schools do - but not before or above Catholicism, or detached from a sincere Catholic perspective.
That's irrelevant, though. The ends do not justify the means. If I "have a point" in a debate, but I got there by insulting and demeaning you, by misrepresenting your positions and being selective in information, by being brash and dismissive and disdainful of counter-argument, I have not really won. My conclusions could be wholly correct, but if they are arrived at poorly they are at best suspicious and at worst meaningless. This isn't just a matter of rhetoric; this is a substantial part of science.
So what? How does Richard Dawkins massaging your intuitive sense of what's "right" make it alright for him to carry on in the way he does?
Anyway, I am not going to "leave out" the insults, the rhetoric, and the name-calling. It's a type of special pleading, and no one should stand for it. You'd never let a Christian get away with it, so don't expect similar treatment.
His description of the OT god "makes sense" if you only read those couple of passages and Prof. Dawkins' book. There's this whole two-thousand year civilization's worth of commentary and philosophy that he is actually proud of ignoring in coming to his conclusions. You can do better than that, Mat.
And, to repeat myself, he can never be "right." He may be correct in any number of conclusions he arrives at, but his methods categorically prevent "rightness." Consider the video at the heart of this. The conclusions, "people need to stop crying wolf; much of this hatred is exaggerated; militant atheists sometimes bring it on themselves" are all substantially correct, but they are arrived at so poorly, and with such scorn and malice, that one simply can not take them at face value.
Again, it's not an issue of the actual position being taken or the conclusions being arrived at. It's a question of approach. Neither the "die-hard evangelists" nor Prof. Dawkins have a good approach to this. What they do have is an angry and entertaining approach to this, and, no matter what damage this does to the debate itself (which is of crucial importance), such people will be promoted and featured by the media because they draw in viewers much as a car accident does.
This is not something the world needs.
Yes, it's a crying shame. It's the cycle I was describing above. Atheists don't have to be "below" putting an end to it, though. There's nothing stopping them from taking the intellectual and ethical high ground they say they occupy.
And yet, Prof. Dawkins' book sells millions of copies.
Of course not. That's the whole problem.
The media treats this issue - which is as old as Man and larger than any pissant entertainment industry - as if it really can be adequately discussed by intransigent talking heads. They do this because - apparently - there is some strain of public opinion that makes such things popular even as they are disastrous. It's like watching a wrestling match. The only problem is that it's not being faked, and they're meddling with something exponentially more important to people than large men in colourful outfits.
The reason I am "blaming" this on the likes of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins is because they are the opposite side of the coin that the media feels the "need" to profitably balance out. Of course it's actually the media's fault, but the people in question - on both sides - are also responsible for enabling it. Prof. Dawkins could be using his not inconsiderable position - a chair at Oxford and a respected author! - to offer up mature, measured and above-all objective criticisms of religion; heaven knows they can be made easily enough. He could be engaging in the sort of debate that would be recalled with fondness years hence; the sort of debate that enriches both sides even as it challenges them. But he doesn't do this. He instead chooses to be a petulant douchebag.
I am not blaming these peoples' discrimination on Richard Dawkins. Their discrimination is another matter altogether, and needs to be addressed by someone other than pundits and ideologues. I am blaming the presence on national television of the two miserable women in the second video on the presence on national television of the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. I am implicating Tweedle-Dee in the sudden appearance of Tweedle-Dum.
That is what I am doing.
Oh, clearly. There are people who don't care about religion all that much, but who buy them because it's popular, or because they just find their curiosity piqued. There are religious people buying them so that they can be informed about something that their opponents will cite. There are literary types buying it to find out what all the fuss is about. There are students of evolutionary science buying it just because Prof. Dawkins wrote it. It goes on and on.
However, I think it would be foolish to suggest that chief consumer base for this book is anything other than atheists.
And atheists are not such a small minority as the report said. Their number is growing all the time, and they also exist in significant quantities under the umbrella of the nominally religious.
Thanks. I live there myself, as you can see, but I had never thought of describing it thus. Is this a provincially-held conception? Or is it something of your own coinage? This is a genuine question.
Not in the least. I am simply describing it.
I had hoped that the fact that I disapprove of it entirely would have been clear from how I described it as "increasing, shameful and pointless."
No, of course it wouldn't. What it would be, however, is wholly understandable.
This is precisely why the media's tendency to cover this issue as if these people really do speak for someone other than themselves is problematic in the extreme. This is why I am, in fact, against the whole thing, as I hope I have made clear.
See the above portions of this post. I beg your pardon for not having been as expansive at first as I perhaps ought to have been.
Why is it "great," though? Why is it great to be wholly ignorant of the deepest beliefs of those closest to you?
It is worth noting here that many religious people do believe "that their religion is the final say on what is right and wrong," but nevertheless do not go out of their way to come down upon atheists. Some systems of religious thought are better than others :/
And, I have to say, I really love your username if it means what I think it means.
And atheism is just a crutch for those who want to be rebels
Way to take the high road there, chief. Way to really teach them a lesson.
It might be worth noting that the earliest religions did not typically hold these beliefs in any recognizable way. One does not get the idea of a real "Heaven" in the Abrahamic tradition (for example) until Christ, and at that it is mentioned almost as an afterthought to the far more desirable destiny of being able to do what God wants us to do without disappointing him. The idea of an abode of eternal reward is strangely distant in early Jewish thought, wherein "Heaven," insofar as it is mentioned at all, is simply where God lives, while Hell, though only lightly sketched, had greater sway in the form of Sheol than it did as what we think of it as today. The great patriarchs and heroes of the Old Testament are never described as living their lives out of some reward expectation - in fact, the idea is barely, if ever, mentioned. Far greater emphasis is placed on the desirability of doing the good and righteous thing for its own sake; that is, for the honor of the thing.
The vague undesirability or unremarkability of any afterlife for the Hellenistic pagans is also worth noting. The only good destination for the departed was reserved not for people who did good things, but for people who did sensational and heroically good things beyond the ken of mortal man. One did not arrive in the Elysian Fields for simply living a blameless life. More often the afterlife, if not simply spent in the misery of Tartarus, would be spent in Asphodel Meadows, a place of no special character and incredible boredom. And, of course, that's not even taking into account the presence of Lethe, whereby the distinctive elements of the personality and the self are scrubbed away.
Eastern conceptions of "heaven" describe it as a temporary state, as all things are, on the road to a final enlightenment, like bodhi or moksha - states of affairs that could be described almost as a that of oblivion. That is, they are not concerned with the eternal maintenance of the self, but rather with the self's eventual and sought-after dissolution.
It is not so clear-cut as you would have it be.
Perhaps if you stopped lying awake at night you might get some sleep and thereby experience what non-consciousness is like.
lol fool it's just reverse psychology. by standing so firmly in favour of reason, your church is actually driving you away from it, just like they drive people away from chastity and whatnot by being too strict about it
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
Let me help you out, stan:
The above quote is written in a sarcastic tone, which is to say it ironically states things directly counter to the truth in an ironic manner for the purposes of humor and/or confrontationalism.
You can never be too careful on the Intarweb.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Ah. I misunderstood you somewhat. We agree there. But that video certainly didn't seem to have to intention of countering Dawkins as you said. They said it was to discuss discrimination against atheists, and yet it just featured two women blasting atheists (while, in a marvelous feat of double-think, denying that discrimination is of any importance) and a sportscaster who tries to make the point that they are allowed to speak their minds.
I totally agree with you that everyone who lowers themselves to hurling hateful epithets makes this whole thing worse. But one would hope that after the first segment (which was a bit low on the journalistic standards scale, at least introduced the subject well enough) they would try to have a panel that could offer perspective on things, not propagate the problem.
I'm not sure the rest of the province thinks that way, but other than Oktoberfest, the mennonites are one of the more prominent factors in the description of the area. It's something of my own coinage (my friends and I developed the term, as opposed to hearing it from somewhere else). It's based off the observation that, for example, the Toronto Star (which is what they have for free at my school) doesn't have as regular a Faith column as the Waterloo Record does, and the former certainly doesn't get as many letters and editorials that argue from a Christian perspective as the latter.
I mean, it's still Ontario, so it's not like the American bible belt. It's a relative term.