 Kore7 says: Michael Shermer makes a point that needs to be made. Atheists need to remember what they stand for, not merely what they are against. Ridicule and contempt have no place in science, and haters should not tarnish its reputation by association. In the words of the greatest consciousness raiser of the 20th century, Martin Luther King, Jr., in his epic "I Have a Dream" speech: "In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline." Wow talk about an effective title! Gotta get this comment in before the storm. Atheists are really touchy about their religion! The thing is, most atheists _are_ reasonable about religion. We're just not the ones who are loud about what we believe. All most people hear from are the extremist jerks. It's that old "silent majority" thing.  Oh, ok, I'll buy that. And you can believe anything you want - I do Actually, re-reading this, I would make another distinction. Atheism is not an anti-religious movement as suggested in the clip. That would be "anti-theism". A-theism is "without religion". Mssrs. Newdow and Dawkins and his ilk are atheists, but that's not why you've heard of them. You've heard of them because they are also anti-theists. I agree. The problem comes when people get the two mixed up because a true atheist will not acknowledge because to them it is a non-subject I'm not sure I buy that redefinition of atheism. I mean, the word comes from Greek roots meaning "no god." And strider72's observation about atheists can be applied to most groups of people (outside of crazy cults and militant movements). I think most religious people aren't really unreasonable, but we only hear from the screaming lunatics most of the time. As long as religion does not threaten science and freedom, we should be respectful and tolerant Religion IS threatening both science and freedom....so should the tolerance and respect be removed? The golden rule is symmetrical.The golden rule is symmetrical. If theists do not want atheists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto atheists the same. There is and always has been a lot of nonsense talked and thought about the religious and spiritual dimensions of human beingness. Much of it is a thinly refracted maifestation of fundamental emotional confusion and a search for consolation, avoiding reality and 'purity' (Cp Fascism). To attack this bundle of irrational and febrile sludge is to be as much attached to it as its myriad lost souls. It is to criticise a copy of something that does not exist. Anyway, it leaves authentic spiritual urges intact and probably strengthened. Despite the expected popularity of the title and surface reading of the article by the don't-assert-your-rights-you-uppity-[fill in the blank] crowd, there is substance there in my opinion. A friend of mine is just finishing his Masters degree in theology at one of Britains top universities. He is very much a Christian and frequently we have 'discussions' about science, religion, politics and so forth. He made a great point of saying that his main strength is the ability to argue a point, even when he is aware of obvious flaws in his statements, that persistence and the ability to track each point and throw in new ones un-expectedly in order to disorientate your "oponent". Mind you, we usually ended up drinking far too much whisky and talking about heavy metal and boxing. It always amused me that while I could never provide any statements or points he was unable to answer, like... "Religion IS threatening both science and freedom....so should the tolerance and respect be removed?" How so? Unless someone states that his/her religion requires him/her to cause harm to others there is no reason for anyone to feel threatened. Personally, I feel my freedoms will be threatened and science will be damned when considering the outcome of the potential success of religiously based actions such as this. Read the clipped article and tell my you will be happy with these people in positions of power. Unless someone states that his/her religion requires him/her to causePlease. Aren't we clear by now about which religion has many many many people (right now) ready and willing to kill for their beliefs? Sam Harris has a lot to say on the matter: www.samharris.org While I have no accurate breakdown of the percentages, it seems to me we have about 100K+ Christians willing to kill for their beliefs over in Iraq right now. I know. They aren't doing it because God told them to. They are doing it because they are turning the other cheek. They're doing it because they were ordered to by someone who says god told him to do it. "How so? Unless someone states that his/her religion requires him/her to cause harm to others there is no reason for anyone to feel threatened." ummm mcindallas, its all over the bible. crack one open and read it, its pretty frightening To the contrary, atheists need to heat up and continuously point out that all of western "civilization" is based on a lie, including this experiment we call America. Atheism and religion are not equal. Atheism is based on 500 years of scientific inquiry and religion on the stories of preliterate cultures. First let's stop killing each other and get down to the problems that have always existed; food, shelter, health, and old age. If religions had focused on these problems instead of being used to control the populaces desires, we all would be better off. well said faberglas. Science gave us more efficient ways to kill each other and religion gave people the need and want to kill each other, "good people do good things,bad people do bad things, to get good people to do bad things requires religion" I found this at the LA Times and also reprinted at Common Dreams. It says a lot about the way thigs are going in terms of turning the Iraq situation into a religious war. There are people who occupy positions of authority in the chain of command who want to turn this into a crusade: Last week, after an investigation spurred by the Military Damn! Every time I try to use the RT Editor, it screws up the lines! I used to think I was an atheist, but I don't use that description any more. More precisly, I am agnostic, meaing "not knowing". I take this as a position of humility. Agreeably -- tolerance, respect, and freedom should be the guide. Sometimes this might include "freedom from", like in the case of posting one's thoughts in a shared public space like a U.S. Post Office. Can you imagine if every group or faith were free to post items of their own personal beliefs at the post office? Like you, Ken, there was a time that I would have considered myself an atheist, but I didn't like the idea of not having a spiritual component in my life. Eventually, I adopted Paganism, which lets me explore my spiritual impulses as I see fit but doesn't weigh me down with dogma. I don't have to accept any doctrinal absolutes, and I'm free to partake in ritual, which, since I grew up Catholic, is both familiar and enjoyable - it gives a nice rhythm to life and has a social function as well. Science gave us more efficient ways to kill each otherand feed each other, and hate each other, and love each other, and ... allowed us to express our nature in new ways. True, people did the science, people that formed a society based on religion. There is a middle ground, ya know 'says a lot about the way things are going in terms of turning the Iraq situation into a religious war." Jojor, this has always been a religious war, if iraq had christianity in place and the that stuff was going on then we would have never been over there, bushie just would have said"good for those christians spreading the word by any means necessary" when you look at it completely unbiased by religion then there is no difference between bush and bin laden, they both believe what they are doing is for the greater good for god.how many more people have to die because of a imaginary sky daddy? I thought we were there because of Saddam's WMD? What is a sky daddy? Is it the threat of nuclear bombs? I know its not God, If that is what you mean then you obviously have no idea what God is to people. WMD's? yeah because that excuse (lies)really worked out for the administration. and yes imaginary sky daddy is another name a god, and I do know what god is to people, you may be suprised to know this but alot of Atheists were once believers so its not like were outsiders criticizing christianity or whatever, we know about both sides of the subject very well, we just woke up from the delusion. Buddhists are atheists. Om. Religion has never been a part of it. It's all about the oil. In answer to abailart,I have posted a clip.If you know the doctrines,it's not necessarily a contradiction. been away for some time. let me clarify myself. regardless of denomination, anyone that has religious beliefs will tell you that their religion is about peace and harmony. religion also teaches that you should not be ashamed to admit what you believe and you should be 'willing to die' for your beliefs. that notion is what causes one of the greatest misinterpretations of religion. when faced with the decision of living by denouncing your beliefs or dying because you choose not to, it is expected that any true believer would rather die because of his/her admission of faith instead of denying his/her God. unfortunately, many have skewed this and use it as a reason to kill. Everyone needs to chill |
View the Top Clips from August 26, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|
